saith he leaue vntied of the knots of their sâ—â—nes Lumberd the popish master of sentences The Lord saith he hath given to priests power of binding and loosing that is of making manifest that men are bound or loosed Againe both Origen Augustine and Theophilact attribute the power of biuding to all Christians and therefore they for their partes neuer dreamed that the power of binding should be an authority to make lawes Lastly the place Matt. 23. 4. overturnes the argument for there the Scribes and Phanses are condemned because they laid upon mens shoulders the burdens of their traditions as meanes of Godâ— worship and things binding conscience Arg. 3. Act. 15. It seemes good vnto vs the Holy Ghost to lay no more burden on you theâ— these necessary things that yee abstaine from things offered to iâ—ols and blood and that which is strangled and foâ—nication Here say they the Apostles by the instinct of the holy ghost make a new lawe not for this or that respect but simply to binde consciences of the Gentils that they might be exercised in obedience And this is prooued because the Apostles call this lawe a burden and call the things prescribed necessary and S. Luke tearmes them the commandements of the Apostles and Chrysostome calls the Epistle sent to the Church Imperium that is a lordly charge To this they adde the testimonies of Tertullian Origen Augustine Answ. Though all be granted that the law is a burden imposed a precept of the Apostles a charge againe that things required therein are necessary yet will it not follow by good consequent that the lawe simply bindes conscience because it was giuen with a reseruation of Christian libertie so as out of the case of scandall that is if no offence were giuen to the weake Iewes it might freely be omitted And that will appeare by these reasons First of all Peter saith that it is a tempting of God to impose upon the Gentiles the yoke of Iewish ceremonies hee therefore must needs be contrary to himselfe if he intend to binde mens consciences to abstinence from strangled blood and things offered to idols A reply is made that this abstinence is prescribed not by the ancient law of Moses but by a new Ecclesiasticall or Apostolicall authority I answer againe that a Mosaicall ceremony is still the same thing though it be stablished by a new authority And wheras Christ by his death put an end to the ceremoniall lawe it is absurde to thinke that the Apostles by their authority revived some part of it againe and bound mens consciences therto Secondly the Church of god in all places suffered this coÌ„mandement to cease which the faithful seruants of God would neuer haue done if they had bin perswaded that this law had bound conscience simply It is answered that this law ceased not because the giuing of offence unto the Iewes ceased but because it ceased vniuersally yea but it could not haue ceased universally if it had bound conscience simply specially considering it was propounded to the Church without any mention or limitation of time Thirdly Paul was present in this counsell and knewe the intent of this lawe very well therefore no doubt he did not in any of his Epistles gainsay the same This being graunted it can not be that this law should bind conscience out of the case of offence For he teacheth the Corinthians that things offered to idols may be eaten so be it the weakeâ— brother be not offended Here it is answered that when Paul writ his first Epistle to the Corinthians this coÌ„mandement of the Apostles touching things strangled bloode was not come unto them Well to grant all this which can not be prooued let it be answered why Paul did not now deliuer it why he deliuerethâ— doctrine contrary to that which he had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hierusalem which was that the Gentiles should absolutely abstaine from things oâ—…d to Idols As for the testimonies of the fathers they â—…bused Indeed Tâ—…liâ—◠〈◊〉 plainly that christians in his daies abstained 〈◊〉 of blood and he persvvades men to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so doing because he is of opinion being indeed farre deceiued that this very law of the Apostles must lâ—st to the end of the worlde â—which conceit if the Papists hold not what meane they to build vpon him Origen saith that this law was very necessary in his daies and no 〈◊〉 For by Idolithyâ—â—s he understands not things that haue bene offered to idols are afterward brought to priuat houses or to the market as other common meates but he understands things that remaine consecrated to idols are no where els used but in their temples which we grant with him must for euer be avoided aâ— meanes and instruments of Idolatry wheras the law of the Apostlesspeaks only of the first kind As for things strangled and blood hee takes them to be the deuils foode and for this cause hee approoues abstinence from them And whereas Augustine saith that it is a good thing to abstain froÌ„ things offered to idols though he be in necessity 〈◊〉 must be understoode of the first kind of Idolithyâ—â—â— which â—re yet remaining in the idol-temples still consecrated unto them and not of the second of which the Apostles law as I haue said must be understood Arg. 4. Ioh. 21. Christ saith to Peter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 my 〈◊〉 that is as the word importeth 〈◊〉 and rule my sheepe Answ. This feeding and ruling stands not in making new lawes but in teaching and gouerning the Church of God according to the doctrine which they had receiued from Christ. And this action of feeding is ascribed to all Christians Revelat. 3. 27. who can not therupon chalenge a power of making lawes to the conscience Argum. 5. Ioh. 20. As my father sent me so I send you but Christ was sent of his father not only with power of preaching and ministring the sacraments but also with authority of commanding and giuing iudgement Answ. Is this kind of reasoning may stand all the Apostles shall be made redeemers for they were all sent as Christ was and hee was sent not onely to preach the redemption of mankind but also to effect and worke the same It this be absurde then it is a flat abusing of scripture to gather froÌ„ this saying of Christ that the Apostles had power of binding conscience because he had so It is true indeed that there is a similitude or analogie betwene the calling of Christ and his Apostles but it wholly stands in these points Christ was ordained to his office before all worldes so were the Apostles Christ was called of his father immediatly and so were they of Christ Christ was sent to the whol worlde so were they Christ receiued all power in heaven and earth as beeing necessary for a mediatour and they receiued an extraordinary authority from him with such a plentifull measure of the spirit as was necessary
for the Apostolicall function Lastly Christ was sent euen as he was man to be a teacher of the Iewes therfore be is called the minister of circumcision Rom. 15. 8. so the Apostles are sent by him to teach the Gentiles Thus far is the comparison to be enlarged no further And that no man might imagine that some parte of this resemblance stands in a power of binding conscience Christ hath put a speciall exception when he saith Goe teach all nations teaching them to obserue al things that I have commanded you Arg. 6. Rom. 13. Whosoever resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God and they that resist â—â—all receive to them selues iudgement and ye must be subiect not onely for wrath but also for conscience sâ—â—e Answ. Magistracie indeed is an ordinance of God to which we owe subiectioÌ„ but how farre subiection is due there is the questioÌ„ For body goods outward coÌ„versation I grant all but a subiection of coÌ„science to mans lawes I deny And betweene these two there is a great difference to be subiect to authority in conscience to be subiect to it for conscience as wil be manifest if we do but consider the phrase of the Apostle the meaning whereof is that we must performe obedience not onely for anger that is for the auoiding of punishment but also for the auoiding of sinne so by coÌ„sequent for auoiding a breach in coÌ„scieÌ„ce Now this breach is not properly made because mans law is neglected but because Gods law is broken which ordaineth magistracie withall binds mens consciences to obey their lawfull commandements And the daÌ„nation that is due unto men for resisting the ordinance of God comes not by the single breach of magistrates commandemet but by a transgression of the law of God which appointeth magistrates their authority To this answer papists reply nothing that is of moment Therfore I proceed Arg. 7. 1. Cor. 4. What will you that I come unto you with a rod or in the spirit of meeknes Now this rod is a iudicial power of punishing sinners Answ. For the regiment protection of Gods Church There be 2. rods mâ—…oned in scripture the rod of Christ the Apostolicall rodd The rod of Christ is termed a rod of iron or the rod of his mouth it signifies that absolute soueraigne power which Christ hath ouer his creatures wherby he is able to coÌ„uert saue them or to forsake and destroy them And it is a peculiar priuiledge of this rodde to smite and wound the conscience The Apostolicall rodde was a certaine extraordinary power whereby God inabled them to plague and punish rebellious offenders with grieuous iudgements not in their soules but in their bodies alone With this rod Paul smote Elimas blind Peter smote Ananias and Saphira with bodily death And it may be that Paul by this power did giue up the incestuous man when he was excommunicate to be vexed in his body and tormented by the deuill but that by this rodde the Apostles could smite conscience it can not be prooued Arg. 8. 1. Tim. 3. Paul made a law that none hauing two wiues should be ordained a Bishop now this law is positiue and Ecclesiasticall and bindes conscience Answ. Paul is not the maker of this law but God himselfe who ordained that in mariage not three but two alone should be one flesh and that they which serue at the altar of the Lord should be holy And to graunt that this law were a new law beside the written word of God yet doeth it not follow that Paul was the maker of it because he used not to deliuer any doctrine to the Churches but that which he receiued of the Lord. Argum. 9. Luc. 10. He which heareth you heareth me Answ. These wordes properly concerne the Apostles and doe not in like maner belong to pastors teachers of the Church And the end of these wordes is not to confirme any Apostolicall authority in making lawes to the conscience but to signifie the priviledge which hee had vouchsafed them aboue all others that he would so farre forth assist them with his spirite that they should not erre or be deceiued in teaching publishing the doctrine of saluation though otherwise they were sinfull men according to Matth. 10. It is not you that speake but the spirite of my father which speaketh in you And the promise to be led into all truth was directed vnto them Arg. 10. 1. Cor. 11. I praise you that yee keepe my commandements Answ. Paul deliuered nothing of his owne concerning the substance of the doctrine of saluation the worship of God but that which he receiued from Christ the precepts here ment are nothing else but rules of decencie comely order in the congregation and though they were to be obeyed yet Pauls meaning was not to binde any mans conscience therewith For of greater matters he saith This I speake for your commoditie and not to intangle you in a snare 1. Cor. 7. 35. Arg. 11. Councels of ancient fathers when they commaÌ„d or forbid any thing do it with threatning of a curse to the offenders Ans. The church in former time used to annexe vnto hir Canons the curse anathema because things decreed by them were indeed or at the least thought to be the will and word of God and they had respect to the saying of Paul If any teach otherwise though he be an angell from heauen let him be accursed Therfore councels in this action were no more but instruments of God to accurse those whome he first of all had accursed Arg. 12. An act indifferent if it be commanded is made necessary the keeping of it is the practise of vertue therefore euery law bindes conscience to a sinne Ans. An act in it selfe indifferent being commaÌ„ded by mans law is not made simply necessary for that is as much as gods law doth or can doe but only in some part that is so far forth as the said act or action tends to maintaine and preserue the good end for which the law is made And though the action be in this regard necessary yet doth it still remaine indifferent as it is considered in it selfe out of the ende of the law so as if peace the common good comely order may be maintained all offence auoided by any other meanes the act may be done or not done without sinne before God For whereas God himselfe hath giuen liberty freedome in the use of things indifferent the law of man doeth not take away the same but onely moderate and order it for the common good Arg. 13. The fast of Lent stands by a lawe and commandement of men and this lawe bindes conscience simply for the ancient fathers haue called it a Tradition Apostolicall and make the keeping of it to be necassary and the not keeping of it a sinne and punish the offenders with excommunication Answer It is plaine to him that will not be
obstinate that Lent fast was not commaunded in the Primitiue Church but was freely kept at mens pleasures in seuerall Churches diuersly both in regard of space of time as also in respect of diversity of meats Ireneus in his epistle to Victor â—…ed by Eusebius saith Some have thought that they must fast oâ—… day some two daies some more some 40. houres day and night which diversitie of fasting commendeth the vnitie of faith Spiridion a good man did eate flesh in Lent and caused his guest to doe the same and this he did upon iudgemeÌ„t because he was perswaded out of Gods worde that to the clean all things were cleane And Eusebius recordes that Montanus the hereuke was the first that prescribed solemne and set lawes of fasting And whereas this fast is called an Apostolicall tradition it is no great matter for it was the manner of the ancient Church in former times to tearme rites and orders Ecclesiasticall not set downe in scriptures Apostolicall orders that by this meanes they might commend them to the people as Ierome testifieth Every province saith he may thinke the constitutions of the ancestours to be Apostolicall lawes And whereas it is said to be a sinne not to fast in Lent as Augustine speaketh it is not by reason of any commandement binding conscience for Augustine saith plainly that neither Christ nor his Apostles appointed any set time of fasting Chrysostome that Christ neuer commanded vs to follow his fast but the true reason hereof is borrowed from the ende For the Primitiue Church vsed not the popish fast which is to eat whitmeate alone but an abstinence from all meates vsed specially to morufie the flesh and to prepare men before-hand to a worthy receiuing of the Eucharist And in regarde of this good ende was the offence And whereas it is said that auncient fathers taught a necessitie of keeping this fast euen Hierome whome they alledge to this purpose saith the contrary For confuting the errour of Montanus who had his set times of fast to be kept of necessity hee saith We fast in Lent according to the Apostles tradition as in a time meete for vs and wee doe it not as though it were not lawfull for vs to fast in the rest of the yeere except Penticost but it is one thing to doe a thing of necessitie and anothing to offer a gift of free-vvill Lastly excommunication was for the open contempt of this order taken vp in the Church which was that men should fast before Faster for their further humiliation preparation to the sacrament So the 29. canoÌ„ of the councill of 〈◊〉 must be understood As for the Canons of the Apostles so falsely called and the 8. councill of Toledo I much respect not what they say in this case Arg. 14. Gods authority binds conscience magistrates authority is Gods authority therefore magistrates authority binds conscience properly Ans. Gods authority may be takeÌ„ two waies first for that soueraigne and absolute power which he useth ouer all his creatures secondly for that finite limited power which he hath 〈◊〉 that men shall exercise ouer men If the minor 〈◊〉 that Magistrates authority is Gods authority be taken in the first sense it is false for the soueraigne power of god is mooueâ—…ic able If it be taken in the second sense the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 false For there be sundry authorities ordained of God as the authority of the father oner the childe of the master over the servant the authority of the master ouer his scholler which doe not properly and 〈◊〉 bind in conscience as the authority of gods lawes doth By these arguments which I haue now answered by many other being but lightly 〈◊〉 it will appeare that necessary obedience is to be performed both to ciuil ecciesiasticall iurisdiction but that they haue a constraining power to bind conscience as properly as gods laws do it is not yet prooued neither can it be as I will make manifest by other arguments Arg. 1. He that makes a law binding conscieÌ„ce to mortal sinne hath power if not to saue yet to destroy because by sin which follows upon the transgressioÌ„ of his law comes death daÌ„nation But God is the only lawgiuer that hath this priuiledge which is after he hath giueÌ„ his law vpoÌ„ the breaking or keeping thereof to save or destroy Iam 4. 12. There is one lawgiuer that can saue or destroy Therfore God alone makes laws â—inding coÌ„science properly no creature caÌ„ do the like Answer is made that S. Iames speaks of the principall law-giuer that by his own proper authority makes lawes doth in such manner saue destroy that he need not feare to be destroied of any that he speaks not of secondary lawgiuers that are deputies of god make laws in his name I say again that this answer staÌ„ds not with the text For S. Iames speakes simply without distinctioÌ„ limitatioÌ„ or exceptioÌ„ the effect of his reason is this No maÌ„ at all must slander his brother because no man must be iudge of the law no man can be iudge of the law because no man can be a law-giuer to saue and destroy Now then where be those persons that shall make lawes to the soules of men binde them unto punishment of mortall sinne considering God alone is the sauing destroying lawgiuer Arg. 2. He that can make laws as truly binding conscience as gods lawes can also prescribe rules of Gods worship because to bind the conscieÌ„ce is nothing els but to cause it to excuse for things that are well done and therefore truely please God to accuse for sinne wherby god is dishonoured but no man can prescribe rules of gods worship humane lawes as they are humane laws appoint not the seruice of God Esai 29. 13. â—â—â—ir fear towards me was taught by the precept of 〈◊〉 Mat. 15. 9. they worship me in vain teachâ—â—â— doctrines which are the commandements of 〈◊〉 Papists here make answer that by lawes of men we must understand such lawes as be unlawfull or unprofitable being made without the authority of God or instinct of his spirit It is true indeed that these commandements of men were unlawfull but the cause must be considered they were unlawfull not because they commanded that which was unlawful against the will of God but because things in themselues lawfull were commanded as parts of gods worship To wash the outward part of the cup or platter to wash hands before meat are things in respect of civill use very lawfull yet are these blamed by Christ no other reason caÌ„ be rendred but this that they were prescribed not as things indifferent or ciuill but as matters pertaining to Gods worship It is not against Gods worde in some politike regards to make distinctions of meats drinks times yet Paul calls these things doctrines of deuils because they were commaÌ„ded as things
wherein God would be worshipped Arg. 3. God hath giuen a liberty to the conscience whereby it is freed froÌ„ all lawes of his own whatsoeuer excepting such lawes doctrines as are necessary to salvation Col. 2. 10. If yee be dead with Christ ye are free froÌ„ the elemeÌ„ts of the world Gal. 5. 1. Standye in the liberty wher with Christ hath freedyou and be not againe intangled with the yoke of bondage Nowe if humane lawes made after the graunt of this libertie bind conscience property then must they either take away the foresaid libertie or diminish the same but that they cannot doe for that which is graÌ„ted by an higher authority namely God himself cannot be reuoked or repealed by the inferiour authoritie of any man It is answered that this freedome is onely from the bondage of sinne from the curse of the morall law from the ceremoniall and iudiciall lawes of Moses and not from the lawes of our superiours And I answer againe that it is absurd to thinke that God giues vs libertie in conscience from any of his owne laws and yet will haue our consciences stil to remaine in subiection to the laws oâ— sinnefull men Arg. 4. Whosoeuer bindes conscience commaunds conscience For the bonde is made by a commaÌ„dement vrging conscience to do his dutie which is to accuse or excuse for euill or well doing Now Gods laws commaund conscience in as much as they are spirituall commaunding bodie and spirit with all the thoughts will affections desires and faculties and requiring obedience of them all according to their kinde As for the laws of men they want power to commaund conscience In deede if it were possible for our gouernours by law to commaund mens thoughts and affections then also might they command coÌ„science but the first is not possible for their lawes can reach no further then to the outward man that is to bodie and goods with the speaches and deedes thereof and the ende of them all is not to maintaine spirituall peace of conscience which is betweene man and God but onely that externall and ciuill peace which is betweene man and man And it were not meete that men should commaund conscience which cannot see conscience and iudge of all her actions which appeare not outwardly and whereof there be no witnesses but God and the conscience of the doer Lastly men are no fitte commanders of conscience because they are no lords of it but God himselfe alone Argum. 5. Men in making lawes are subiect to ignorance and errour and therefore when they haue made a law as neare as possible they can agreeable to the equitie of Gods law yet can they not assure themselues and others that they haue failed in no point or circumstance Therefore it is against reason that humane laws beeing subiect to defects faults errours and manifold imperfections should truly bind conscience as Gods lawes doe which are the rule of righteousnes All gouernours in the world vpon their daily experience see and acknowledge this to be true which I say by reason that to their olde lawes they are constrained to put restrictions ampliations modifications of all kindes with new readings and interpretations saving the Bishop of Rome so falsly tearmed which perswades himselfe to haue when he is in his consistorie such an infallible assistance of the spirite that he can not possibly erre in iudgement Argum. 6. If mens lawes by inward vertue binde conscience properly as Gods lawes then our dutie is to learne studie and remember them as well as Gods laws yea ministers must be diligent to preach them as they are diligent in preaching the doctrine of the Gospell because euery one of them bindes to mortall finne as the Papists teach But that they should be taught and learned as Gods lawes it is most absurd in the iudgement of all men Papists themselues not excepted Argum. 7. Inferiour authoritie can not binde the superiours no we the courts of 〈◊〉 and their authoritie are vnder conscience For God in the heart of euery man hath â—rocted a tribunall seale and in his stead he hath plâ—â—â—d neither saint nor angell not any other creaâ—… what soeuer but conscience it selfe who therefore is the highest iudge that is or can be vnder God by whose direction also courts are kept and lawes are made Thus much of the popish opinion by which it appeares that one of the principall notes of Antichrist agrees fuly to the Pope of Rome Paul 2. Thess. 2. makes it a speciall propertie of Antichrist to exalt himselfe against or aboue all that is called God or worshipped Now what doth the Pope els when he takes vpon him authoritie to make such lawes as shall binde the conscience as properly and truly as Gods lawes and what doth he els when he ascribes to himselfe power to free mens consciences from the bond of such lawes of God as are vnchaungeable as may appeare in a canon of the councill of Trent the words are these If any shall say that thâ—se degrees of consanguinitie which be expressed in Leviticus â—â—e 〈◊〉 hinder 〈◊〉 to be made and breake it beeing made and that the Church cannot dispense with some of them or appoint that more degrees may hinder or breake â—â—â—â—age let him be accursed O sacrilegious impietie considering the lawes of affinitie and consanguinitie Lev. 18. are not ceremoniall or iudiciall lawes peculiar to the Iewes but the very laws of nature Whâ—â—â— this canon els but a publike proclamation to the world that the Pope and Church of Rome doe sit as lords or rather idols in the hearts consciences of men This will yet more fully appeare to any man if we read popish bookes of practical or Case aivinitie in which the common manner is to binde conscience where God looseth it and to loose where he bindes but a declaration of this requires long time Now I come as neare as possibly I can to set downe the true manner how mens lawes are by Diuines and may be said to binde conscience That this may be cleared two things must be handled By what meanes they binde and How farre forth Touching the meanes I set downe this rule Whole some lawes of men made of things indifferent binde conscience by vertue of the generall commaundement of God vvhich ordaineth the Magistrates authoritie so as vvho soever shall wittingly willingly with a disloyal mind either breake or omit such lavves it guiltie of sâ—â—â—e before God By whole some lawes I vnderstand such positiue constitutions as are not against the law of God and withall tend to maintaine the peaceable estate and common good of men Furthermore I adde this clause made of things indifferent to note the peculiar matter whereâ—… 〈◊〉 lawes properly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 things 〈◊〉 are neither 〈◊〉 commanded or forbidden by God Now such kinde of lawes haue no vertue or power in themselues to constraine conscience but they bind onely by vertue of an higher commandement Let euery soule â—e subiect to the
higher powers Rom. 13. 1. or Honour father and mother Exod. 20. which commaundements binde vs in conscience to performe obedience to the good laws of men As S. Peter saith Submit your selues to euery humane ordinance for the Lord 1. Pet. 2. 13. that is for conscience of God as he saith afterward v. 19. wherby he signifieth two thing first that God hath ordained the authority of gouernours secondly that he hath appointed in his word and thereby bound men in conscience to obay their gouernours lawfull commandements If the case fall out otherwise as commonly it doth that humane laws be not inacted of things indifferent but of things that be good in themselues that is commanded by God then are they not 〈◊〉 properly but divine lawes Mens laws intreating of things that are morally good and the parts of Gods vvorshippe are the same with Gods laws and therfore binde conscience not because they were inacted by men but because they were first made by God men beeing no more but instruments and ministers in his name to revive renew and to put in exequution such precepts and laws as prescribe the worship of God standing in the practise of true religion vertue Of this kind are all positiue lawes touching articles of faith the duties of the morall law And the man that breakes such lawes sinnes two waies first because he breaks that which is in conscience a law of God secondly because in disobaying his lawfull magistrate he disobâ—… the generall commandement of God touching magistracie But if it shall fall out that mens lawes be made of things that are cuill and forbidden by God then is there no bonde of conscience at all but contrariwise men are bound in conscience not to obay Act. 4. 19. And hereupon the three children are commended for not obaying Nabuchadnezzar when he gaue a particular commandement vnto them to fall downe and worship the golden image Dan. 3. Moreouer in that mans law binds onely by power of Gods law hence it follows that Gods law alone hath this priuiledge that the breach of it should be a sinne S. Iohn saith 1. epist. 3. Sinne it the anomie or transgressioÌ„ of the law vnderstanding Gods lawe When Dauid by adulterie and murder had offended many men that many waies he saith Psal. 51. against thee against thee haue I sinned And Augustine defined sinne to be some thing said done or desired against the law of God Some man may say if this be so belike then we may breake mens laws without sinne I answer that men in breaking humane lawes both may and doe sinne but yet not simply because they breake them but because in breaking them they doe also breake the law of God The breach of a law must be considered two waies First as it is a trespasse hinderance iniurie damage and in this respect it is committed against mens lawes secondly the breach of a law must be considered as it is sinne and so it is onely against Gods law The second point namely How farreforth mens lawes binde conscience I explane on this manner It is all that the lawes of God doe or can doe to binde conscience simply and absolutely Therefore humane laws bind not simply but so farre forth as they are agreeable to Gods word serue for the coÌ„mongood staÌ„d withgood order and hinder not the libertie of conscience The necessitie of the law ariseth of the necessitie of the good end thereof And as the end is good and profitable more or lesse so is the law it selfe necessarie more or lesse Hence it followeth that a man may doe any thing beside humane lawes and constitutions without breach of conscience For if he shall omit the doing of any law I. without hindrance of the ende and particular considerations for which the law was made II. without offence giuing as much as in him lieth III. without contempt of him that made the law he is not to be accused of sinne Example In time of warre the magistrate of a citie commands that no man shall open the gates the end is that the citie and euery member thereof may be in safetie Now it falls out that certaine citizens beeing vpon occasion without the citie are pursued by the enemie and in daunger of their lifes Herupon some man within openeth the gate to resâ—…e them The question is whether he haue sinned or no. And the truth is he hath not because he did not hinder the ende of the law but rather further it and that without scandal to men or contempt to the magistrate And this stands euen by the equitie of Gods word God made a law that the priests onely should eate of the shewbread now Dauid being no priest did vpon vrgent occasion eate of it without sinne If this be true in Gods law then it may also be true in the lawes of men that they may in some cases be omitted without sinne against God Neither must this seeme strange For as thâ—re is a keeping of a law and a breaking of the same so there is a middle or meane action betwâ—â—ne them both which is to doe thing beside the law and that without sâ—â—â—e To proceede further mens laws be either civill or ecclesiasticall Civill laws are for their substance determinations of necessarie and profitable circumstances tendâ—â—â— to â—â—hold and maintaine the commandemâ—… of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 More specially they prescribe what is to be doâ— and what is to be left vndone touching actions both civill criminal touching offices and bâ—rgines of all soâ—â—â— c. yea they conclude inioyne commaÌ„d not onely such affaires as be of smaller importaÌ„ce but also things actions of great waight tending to maintaine common peace civill societie and the very state of the common wealth Now such laws binde so farre forth that though they be omitted without any apparanâ— sâ—â—ndal or contempâ— yet the breach of them is a sinne against God Take this example A subiect in this lande vpon pouertie or vpon a couctous minde against the good law of the land coines money which after ward by a sleight of his wit is cunningly conuaied abroad into the hands of men and is not espied Here is no euident offence giuen to any man nor open contempt shewed to the lawgiuer and yet in this action he hath sinned in that closely otherwise then he ought to haue done he hath hindered the good of the common wealth and robbed the soueraigne prince of her right Ecclesâ—sticall lawes are certaine necessarie and profitable determinations of circumstances of the commaundements of the first table I say bâ—â—e 〈◊〉 because all doctrines pertaining to the foundation and good estate of the Church as also the whole worshippe of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 downe and commaâ—nded in the written word of God and cannot be prescribed and concluded otherwise by all the Churches in the world Aâ—â—or the Creedes and Confessionâ— of particular Churches they are in substance Gods word and they binde not in conscience by any power
the Church hath but because they are the word of God The lawes then which the Church in proper speach is sâ—â—de to make are decrees concerning outward order and comelines in the administration of the word and sacramâ—â—s in the meetings of the coÌ„gregation c. such laws made according to the generall rules of Gods word which requires that all things be don to edificatioÌ„ in comelines for the auoiding of offence are cessarie to be obserued and the word of God binds all men to theÌ„ so farre forth as the keeping of them maintains decent order and pâ—…s open offence Yet if a law concerning some â—…nall riâ—e of thing indifferent be at some time vpon some occasion omitted no offence giuen not contempt shewed to Ecclestasticall â—â—â—horitie there is no bâ—each made in the conscience â—â—d that appeares by the example before hanâ—â—â—â— The Apostles guided by the holy Ghost made a decree for the auoiding of offence necessarie to be obserued namely that the Gentiles should abstaine from strangled and blood and idoâ—ithyâ—â—s and yet Paul out of the case of scandall and contempt permits the Corinthians to doe otherwise 1. Cor. 8. 9. which he would not hâ—â—â— done if to doe otherwise out of the case of scandall and contempt had bin sinne Againe lawes are either mixt or meerely penall Mixâ— are such lawes as are of weightie matters and are propounded in coÌ„manding or forbidding â—eaâ—â—es and they binde men first of all to obedience for the necessary good of humane societies and secondly to a punishment if they obay not that a supplie may be made of the â—indrance of the common good In the breach of this kind of laws though a man be neuer so willing to suffer the punishment yet that will not discharge his conscience before God when he ofâ—…ds If a man coin moâ—y with this minde to be willing to die when he is conâ—icted yet that will not free him from a sinne in the action because Gods law binds vs not onely to subiection iâ—â—earing of punishments but also to obedience of his â—…e commandement it beeing lawfull though â—e should set downe no punishment A law meerely peâ—â—ll is that which beeing mâ—… of matters of lesse importance and not vtâ—…d preâ—isely in commâ—…ding tearmes doeth onely declare and shewe what is to be done or conditionally require this or that with respect to the punishment on this manner If any person doe this or that then he shall forfeit thus or thus This kind of law kinds especially to the punishment that in the very intent of the lawgiuer and he that is readie in omitting the law to pay the fine or punishmet is not to be charged with sinne before God the penaltie being answerable to the losse that comes by the neglect of the law Thus we see how farre forth mens laws bind conscience The vse of this points is this I. hence wee learne that the immunitie of the Popish cleargie whereby they take themselues exempted from civill courts and from civill authoritie in criminall causes hath no warrant because Gods commandements binds euery man whatsoeuer to be subiect to the magistrate Râ—… 〈◊〉 Let euery soule be sâ—…ct to the higher powers II Hence we see also what notorioâ—â— rebeâ—… those are that beeing borne subiâ—cts of this land yet choose rather to die then to acknowledge as they are bound in conâ—… the Qâ—… Maâ—estie to be supreame gouernour vnder God in all causes ouer all persons III. Lastly we are taught hereby to be readie and willing to giue subiection obedience reuerence and all other duties to magistrates whether they be superiou or inferiour yea with chearefulnes to pay 〈◊〉 and subsidies and all such lawfull charges 〈◊〉 appointed by them Giue to Cesâ—â— that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cesars to God that which is Goâ—â— Rom. 13. 〈◊〉 Giue to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their dutie tribute to 〈◊〉 tribute 〈◊〉 to whome custome Now follows the Oath which is either assertorie or promissorie Assertorie by which a man auoucheth that a thing was done or not done Promisserie by which a man promiseth to doe a thing or not to doe it Of both these I mean to speak but specially of the second And here two points must be coÌ„sidered the first by what means an oath bindeth the second when it bindeth An oath bindeth by vertue of such particuâ—… coÌ„mandements as require the keeping of oathâ—â— lawfully taken Num. 30. 3. Who soeuer sâ—… an â—ath to binde his soule by a bond â—e shall not 〈◊〉 his word 〈◊〉 shall doe according to all that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of his 〈◊〉 This being so â—questioÌ„ may be made whether the 〈◊〉 of insiâ—… biâ—d conscience by what vâ—… 〈◊〉 they â—â—ither know the Scriptâ—… noâ— the true God Aâ—s They doe bind in conscience For example Iacob Laban make a 〈◊〉 confirmed by oath Iacob sweares by the true God Laban by the god of Nâ—…or that i◠〈◊〉 his idols Now Iacob though he approoue not the forme of this oath yet he accepts it for a civil bond of the covenant no doubt though Laban beleeued not Gods word reuealed to the Pâ—…ks yet he was bound in coÌ„science to keep this â—th euen by the law of nature though he 〈◊〉 not the 〈◊〉 God yet he 〈◊〉 the false god of Nacâ—â—r to be the true God Gen. 31. 53. Againe if a lawfull oath by vertue of Gods coÌ„mandements bind conscience then it must needâ— be that the Romane Church hath long erred in that â—…ee â—…th and maintaineth that gouernours as namely the Pope and other inferiour Bishops haue power to giue relaxations and dispensations not onely for oathes vnlawfull from which the word of God doth sufficiently free vs though they should neuer giue absolutioÌ„ but from a true lawfull oath made wittingly willingly without errour or deceit of a thing honest and possible as when the Pope frees the subiects of this land as occasion is offered from their sworne allegiance and loyaltie to which they are bound not onely by the law of nature but also by a solemne and particular oath to the Supremacie which none euer deemed vâ—…full but such as carrie traytors hearts Now this erronious divinitie would easily be revoked if men did bâ—â— consider the nature of an oath one part whereof is Invocation in which we prâ—â— vnto God first that he would become a witnes vnto vs that we speak the truth and purpose not to deceiue secondly if we faile break our promise that he would take â—…ge vpon vs and in both these petitions we bind our selues immediatly to God himselfe and God againe who is the ordainer of the oath accepts this bond and 〈◊〉 it by his commendement till it be accomplished Hence it follows that no creature caÌ„ haue power to vâ—â—ie the bood of an â—â—th that is truly and lawfully an â—â—th vnles we wil 〈◊〉 the creatures aboue God himselfe And our Sauiour Christ gaue better â—…ell when he commanded vs to performe our 〈◊〉 to