Argum. 3. Act. 15. It seems good unto us and the holy Ghost, to lay no more burden on you then these necessary things, that ye abstain from things offered to idols, and blood, and that which is strangled, and fornication. Here (say they) the Apostles by the instinct of the holy Ghost make a new law not for this or that respect, but simply to bind consciences of the Gentiles, that they might be exercised in obedience. And this is proved because the Apostles call this law a burden, and call the things prescribed necessary, and S. Luke terms them, the commandments of the Apostles: and Chrysostom calls the Epistle sent to the Church, Imperium, that is, a lordly charge. To this they add, the testimonies of Tertullian, Origen, Augustine. Ans. Though all be granted that the law is a burden imposed, a precept of the Apostles, a charge; again, that things required therein are necessary: yet will it not follow by good consequent, that the law simply binds conscience; because it was given with a reservation of Christian liberty, so as out of the case of scandal, that is, if no offence were given to the weak Jews, it might freely be omitted. And that will appear by these reasons. First of all Peter saith, that it is a tempting of God, to impose upon the Gentiles the yoke of Jewish ceremonies: he therefore must needs be contrary to himself, if he intend to bind 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 Ecclesiastical ⟨p. 847⟩or Apostolical authority. I answer again, that a Mosaical ceremony is still the same thing, though it be stablished by a new authority. And whereas Christ by his death put an end to the ceremonial law, it is absurd to think that the Apostles by their authority revived some part of it again, & bound mens consciences thereto. Secondly the Church of God in all places suffered this commandment to cease, which the faithful servants of God would never have done, if they had been persuaded that this law had bound conscience simply. It is answered, that this law ceased not because the giving of offence unto the Jews ceased, but because it ceased universally:
Argum. 3. Act. 15. It seemes good vnto vs and the holy Ghost, to lay no more burden on you then these necessarie things, that ye abstaine from things offered to idols, and blood, and that which is strangled, and fornication. Here (say they) the Apostles by the instinct of the holy Ghost make a new law not for this or that respect, but simply to bind consciences of the Gentiles, that they might be exercised in obedience. And this is prooued because the Apostles call this law a burden, and call the things prescribed necessarie, 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. Ans. Though all be graunted that the law is a burden imposed, a precept of the Apostles, a charge; againe, that things required therein are necessarie: yet will it not follow by good consequent, that the law 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 vpon the Gentiles the yoke of Iewish ceremonies: he therefore must needs be contrarie to himselfe, if he intend to binde mens consciences to abstinence from strangled, blood, and things offered to idols. A replie is made, that this abstinence is prescribed not by the auncient law of Moses, but by a new Ecclesiasticall ⟨p. 847⟩or Apostolicall authoritie. I answer againe, that a Mosaicall ceremonie is still the same thing, though it be stablished by a new authoritie. And whereas Christ by his death put an ende to the ceremoniall lawe, it is absurd to thinke that the Apostles by their authoritie reuiued some part of it againe, & bound mens consciences thereto. Secondly the Church of God in all places suffered this commandement to cease, which the faithfull seruants of God would neuer haue done, if they had beene perswaded that this law had bound conscience simply. It is aunswered, that this lawe ceased not because the giuing of offence vnto the Iewes ceased, but because it ceased vniuersally:
