Arg. 3. Act. 15. It seems good unto us & the Holy Ghost, to lay no more burden on you the• 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 ⟨p. 42⟩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. Answ. 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 or Apostolical authority. I answer ⟨p. 43⟩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, and 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 bin 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:
Arg. 3. Act. 15. It seemes good vnto vs & the Holy Ghost, to lay no more burden on you the• these necessary things, that yee abstaine from things offered to i•ols, and blood, and that which is strangled, and fo•nication. Here, say they, the Apostles by the instinct of the holy ghost make ⟨p. 42⟩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 ⟨p. 43⟩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 cōmandement 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:
