Selected quad for the lemma: authority_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
authority_n	believe_v	church_n	father_n	2,359	5	5.4153	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A67467	The life of Dr. Sanderson, late Bishop of Lincoln written by Izaak Walton ; to which is added, some short tracts or cases of conscience written by the said Bishop.	Walton, Izaak, 1593-1683.; Sanderson, Robert, 1587-1663. Judgment concerning submission to usurpers.; Sanderson, Robert, 1587-1663. Pax ecclesiae.; Hooker, Richard, 1553 or 4-1600. Sermon of Richard Hooker, author of those learned books of Ecclesiastical politie.; Sanderson, Robert, 1587-1663. Judgment in one view for the settlement of the church.; Sanderson, Robert, 1587-1663. Judicium Universitatis Oxoniensis. English.	1678 (1678)	Wing W667; ESTC R8226	137,878	542

or no. When for decency order or uniformities sake any Constitutions are made concerning Ceremonies there is the same necessity of obeying such Constitutions as there is of obeying other laws made for the good of the Commonwealth concerning any other indifferent things That such necessity either in the one or the other ariseth not properly from the authority of the immediate lawgiver but from the Ordinance of God who hath commanded us to obey the Ordinance of men for his sake That such necessity of obedience notwithstanding the things remain in the same indifferency as before every way in respect of their nature and quoad rem it being not in the power of accidental relations to change the natures of things and even in respect of their use and quoad nos thus far that there is a liberty left for men upon extraordinary and other just occasions sometimes to do otherwise than the Constitution requireth extra casum scandali contemptûs A liberty which we dare not either take our selves or allow to others in things properly and absolutely necessary Upon which very account I mean the consideration of the indifferency of the things in themselves and upon which account alone it is that many of the Episcopal that is to say the true English Protestant Divines who sadly resent the voting down of the Liturgy Festivals and Ceremonies of the Church by so many former Laws established heartily desired heretofore the continuance and as heartily still wish the restitution and are by God's help ready with their Tongues Pens and Sufferings to maintain and justifie the lawful use of the same do yet so far yield to the sway of the times and are perswaded they may with a good Conscience so do as to forbear the use thereof in the publick worship till it shall seem good to those that are in place of Authority either to restore them to their former state as it is well hoped when they shall have duly considered the evil consequents of that Vote they will or at leastwise and in the mean time to leave them arbitrary for men according to their several different judgments to use or not to use which seemeth but reasonable the like favour and liberty in other kinds having been long allowed to almost all other sorts of men though of never so distant perswasions one from another Lastly That all Laws made concerning Ceremonies or other indifferent things whether Civil or Ecclesiastical are mutable and as they were at first made by humane authority so may they from time to time be by humane authority abrogated and repealed And then and thenceforth they lose their obligation whereby the necessity of yielding obedience thereunto wholly ceaseth and determineth and the things thereby commanded or prohibited return to their primitive and natural indifferency even in their use also and in respect of us But in the Case of our Church now it is far otherwise Cap Surplice Cross Ring and other Ceremonies which are the matter of our differences though they be things indifferent for their nature and in themselves yet are not so for their use and unto us If the Church had been silent if Authority had prescribed nothing herein these Ceremonies had then remained for their use as they are for their nature indifferent Lawful and such as might be used without sin and yet Arbitrary and such as might be also forborn without sin But men must grant though they be unwilling if yet they will be reasonable that every particular Church hath power for decency and orders sake to ordain and constitute Ceremonies which being once ordained and by publick Authority enjoyned cease to be indifferent for their use though they remain still so for their nature and of indifferent become so necessary that neither may a man without sin refuse them where Authority requireth nor use them where Authority restraineth the use Neither is this accession of necessity any impeachment to Christian Liberty or insnaring of mens Consciences as some have objected For then do we ensnare mens Consciences by humane constitutions where we thrust them upon men as if they were Divine and bind mens Consciences to them immediately as if they were immediate parts of God's worship or of absolute necessity unto Salvation This Tyranny and Vsurpation over mens Consciences the Pharisees of old did and the Church of Rome at this day doth exercise and we justly hate in her equalling if not preferring her Constitutions to the Laws of God But our Church God be thanked is far from any such impious presumption and hath sufficiently declared her self by sosolemn protestation enough to satisfie any ingenuous impartial judgment that by requiring obedience to these ceremonial constitutions she hath no other purpose than to reduce all her children to an orderly conformity in the outward worship of God so far is she from seeking to draw any opinion either of divine necessity upon the constitution or of effectual holiness upon the ceremony And as for the prejudice which seemeth to be hereby given to Christian liberty it is so slender a conceit that it seemeth to bewray in the objectors a desire not so much of satisfaction as cavil For first the liberty of a Christian to all indifferent things is in the mind and conscience and is then infringed when the conscience is bound and strained by imposing upon it an opinion of doctrinal necessity But it is no wrong to the Liberty of a Christian man's conscience to bind him to outward observation for orders sake and to impose upon him a necessity of Obedience Which one distinction of Doctrinal and Obediential necessity well weighed and rightly applied is of it self sufficient to clear all doubts in this point For to make all restraint of the outward man in matters indifferent an impeachment of Christian liberty what were it else but even to bring flat Anabaptism and Anarchy into the Church and to overthrow all bond to subjection and obedience to lawful authority I beseech you consider wherein can the immediate power and authority of Fathers Masters and other Rulers over their inferiours consist or the due obedience of inferiours be shewn towards them if not in these indifferent and arbitrary things For things absolutely necessary as commanded by God we are bound to do whether human Authority require them or no and things absolutely unlawful as prohibited by God we are bound not to do whether humane Authority forbid them or no. There are none other things left then wherein to express properly the Obedience due to superiour Authority than these indifferent things And if a Father or Master have power to prescribe to his child or servant in indifferent things and such restraint be no way prejudicial to Christian liberty in them why should any man either deny the like power to Church Governours to make Ecclesiastical constitutions concerning indifferent things or interpret that power to the prejudice of Christian liberty And again secondly Men must understand that it is an

errour to think Ceremonies and Constitutions to be things meerly indifferent I mean in the general For howsoever every particular Ceremony be indifferent and every particular constitution arbitrary and alterable yet that there should be some Ceremonies it is necessary necessitate absoluta inasmuch as no outward work can be performed without ceremonial circumstances some or other and that there should be some constitutions concerning them it is also necessary though not simply and absolutely as the former yet ex hypothesi and necessitate convenientiae Otherwise since some Ceremonies must needs be used every Parish may every man would have his own fashion by himself as his humour led him whereof what other could be the issue but infinite distraction and unorderly confusion in the Church And again thirdly to return their weapon upon themselves if every restraint in indifferent things be injurious to Christian liberty then themselves are injurious no less by their negative restraint from some Ceremonies Wear not Cross not Kneel not c. than they would have the world believe our Church is by her positive restraint unto these Ceremonies of wearing and crossing and kneeling c. Let indifferent men judge nay let themselves that are parties judge whether is more injurious to Christian Liberty publick Authority by mature advice commanding what might be forborn or private spirits through humorous dislikes forbidding what may be used the whole Church imposing the use or a few Brethren requiring the forbearance of such things as are otherwise and in themselves equally indifferent for use for forbearance But they say our Church makes greater matters of ceremonies than thus and preferreth them even before the most necessary duties of preaching and administring the Sacraments inasmuch as they are imposed upon Ministers under pain of Suspension and Deprivation from their Ministerial Functions and Charges First for actual Deprivation I take it unconforming Ministers have no great cause to complain Our Church it is well known hath not always used that rigour she might have done Where she hath been forced to proceed as far as Deprivation she hath ordinarily by her fair and slow and compassionate proceeding therein sufficiently manifessed her unwillingness thereto and declare her self a Mother everyway indulgent enough to such ill-nurtured Children as will not be ruled by her Secondly those that are suspended or deprived suffer it but justly for their obstinacy and contempt For howsoever they would bear the world in hand that they are the only persecuted ones and that they suffer for their consciences yet in truth they do but abuse the credulity of the simple therein and herein as in many other things jump with the Papists whom they would seem above all others most abhorrent from For as Seminary Priests and Iesuits give it out that they suffer for Religion when the very truth is they are justlty executed for their prodigious Treasons and felonious or treacherous practices against lawful Princes and Estates So the Brethren pretend they are persecuted for their consciences when they are indeed but justly censured for thier obstinate and pertinacious contempt of lawful authority For it is not the refusal of these Ceremonies they are deprived for otherwise than as the matter wherein they shew their contempt It is the contempt it self which formerly and properly subjecteth them to just Ecclesiastical censure of Suspension or Deprivation And contempt of authority though in the smallest matter deserveth no small punishment all authority having been ever solicitous as it hath good reason above all things to vindicate and preserve it self from contempt by inflicting sharp punishments upon contemptuous persons in the smallest matters above all other sorts of offenders in any degree whatsoever Thus have we shewed and cleared the first and main difference betwixt the case of my Text and the case of our Church in regard of the matter the things whereabout they differed being every way indifferent ours not so The determination of Superiours may and ought to restrain us in the outward exercise of our Christian liberty We must submit our selves to every Ordinance of man saith St. Peter 1 Pet. 2. 13. and it is necessary we should do so for so is the will of God ver 15. Neither is it against Christian liberty if we do so for we are still as free as before rather if we do not so we abuse our liberty for a cloak of maliciousness as it followeth there ver 16. And St. Paul telleth us we must needs be subject not only for fear because the Magistrate carrieth not the Sword in vain but also for conscience sake because the powers that are are ordained of God This duty so fully pressed and so uniformly by these two grand Apostles is most apparent in private societies In a family the Master or pater familias who is a kind of petty Monarch there hath authority to prescribe to his children and servants in the use of those indifferent things whereto yet they as Christians have as much liberty as he The servant though he be the Lord's free-man yet is limited in his diet lodging livery and many other things by his Master and he is to submit himself to his Master's appointment in these things though perhaps in his private affection he had rather his Master had appointed otherwise and perhaps withal in his private judgment doth verily think it fitter his Master should appoint otherwise If any man under colour of Christian liberty shall teach otherwise and exempt servants from the obedience of their Masters in such things St. Paul in a holy indignation inveigheth against such a man not without some bitterness in the last Chapter of his Epistle as one that is proud and knoweth nothing as he should do but doteth about questions and strife of words c. ver 3 5. Now look what power the Master hath over his Servants for the ordering of his family no doubt the same at the least if not much more hath the supreme Magistrate over his Subjects for the peace of the Commonwealth the Magistrate being pater patriae as the Master is pater familias Whosoever then shall interpret the determinations of Magistrates in the use of the Creatures to be contrary to the liberty of a Christian or under that colour shall exempt inferiours from their obedience to such determinations he must blame St. Paul nay he must blame the holy Ghost and not us if he hear from us that he is proud and knoweth nothing and doteth about unprofitable Questions Surely but that experience sheweth us it hath been so and the Scriptures have foretold us that it should be so that there should be differences and sidings and part-takings in the Church A man would wonder how it should ever sink into the hearts and heads of sober understanding men to deny either the power in Superiours to ordain or the necessity in Inferiours to obey Laws and Constitutions so restraining us in the use of the Ceratures Neither let any man cherish his

his Separation 4. By an implied Confession That the Laws formerly made against Papists in this Kingdom and all punishments by virtue thereof inflicted upon them were unjust in punishing them for refusing to joyn with us in that form of Worship which our selves as well as they do not approve of 2. Without manifest wrong unto our selves our Consciences Reputation and Estates in bearing false witness against our selves and sundry other ways by swearing to endeavour to reform that as corrupt and vicious 1. Which we have formerly by our Personal Subscriptions approved as agreeable to God's Word and have not been since either condemned by our own hearts for so doing or convinced in our Judgements by any of our Brethren that therein we did amiss 2. Which in our Consciences we are perswaded not to be in any of the four specified Particulars as it standeth by Law established much less in the whole four against the Word of God 3. Which we verily believe and as we think upon good grounds to be in sundry respects much better and more agreeable to the Word of God and the practice of the Catholick Church than that which we should by the former words of this Article swear to preserve 4. Whereunto the Laws yet in force require of all such Clerks as shall be admitted to any Benefice the signification of their hearty assent to be attested openly in the time of Divine Service before the whole Congregation there present within a limited time and that un-under pain upon default made of the loss of every such Benefice 3. Without manifest danger of Perjury This branch of the Article to our best understandings seeming directly contrary 1. To our former solemn Protestation which we have bound our selves neither for hope fear or other respect ever to relinquish Wherein the Doctrine which we have vowed to maintain by the name of the true Protestant Religion expressed in the Doctrine of the Church of England we take to be the same which now we are required to endeavour to reform and alter 2. To the Oath of Supremacy by us also taken according to the Laws of the Realm and the Statutes of our University in that behalf Wherein having first testified and declared in our Consciences That the King's Highness is the only Supreme Governour of this Realm we do after swear to our power to assist and defend all Iurisdictions Priviledges Preheminences and Authorities granted or belonging to the King's Highness his Heirs and Successors or united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm One of the which Priviledges and Preheminences by an express Statute so annexed and that even interminis in the self-same words in a manner with those used in the Oath is the whole power of Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction for the correction and reformation of all manner of errors and abuses in matters Ecclesiastical as by the words of the said Statute more at large appeareth The Oath affording the Proposition and the Statute the Assumption we find no way how to avoid the Conclusion § IV. Of the second Article of the Covenant FIrst It cannot but affect us with some grief and amazement to see that ancient form of Church Government which we heartily and as we hope worthily honour as under which our Religion was at first so orderly without violence or tumult and so happily reformed and hath since so long flourished with Truth and Peace to the honour and happiness of our own and the envy and admiration of other Nations not only 1. Endeavoured to be extirpated without any reason offered to our Understandings for which it should be thought necessary or but so much as expedient so to do But also 2. Ranked with Popery Superstion Heresie Schism and Prophaneness which we unfeignedly profess our selves to detest as much as any others whatsoever 3. And that with some intimation also as if that Government were some way or other so contrary to sound Doctrine or the power of godliness that whosoever should not endeavour the extirpation thereof must of necessity partake in other mens sins which we cannot yet be perswaded to believe 4. And we desire it may be considered in case a Covenant of like form should be tender'd to the Citizens of London wherein they should be required to swear they would sincerely really and constantly without respect of persons endeavour the extirpation of Treason the City Government by a Lord Mayor Aldermen Sheriffs Common Council and other Officers depending thereon Murther Adultery Theft Cosenage and whatsoever shall be c. lest they should partake in other mens sins whether such a tendry could be looked upon by any Citizen that had the least spirit of freedome in him as an act of Justice Meekness and Reason Secondly for Episcopal Government we are not satisfied how we can with a good Conscience swear to endeavour the extirpation thereof 1. In respect of the thing it self Concerning which Government we think we have reason to believe 1. That it is if not Iure Divino in the strictest sense that is to say expresly commanded by God in his Word yet of Apostolical Institution that is to say was established in the Churches by the Apostles according to the mind and after the Example of their Master Iesus Christ and that by virtue of their ordinary Power and Authority derived from him as deputed by him Governours of his Church 2. Or at least that Episcopal Aristocracy hath a fairer pretension and may lay a juster title and claim to a Divine Institution than any of the other Forms of Church Government can do all which yet do pretend thereunto viz. that of the Papal Monarchy that of the Presbyterian Democracy and that of the Independents by particular Congregations or gathered Churches 2. But we are assured by the undoubted Testimony of ancient Records and later Histories that this Form of Government hath been continued with such an universal uninterrupted unquestioned succession in all the Churches of God and in all Kingdoms that have been called Christian throughout the whole world for fifteen hundred years together that there never was in all that time any considerable opposition made there against That of Aerius was the greatest wherein yet there was little of consideration beside these two things That it grew at the first but out of discontent and gained him at the last but the reputation of an Heretick From which antiquity and continuance we have just cause to fear that to endeavour the extirpation thereof 1. Would give such advantage to the Papists who usually object against us and our Religion the contempt of Antiquity and the love of Novelty that we should not be able to wipe off the aspersion 2. Would so diminish the just Authority due to the consentient judgment and practice of the Universal Church the best Interpreter of Scripture in things not clearly exprest for Lex currit cum praxi that without it we should be at a loss in sundry points both of

justified and sanctified can at the last fall away finally and be damned Concerning all which and sundry other Questions of like nature and use albeit it would require a large Treatise to give them but a right stating much more a just discussion yet the due consideration of the nine Points premised in the former Section concerning the order of God's Decrees may give us some light into them all if not so far especially in some of them as to settle our judgments in a certain and infallible resolution yet so far at least as to keep our understandings within some competent bounds of sobriety and truth that we neither lose our selves in curious Enquiries to little purpose nor suffer our judgments to be envenomed with the Poison either of rank Pelagian heresie or Semi-Pelagian popery or quarter Pelagian and Arminian novelty Bishop Sanderson's JUDGMENT IN ONE VIEW FOR THE SETTLEMENT OF THE CHURCH LONDON Printed for Richard Marriott 1678. Bishop Sanderson's JUDGMENT IN ONE VIEW Quest. HOW far we may indulge good and godly men of tender Consciences dissenting from us in liberty of Conscience Answ. First besides that all parties pretend to godliness Papists Anabaptists and what not even the late sprung up generation of Levellers whose principles are so destructive of all that order and justice by which publick societies are supported do yet style themselves as by a kind of peculiarity The Godly And that secondly it is the easiest thing in the world and nothing more common than for men to pretend conscience when they are not minded to obey I do not believe thirdly though I am well perswaded of the godliness of many of them otherwise that the refusal of indifferent Ceremonies enjoyned by lawful authority is any part of their godliness or any good fruit evidence or sign thereof But certain it is fourthly that the godliest men are men and know but in part and by the power of godliness in their hearts are no more secured from the possibility of falling into errour through ignorance than from the possibility of falling into sin through infirmity And as for tenderness of Conscience fifthly a most gracious blessed fruit of the holy Spirit of God where it is really and not in pretence only nor mistaken for sure it is no very tender Conscience though sometimes called so that straineth at a Gnat and swalloweth a Camel it is with it as with other tender things very subject to receive harm and soon put out of order Through the cunning of Satan it dangerously exposeth men to temptations on the right hand and through its own aptitude to entertain and to cherish unnecessary scruples it strongly disposeth them to listen thereunto so long till at the last they are overcome thereof Needful it is therefore that in the publick teaching the errours should be sometimes refuted and the temptations discovered And this ever to be done seasonably soberly discreetly and convincingly and when we are to deal with men whose Consciences are so far as we can discern truly tender with the spirit of meekness and compassion For tender things must be tenderly dealt withal or they are lost I know it is not always so done nor can we expect it should All preachers are neither so charitable nor so prudent nor so conscientious as they should be And they that are such in a good measure are men still and may be transported now and then through passion and infirmity beyond the just bounds of moderation Quest. Whether good men should be suspended from the exercise of their ministry and deprived of their livelyhood for Ceremonies which are on all hands acknowledged indifferent and indeed in comparison to the work of the ministry are but trifles however some men dote on them Answ. Let Ceremonies secondly be as very trifles as any man can imagine them to be yet obedience sure is no trifle They mis-state the Question when they talk of pressing Ceremonies It is obedience formally that is required Ceremonies not otherwise pressed than as the matter wherein that obedience is to be exercised If a master appoint his servant to do some small matter that he thinketh fit to have done though in it self of no great moment yet he will expect to be obeyed and it is great reason he should If in such case the servant should refuse to do the thing appointed because he hath no mind thereunto and should receive a check or correction for such refusal could he either sufficiently excuse his own fault or reasonably complain of his master for dealing hardly with him by saying the thing was but a trifle Is it not evident that the thing which made the master angry and the servant an offender in that case was not precisely and formally the leaving of the thing undone which had it not been commanded might have been left undone without any fault or blame at all but the refusing to do it when he that had a right to his service commanded him Wherefore thirdly that which is said of some mens doting so extremely on Ceremonies might have been well enough spared I know no true Son of the Church of England that doteth upon any Ceremony whatsoever opinion he may have of the decency or expediency of some of them If any do let him answer for himself Among wise men he will hardly pass for a wise man that doteth upon any Nor will he I doubt prove a much wiser man that runs into the contrary extreme and abhorreth all It is true fourthly that there have been long and unkind quarrels about these things More is the pity but where is the fault To whom is the beginning and to whom the continuance of a quarrel rather imputable to him that demandeth his right or to him that withholdeth it from him For this is the plain Case in short The Bishops under the King require obedience to the Laws Ecclesiastical these men refuse to give it So began the quarrel at first and upon the same terms it continued If the Obedience challenged were indeed due to these Laws then did our Brethren both begin the quarrel and hold it on if it were not then must the whole blame lie upon them that claimed it unjustly and not upon them So that in the winding up of the business the whole Controversie will devolve upon this point Whether to the Laws Ecclesiastical obedience be due or not For the right determining whereof for so much as it is confest on all hands that Obedience is due to lawful autority commanding lawful things two other points are to be resolved the one cocerning the authority by which the Constitutions were made the other concerning the lawfulness of the things therein required The Presbyterians of the Kirk flatly and directly deny both Ours less forward to declare their opinion in the former point have chosen rather to stand upon the latter only And so the point in issue is briefly this Whether the things commanded and particularly the Ceremonies be lawful yea

our warrant from some place or other of Scripture Before the Scriptures were writ ten it pleased God by visions and dreams and other like revelations immediately to make known his good pleasure to the Patriarchs and Prophets and by them unto the People which kind of revelations served them to all the same intents and purposes whereto the sacred Scriptures now do us viz. to instruct them what they should believe and do for his better service and the furtherance of their own salvations Now as it were unreasonable for any man to think that they either had or did expect an immediate revelation from God every time they eat or drank or bought or sold or did any other of the common actions of life for the warranting of each of those particular actions to their Consciences no less unreasonable it is to think that we should now expect the like warrant from the Scriptures for the doing of the like actions Without all doubt the law of nature and the light of reason was the rule whereby they were guided for the most part in such matters which the wisdome of God would never have left in them or us as a principal relick of his decayed image in us if he had not meant that we should make use of it for the direction of our lives and actions thereby Certainly God never infused any power into any creature whereof he intended not some use Else what shall we say of the Indies and other barbarous Nations to whom God never vouchsafed the lively Oracles of his written word Must we think that they were left a lawless people without any Rule at all whereby to order their actions How then come they to be guilty of transgression For where there is no law there can be no transgression Or how cometh it about that their consciences should at any time or in any case either accuse them or excuse them if they had no guide nor rule to walk by But if we must grant they had a Rule and there is no way you see but grant it we must then we must also of necessity grant that there is some other Rule for humane actions besides the written word for that we presupposed these Nations to have wanted Which Rule what other could it be than the Law of Nature and of right reason imprinted in their hearts Which is as truly the Law and Word of God as is that which is printed in our Bibles So long as our actions are warranted either by the one or the other we cannot be said to want the warrant of God's Word Nec differet Scriptura an ratione consistat saith Tertullian it mattereth not much from whether of both we have our direction so long as we have it from either You see then those men are in a great errour who make the holy Scriptures the sole rule of all humane actions whatsoever For the maintenance whereof there was never yet produced any piece of an argument either from reason or from authority of holy writ or from the testimony either of the ancient Fathers or of other classical Divines of later times which may not be clearly and abundantly answered to the satisfaction of any rational man not extremely fore-possessed with prejudice They who think to salve the matter by this mitigation that at leastwise our actions ought to be framed according to those general rules of the law of Nature which are here and there in the Scriptures dispersedly contained as viz. That we should do as we would be done to That all things be done decently and orderly and unto edification That nothing be done against conscience and the like speak somewhat indeed to the truth but little to the purpose For they consider not First that these general rules are but occasionally and incidentally mentioned in Scripture rather to manifest unto us a former than to lay upon us a new obligation Secondly that those rules had been of force for the ordering of mens actions though the Scripture had never expressed them and were of such force before those Scriptures were written wherein they are now expressed For they bind not originally qua scripta but qua justa becuase they are righteous not because they are written Thirdly that an action conformable to these general Rules might not be condemned as sinful although the doer thereof should look at those rules meerly as they are the dictates of the law of nature and should not be able to vouch his warrant for it from any place of Scripture neither should have at the time of the doing thereof any present thought or consideration of any such place The contrary whereunto I permit to any man's reasonable judgment if it be not desperately rash and uncharitable to affirm Lastly that if mens actions done agreeably to those Rules are said to be of faith precisely for this reason because those rules are contained in the word then it will follow that before those particular Scriptures were written wherein any of those Rules are first delivered every action done according to those rules had been done without faith there being as yet no Scripture for it and consequently had been a sin So that by this Doctrine it had been a sin before the witing of S. Matthew's Gospel for any man to have done to others as he would they should do to him and it had been a sin before the writing of the former Epistle to the Corinthians for any man to have done any thing decently and orderly supposing these two Rules to be in those two places first mentioned because this supposed there could then have been no warrant brought from the Scriptures for so doing Well then we see the former Opinion will by no means hold neither in the rigour of it nor yet in the mitigation We are therefore to beware of it and that so much the more heedfully because of the evil consequents and effects that issue from it to wit a world of superstitions uncharitable censures bitter contentions contempt of superiours perplexities of conscience First it filleth mens heads with many superstitious conceits making them to cast impurity upon sundry things which yet are lawful to as many as use them lawfully For the taking away of the indifferency of any thing that is indifferent is in truth superstition whether either of the two ways it be done either by requiring it as necessary or by forbidding it as unlawful He that condemneth a thing as utterly unlawful which yet indeed is indifferent and so lawful is guilty of superstition as well as he that enjoyneth a thing as absolutely necessary which yet indeed is but indifferent and so arbitrary They of the Church of Rome and some in our Church as they go upon quite contrary grounds yet both false so they run into quite contrary errours and both superstitious They decline too much on the left hand denying to holy Scripture that perfection which of right it ought to have of containing all appertaining to that