VL
m
***
1
•■
N« ^
- . „
*m
I H tr\
yi^i (
k^.
~J~~0L&tH<9-
fvt^Mr
r
^^5 #"/5"St
rX
<<
A D I S - P V T E
*A g A I N ST
THE ENGLISH-POPISH
CEREMONIES,
o rs T %F D E D VPON THE CHVRCH OF
SCOTLAND.
WHEREIN
Not only our ovvne Argvmemts againft the fame are ftrongly confirmed, but likewife the An- s we res and Defences of our Oppofites , S V C H AS HOOKER, tMORTOVNE, BFRgES, SPRINT, TATBODT > ANDREWES, S ARABIA, TILEN , SPOTSWOOD , LINVSEY , FORZESSE, Sec. particularly confuted.
Jerem. Chap, 9. verf. 12. 13. 14.
Vers, 11. Who u the wife man that hee may nnderftand this , and who u hee to whom the mouth of the LO%D hath fpohen , that hee may declare it 3 fir "what the Land perifheth. 1 3 . ssind tiie Lord faith 'i Tecatife they have firfiken my Law , which I fet before them , and have not obeyed my voyce , neitfjer Walked therein, 1 4. But have Walked after the Imagination of their owne heart > and after 1 dolls.
Printed in the yearc of our Lord \ 6 3 7.
r o <a i l
AND EVERY ONE IN THE
REFORMED CHVRCHES
o F SCOTLAND, ENGLAND,
AND J R E L A N D,
vvho love che Lord Iesvs, and meane
to adhere unto the Reformation of Religion :
Grace , zMercy^ and Teace , from (jOD our Father^ and from tht Lord IESVS CHRIST.
S Sa'hans rrnlice , and mans wickedneffe , ceafe not to moleftthe thrice happy eftate of theChurch of Chr ist , To hath the e:ernall counceli of tie only wife God , predetermined the com- ming of Offences, Perfecunons, Herefies, Schif- ^ mes , and Divifions, that ProfelTors may be pro- N \ ed. before {a) they be as approved, 5t made mani- fest. Andhence, [b) it muff needs be that offences come : neichet hath the Church ever enjoyed bo;h parity ana peace any long time to gither. But whiles the Church of God thus dtfquieted, as well with dangerous alterations, as with doiefull altercations , is prefented in the Thearre of rhis World, and cricth outto beholders, [c] Haveyceno (c) Lament, regard , all yeetbat paffeby ? A piny it is to fee the crooked and fini- '• 12# ftrouscoutiesof the greatteft.part , every man moving his period within the enormous confines of his owne exorbitant ckfires. The AtheifticallNu'.lifidian , nothing regardeth theaiToyling of Eccle- fjafticallconrroverfies; be is of(<{)Grf///VjhLimour,and cares for none (d) Aft. is. of thole t' ings. The fenfuall Epicurean and riotous Ruffian , (goc J7« Church matters as they will ) eates and drinkes,and takes him plea- fore. The Cynical! Critick fpe\e.h out bitter a fperfions , gybeih, and juftleth at every thing that can be (aid or done in the caufeof
A i Rcli-
(*) i. Cor. i t - 1 9.
(b) Ma:h, 18. 17-
The Epistle to all and Every one
Religion. The Scenicall letter playcth fa ft and loofe, andean utter any thing in fport, butnohing incarneft. The avaritious worldling- hath no tune but Give, Give, and noantheme plcalethhim bin Have Have. Theafpyring Diotrephes pufTeth dovvnc every courfc which can not puffe up. The lofly Favourire taketh the patteme of his religion from the Court Ichnographie , and if the Conn fvvimmc, he cares not though the Church iinke. The fubdolous Machiavelliaa accoumeththefnew of religion profitable , but the fubftanceof it troublefome: he ftudieth not the Oracles of God, but the Principles of Satamcall guile, which he learnethfo well , that he may goeto theDivell to be Bifhoppped. The turne-coat Temporizer wjoges with every winde , and (, like Diogenes turning about the mou^h of his voluble hoggefhead, after the courfeofthc funne,) vvherefoevec the bright beames of corrufcant Authority doe fhine andcherifh, thither follovveth and flitreth he. The gnathonick Parafire fweareth - to all that this ben efa&or holdeth. The mercenary Penfioncr will bowe before he breake. He, who only ftudiethto Have the praife of fome witty invention can not ftricke upon another anwile. The it) 2. Sam. fi]]v Idio^e , [W\\h{e)xAhJolons two hundreth) goethin the fimplicity i$»tu 0£ ^js heart ^ after fas perverfc leaders. The lapped Nicodemite, holdesit enough toyeeldfomefecret a (Tent to thetruetb,though nei- ther his profemonnorhis pra&ife teftify fo much. He.whofeminde is poffe fled with pra?judicate opinions againft the truth, when con- vincing lightisholden forth to him, looketh afquint, and therefore goethawry. The Pragmaticall Adiaphorift with his fpanne-broad faith, and elve-broadconfeience , doth no fmall harme : the poore pandeel of his plagiary profefTion, in mattersof faith, reckoneth litle for all, and in matters of praclife all for litle. Shortly, if an expur- gatorylw^o; were com piled of thofe , and all other fortes of men, who either through their careleffeand newtrall on looking, make no help to the troubled anddifquietedChurchof Chrift,or through their nocent acceflion , and overtfvAart intermedling, workeout her greater harme^alas. How few feeling members were there to be found behind, who truly lay to heart her eftate and condition ? Ne- ve; thelefTe in the word times, either of raging perfecution , or pre- vailing e'efwdion, as God Almighty hath ever hitherto, fo both now and to the end he will rcfervcto hirnfelf a remnant according to the election of Grace, who cleave to his bleiTedTrueth , 6V to the purity of his holy worfhip , and are grieved for theafUiftion of Jofepb , as teeing themfe'vesaifo in the body. In confidence whereof , I take EoldneiTe to ftirre you up at this time, by putting you in remem- brance. If you would be rightly informed of the prefenteftateof the reformed Churches, you muftnotacquiefce in the pargeting verdicl of thofe who arc wealthy and well 2t eafc, and mounted aloft upon the uncogged wheclesof profperous fortune (as they call it. J
Thole
in the Reformed Churches, &c*
Thofcwhom the Jove of the world hath not inhaunced to the fer- ving of the time , can give you the foundeft Iudgmene. It is (/) no- tc)Bo^m. ted of Dionyfius HaUcarnaffem ( who was never advanced to magi- ;w.,,/, ^t ftraciein tr.e Romane Republike, ) that he ha;h written farre more eap,±,p ±?t truly of the Romans, then Eabim, Saluflim > or Cato , who flourifhsd among them with riches and honours.
After that it pleafcd God, by the light of his glorious Gofpellto difpell the more then Cimmerian darknclfe of Antichriftianifmc, and by the antidote of Reformation , toavoidethe poyfonof Po- perie ; for as much as in England and Inland , every noyfome weed which Gods hand had never planted , was not pulled up, therefore we now lee the faces of thofe Churches overgrowne with the repul- lulatingtwiggesandfpriggescf Popifh fuperftition. (g) Mt. Sprint (o) Ktp.to aknowledgeth the Reformation of England to have beene defective, the unfit?. and faith , It it eafuto imagine of what difficulty h was, toreforme all things p. 269. at the firft , where the" moft part of the privy Counceli , of the Nobility , Bijhops, Judges, Gentry , and People, were open orclofe Papifls : where few or none of any countenance flood for Religion at the firfl , but theProteflor and Cranmer. The Church of Scotland was bieifed with a more glorious and perfect Reformation, then any of our nighfrour Churches. The DoAnne , Difciplinc , Regiment , and Policie eftablifhed here by Ecclefiafticall and Civill Lawes,ar.d fworne and fubferibed unto by the Kings Majefty , the feverall Presbetries, and Parifh Churches of the Land; as it bad the applau(e offorraine Divines , (o was it in all points agreeable unto the Word; neither could the moft rigid Ariflarchmoi thefe times, challenge any irregularity in the fame. But now alas, even this Church , which was once fo great a praife in the earth, is deeply corrupted, and hath (h) turned afide quickly out of the (h)Exo& way. So that this is the Lords controvert! eagain ft JVof/dW^: [i) I/>^(i) iereii, 2, planted thee a noble vine, wholly a right feed : How then art thou turned into 21. the degenerat plant of a flrange Vine unto me e ?
It is notthis day feared but felr>that the rotten dregges of Popcrie, which were never purged away from England and Ireland, and having once beene fpewed out with deteftation , are licked up againe in Scotland ; prove to be the unhappy occaflons of a woefull recidiva- tion Neither isthcre need of Lyncean eyes, for if W2 be not pore- blind, it can rot be hid from us, whatdolefull and difaftcrous mu- tation (to be bewailed with teares of blood) hath happened tot! c Church and Spoufe of Chrift in thefe Dominions? Her comely countenance is mifcoloured with the farding luftre of the mother of Harlotes, Her fhamefaiteforehead hath received the marke of the Beaft. Her lovely-iockes are frizled with the crifping pins of An- tichriftian fafhions. Her chafte Eares are made to liften to the friends of the great Whoore , who bring the bewitching Doctrine of en- chaunting Traditions. Her doves Eyes looke pleafantly upon the
A 1 WiU
The Epistle, to all and every one
well attired Harlot. Her fweet Voice is mumming and mattering iome miiTall and magicall Liturgies. Herfaire Neeke beareih the haltcr-like tokens of her former captivity.even a burdenfomechaine of fuperfluous and fuperilitious Ceremonies. Her undefilcd Gar- ments are ftained with the meretricious braverie of Babylonifh or- naments, and with the fymbolizing badges ofconformity ^'nhTHome. Her harmeleflc Hands reach bricke andmortare to the building of Babel. Her beautifull Feet with fhooes , are all befmearcd , whiles they returne apace in the way of Eg y^f, arid wade theingruent broo- kes of Popery. Oh transformed V lr^ine! whether is thy beauty goa from thee ? Oh forlornePftnces Daughter .' how art thou noc afha- medto iooke thy Lord in the face? Oh thou beft beloved among Women ■ what haft thou to doe with the inveagling appurtenan- ces and abilement of Babylon the Whoore ? — Butamongfuch things as have beene theaccurfed mcanesofthe Ch ir^hesdeioiation, thofe which peradventure might feeme tofome of you to have lead harmeorevill in them , are the Ceremonies of kneeling in the ad of receiving the Lords Supper , Crofle in Bapnfme , B. (hopping, Holy-daye>,&c which are preffed under the name of things in iiffe* renr. Yet if youfurvey the lundry inconveniences and grievous <.on- (equenccs or the fame, you will thinke farreoiheiwne. Tnevauie fhewes and fhaddowe> of thefe Ceremonies have hid and obfeured the fubltance of Religion. The true life ofgodhnefTe is fmoared downe and fuppreiTed by the burthen of thtie human inventions. For their fakes, many, who arc both faith full Servants to Chrift,and loyall Subjects to the King, are evill fpoken of, mocked, reproach- ed, menaced , molefted. For their fakes, Chriilian brethren are offended, and the weakeare greatly i:andalized. For their fakes, ihe moft powerfull & painfull Mtnifters in the Land,are either thrift our, or threatnedto bethruft out from their callings. For their fakes, the beft qualified and moft hopefull Exfpe&antsare debarred from entering into the Miniftery. Foriheir lakes, the Seminaries of Learning are fo corrupted, that few or no good plants, can come i'orth from thence. For their Lkes, many are admitted into the fa- cred Mini{tery,who are either Pop fhand Armimanized, wo mini- ftertothe flocke poyfonin fteadof food- or filly ignorants , w.o can tftiper&ie nowhollefome food to the nungry - or elfc vitiousm their lives , who draw many with them into the dangerous precipes (si Scule-pcrditiorjor laftIy,fo earthly minded, that cfcdy tavour only the things of this earth, not the things of the Spirit of God , who feed thcrr^elveS, but not the flock. & ro whom the great Sheepheard (k) Ezerh. of the Sheerc will fay (kj The defeafed have ye not ftrengthened , nei- i4» +• iherhaVcye healed that which WM ficke neither have ye bound up that which wefi broken , neither have ye brought againe that which wai driven away, neither have ye fought that which was lofi. bimple onesjtyno have i omc
tafte
in the % formed Chwches> &c.
rafte and relifh of Popifh fuperftition ? ( for many fuch there be in the Land) doefucke from the intoxicate dugs of Conformity, the fofter-milke which makes them grow in Error. And whoc^n be ignorant, what a large Ipread, Poperie3 Arminsanifme , and recon- ciliation with I^owe. have taken among the Arch-urgers of the Ce- remonies? What marvel!, that Papifts clap their hands ? f>r they fee the day comming which they wifh for. Woe to thee O Land, which bearesprofefTed Papifts and avouched Atheifts, but cm nor beare them who de fire to (/) abjlaine from all appearance of eVill : For ' ' T; Jh^v (m) ruth and equity are fallen in thee , and he that depart eth from evil! fm)Vi $9, maketb himfelf a prey, x 4 . 1 5-
Thefearethj belt wares which the biggehulke of Conformity, fa - vouredwith the profperous gale of mighty Au&ority, hath impor^ ted amongftus. And whiles our Oppofites fo quivcrly goe about to fpread the bad wares of thefe encombring inconveniences, is it time for us luskifhiy to fit ftill , and to be filent ? (n) Woeuntom \ d\ lev> 6 for the day goeth away , for the Jhaddotves of the evening are jlretched out.
Moreover , befides the prevailing inconveniency of the contro- verted Ceremonies, the unlawfulnelfeof them is alio plainly evin- ced in thisenfuing Difpute , by fuch convincing Arguments, as beeingduely pondered in the equail batlanee of an attentive mind, (hall by Gods grace arTorde fatisfa&ion to fo many as purpofe to buy theTrueth , and not to fell it. Wherefore referring to the Dif- pute the points themfelves which are questioned, lam in this place to befeech you all by the mercies of God, that remembring the (0}r.Sam word of the Lord ; (0) Them that honour me 1 will honour , and they that a.jo. defpip! me f hall be lightly eHeemed: temembring alio the {p) curfe and (p)ludz.$.2}* condemnation otMeroz, which came not to helptheLord againft the mighty : (q) of the nobles of Tekpa, who puc not their necks W^11'3'** toihe worke of the Lord : and fhortly , of all fuch as (r) have no xC?^f **' courage for the Truteh, but {/) feeke their owne things , not the ( things which are Iefus Chrifts : and finally, taking to heart how the Lord Xefus , when he commeth in the Glory of his Father with his holy Angels, (t) will be afhamed of every one who hath beene afha- (') Mark. e, med of him and his words, in the midft of a finfull and crooked ge- 5?9 nerarion;you would with a holy zeale& invncible courage, againft all contrary error, fuperftition, and abufe whatsoever , fez your felvesboth to fpeakeand doe , and likewife (having a calling) to iufTer for the True hof Chrirt: , and for the purity of his worlhip , (fl')-beeingin nothing terrified by your Adversaries. Wnich that ye (w)Phi'.?.28. may the better perform, I commend to your thoughts thefe whole. l* ctv * ;+* fome Admonitions which follow.
I. When you fee fo much diverfity both of opinion and pradife j in things pertaining to Religion.theraiher you ought to give all dili- ^geiicc.fx) for trying the things which are different. If you Iudge us (x)phili.K>,
before
The Epistles all and every one
(v) I0.7.5U before youheare us , then (y) doe you contrary to the very Law of
Aft. s*i<>. Mature and Nations. Neither will it help you at your reckoning,
to fay, we believed our fpirituall Guides, our Prelates and Preachers
whom God had fct over us. Nay : What if your Guides be blind r*
(z)Math.i*. Then they doe not only fall in the ditch the mfe Ives, but (%) you
14. withthem. ( a ) Our Ivfafter would not have the Iewes to relt upon
34°39U33' tlie Teftimony of lohn Baptist himfelfe , but would have them to
(b) Act. 17. fearch the Scriptures : by which touch-ftone (b) the Bereans tryed 2I* the A potties owne Doctrine, and are commended for fo doing. But
as wewifhyou nottocondemne ourcaufe , without examining the fame by the Word , fo neither doe we defire you blindly to follow us in adhereing unto it. For what if your feefngGuides betaken from you ? How then Hull you fee to keep out of the ditch ? We would neither have you to fight for us,noragainftus,like the blind fworde- phyexs<Andabat<e, a people who were faid to fightwith their eyes
(c) i.Tim, clofed. [c) Confider therefore what we fay, and the Lord give you z- 1' underftanding in all things.
t j II. Since the God of Heaven is the greateft King, who is to
rule and raigne over you by his Word which he hath publifhed to the world, and tunc vere, &c. Then « God truly faid to raigne in us,when { d\Enarr in m w°Yfy thing is harboured and haunted in our foules , faith (id) Tbeophyla- Luc *7- ^w: ^nce a^° W C e w^edomeot tnc ^e^ ,s cn,rni.y againft God, (e) a.om.8.7. (/) who hath made foolifh the wifedome of this world : Therefore never (f)i. Cor* ihall you rightly deprehend the tru h of God, nor fubmit your fel- j. 20. ves to jje gUKjed by the fame , unlefTe laying afide all the high tea- ring fancies and prefumptuous conceits of naturall and worldly wifdome , you come in a unfained humility and babe-like fimpli- city , to be edifyed by the Word of righteoufnelTe. And farre lefle fhall you ever take up your crolTe and follow Chrift, (as you are re- {£ Math, quired,) (g) except firft of all you labour &: learne todenicyour 16. i4« felves, that is, to make no reckoning what come ofyourfelves and of all that you have in the world, format God have glory ? and your fcJ ves a good confeience, in your doings or fufferings. III. III. ifyou would not be drawen away after the error of thewic-
{h) z. P<*. ked, neither fall from your owne ftedfaftnefTe, {h) the Apoftlc Peter 3* l8, teacheth you, that ye muft grow both in Grace and in Knowledge. For if either your minds be darkened through want of Knowledge, or your affections frozen through want of the love of God > then are you naked and not guarded againft the tentationsof the time. Wherefore, as the pcrverters of the Truth and fimplicity of Reli- gion, doedayly multiply errors, fomuft you (fhunningthofcmelfes and cjiiicke-iands of deceiving errors, which witty make-bates de- jlgne foryou,) labour dayly for increafe ofKnowledge. Andas they to their errors in opinion doe adde the overplus of a licentious pra&ife and lewd conversation , fo mult you ( having fo much the
more
in ws xetomea i*mrwei, ue.
tnoreadoeto flee from their impietie) labour ftillfor a greater mei- fureof the lively worke of fan&ifying Grace. In which refpefts (i) tAugufline faith well , that the Adversaries of the Tructh doc this fi) de riviu good to the true members of the Church, that the fill of thofe ma- &*'*. /^. x8, kes thcfe to take better hold upon God. cap. 5 1 .
I V. Be not deceived, to thinke that they who fo eagerly prefle I V- this courfe of Conformity, have any fuch end as Gods glory , or the good of his Church and profit of Religion. When a violent ur- ger of the Ceremonies pretendeth religious refpe&s for his procee- dings , It maybe well anfwered in (jy Hilaries words \SubrepU nomine (k) hb.ccn. hlandienti, occidis fpecie religionis: thou privily creeps in with an ent?Jingtitle> tra confttnt. thou kills with the pretenfe of religion. For, 1. It is moft evidently true Auguftum of thefe Ceremonies , which [}) our Divines fay of the geftures and (lj Synopf. Rites ufed in the Mafle : They are all frivolous and hypocritical, fiealing ?api\m. away true do^otion from the heart , and making men to rest in the outward ge - contr. 1 5 . j.' flures of the body . There is more found religion among them whore- 7 ./>«#. 5-93. fufe , then among them who receive the fame > even our enemies themfelves beeingludges. The reafon whereof let me give in the words of (m) one of our Oppofites: SuperVacua hdc occupatio circa tra* (m) Dave- ditiones humanas, gignit femperignorantiam& contemptum pr<eceptorum di- nant. in Vinorum. This needleffe bujjnejfe about humaine traditions , doth e"ver beget Col. z.S. the ignorance and contempt of divine commandements* 2. Where read we p. i$6. that the fervantsof God have at any time fought to advance Reli- gion , by fuch hideous courfes of iterne violence , as are intended andaflayed againftus by thofe who prefTe the Ceremonies upon us? The girkingand gnibling of their unformall huggermugger, commeth nearer to Sycophaucy then to Sincerity., and is fibber to appeaching Hoftility , then fraternall Charity. For jufl: fothey deale with u%, as the Arrians did with the Catholikes of old. (n)Sin- (n)q/2W. ccros, &c, Thefincere teachers of the Churches they delated andaccufed be- bi/?.Ecclefm fore Magijlrates , as if thev aldne did continually pejrturbe the Churches peace cent. 4 . in and tranquillity , and did only labour that the divided Churches might never Zpifi. dedic. againe pioujly grow togither : and by this calumny they perfuaded politick and civill men (who did not well enough underfiand this bufines ) that the godly tea- chers of the Churches Jhould be cast forth into exile, and the Arrian wolfes fhould be fent into the fheepfolds of Christ. Now, forafmuch as God hath faid , { [o) they fhall not hurt nor deflroy in all my holy monta'me , A nd (0) K 9- 1 ii. will not have his flocke to be ruled (p) with force and with cruelty ; (p) Ezech* Nee potest (faith (q) LaElantbu) aut Veritas cum Vi, autlufiitia cum crude- fqm". lime conjungi : Neither can either trueth be conjoyned with -violence , or ^p 20! " right eoufneffe with cruelty : Therefore, if our Oppolites would make ic evident , that they are in very deed ledde by religious aimes , let them refile from their violent proceedings , and deale with us in the ipiritofmeeknefle , (hewing us from Gods Word and goodreafon,
B the
The Epistle, to all and every one
the equity of their caufe, & iniquity of ours. Wherein we require no other thing of them , then that which (r) LaBantim required of the Adversaries of his profeilion, even that they would debate the mat- ter Verbis potiusquam Verberibas: by words rather then by whippes .Difiringant aciem ingeniorem fuorum : Jt ratio eorum Vera eft , afferatur : parati fumus audire , fidoccant. Let them draw out the fharpenejfe of their ingines : If their reafon be trite let it be aVcrred : we are ready to heare , // they teach us. 3. If their aimes were truiy for the advancement of Religion, how comes it to pafle , that whiles they make fomuchadoe, and move every (tone againlt us for our modeft refuting of obedience to certaine ordinances of men , which in our confeiences we are per- fwaded to be unlawfull, they manumiiTe & fet free the Simony, Ly- ing, Swearing.prophanation ofthe Sabbath, Drunkenne(Te,Whoor- dome, with other grofle and fcandalous vices , of fome of their owne fide, by which Gods owne Commandements are moil fearfully violated? This juft recrimination we may well ufe for cur owne molt lawfull defence. Neither doe we hereby intend any mans fhame (Godknowes) but his reformation rather. We wifh from out hearts we had no reafon to challenge our Oppofites of that fu- ([) enamt. ?er^ltlon taxed in the Pharifees, quod arguebant , &c. that they accufed inMath, 1 5 .' *^e &*$&* °f &** things, andthemfelves were guilty in great things , faith
V '(f) Nicolaus Gorranus.
It) JLaLpol, V> Doe not account Ceremonies to be matters of fo fmall im-
W.V. C65. Portance>tnatwc need not (land much upon them, for as (t) Hooker
(w\'prdf. f/obferveth , a Ceremony, through cuftome workethvery much with
thelnfw PeoP*e- (#) &> Burgejfe alledgeth for his writing about Ceremo-
P I4 nies, that the matter is important, for the confequence of it. (x) Ca«
(Spopifh mtro thinketh fo much of Ceremonies , that he holdeth our fimpli-
prJiud c.io.Qltyto notl^e i that we have the true Religion , and that the Reli-
' gion of Papifts is fuperftitious, becaufe of their Ceremonies. To
lay the truth, a Church is in fo farre true or hypocriticall , as it
(y)Cent.z. mixeth or not mixeth humane inventions with Gods holy wor-
cap. 2. fhip. And hence, {y) the Magdtburgians profeffe, that they write
•«/. 109. ofthe Ceremonies, for making a difference betwixt a true and a
hypocriticall Church. Vera enim Ecclejia , &C. For a true Church as h
retaincs pure DoBrine , foalfo it keeps fimplicity of Ceremonies , #c. but a
hypocriticall Church , at it departs from pure DoBrine , fo for the mo ft party
it changeth and augmenteth the Ceremonies infiituted of God , and midti-
flieth its owne Traditions* &c. And as touching our controverted
Ceremonies in particular, if you confider what we have written
againft them , you fhall eafily perceive that they are matters of no
fmall, but very great confequence. Howbeit thefe be but the be-
(z) Cron. ginningsofevills,andthereisaworfegalamafne gobbet-wifepre-
Turcic.Toto. pared, Ji hathbeene (*) obferved of the waning Turkes that often
iM-t*i* they
inthe Reformed Chmches, &e*
they ufed this notable deceit , to fend a lying rumour and a vaine tumult of warre to one place, but in the meane while to addreffe their true forces to another place, that fo they might furprize thole who have beeneunwarrily ledde by pernicious credulity. So have we manifeft ( alas too too manifeft) reafons, to make us con- ceive, that whiles the chief urgers of tie courfe of Conformity , are fkirmifhingwi'h us about the trifFeling Ceremonies (asfomemen count them , ) they are but labouring to hold our thoughts fo bent and intent upon thofe fmaller quarrells, that we may forget to diftin- guifh betwixt evills immanent and evills imminent , and that we be not too much awake to efpie their fecreet (light in comparing fiir- ther aimes.
VI. Neither let the pretence ofPeaceand Vnity coole your fer- vour , or make you fpare to oppofe your felves unto thofe idle and . . idolized Ceremonies, againft which we difpute. For whiles our Op- v'. u*j! .' pofites make a vaine fhew and pretence of Peace , they doe like the *,av' **' (a) Romans > who built the Temple of Concord juft in the place where .iA •• °\ I* thefeditious outrages of the two GracchiTiberhts and Cajus had beene * '* ,ttZ * a&ed: (b) which Temple, in the fubfequent times , did not reftratne, but by the contrary, give further (cope unto more bloudie feditions. So that they fhould have built Difcord a Temple in that place rather then Concord, as Augufiine pleafontiy tickleththem. Doe our Oppo- fites thinke that the bane of Peace, is never in yeeldingtothe courfe of the time, but ever in retailing to yeeld ? or will tney not rather aknowledge,thatasaman (c) isfaidto be madedrunke by drinking (c)Ovid. the water of Lyncejlus a river of 'Macedonia) no le(Te then if he had fil- Metam. led himfelf with the ftrongeftwine 9 fo one may be inebriat withal. 15.' contentious humour, in (landing fti fly foryeejding, as wellasin flanding ftedfaftlyfor refuifing? Peace is violated by the Oppu- gners of the Trueth , but eftablifhed by the ProfeiTors of the fame. For (as was rightly faid ( d) by Georgius Scholarius in the Councell o£(A)muj Bi- Florence) the Churches Peace can neither (lay among men.the trueth heeing niUmTom, unknowen- neither can it but needs returne,the trueth beeing knowen. Nee ve- . Concil * ricateignoratamanere inter homines pot eft 3 nee ilia agnita necejfario non re- 7' dire. We muft therefore be mortailed togither, not by the fubfcudi- '** '6* < nes of Error, but by the bands of Truerh and unity of Faith. And we ***' * * goe the true way to regaine Peace , whiles we fue for the removall of thofe Popifh Ceremonies, which have both occafioned and nou- riflied the Difcord : We only refufe that Peace ( falfely fo called) ^)^°Piace which will not permit us to brooke Purity : and that becaufe (as*? lt"^m6 (e) Iofeph Hall noteth) ( /) S. James defcrrbeth the wifdome which is j'f. 2* from above, to be fir -ft pure , then peaceable. Whence it commethl; xy™*' that (g) there can be no concord betwixt Chrift and Antichrift, (g)acor.tf. nor any communion betwixt the Temple of God and Idolls. jitqm^*16'
B z utCce-
The Epistle to all and every one
UtC<elum9 &c. And though HeaVen and Earth fhould happen to he mingled
togither , yet the fine ere worfhip of God and hit fared Trueth> wherein
eternal! Salvation is laid up for us , fhould worthily be unto us of moreefti-
(hVib.'Epifi. mation thenahundreth worlds , faith (h) Calvinc. (i) lohn Foxe judgetn it
col igS. '" DCtter> to contend again ft thofew ho preferre their owne Traditions
(i)Medit.in10 *% Commandements of God, then to be at peace with them.
Jpoc.z. ' True it is? Pax optimarerum , Qua* homini noviffe datum esl. Yet
^ ' I truft,we may uie the words of that great Adiapnorift (lej Georgius
(k)de offic. CaJfan^er* Ea demumveray Wc. That alone (faith he J is true and f olid tiiviru * Chrifiian Peace , which is co?ijoyned with the glory of God , and the obedience ' of his will, and is fejoyned from all depravation of the Heavenly Dotlrine and,
divine worf hip . VII* VII. Beware alfo you be not deceived with the pretence of the
Churches confent , and of uniformity as well with the auncient Church, as with the now- reformed Churches, in the formes and cu- ftomes of both. For, i . our Oppofites can not fhew that the figne of the Crofie was received and ufed in the Church before Tcrttdlian, except they alleadge either the Montanisls or the Valentinian Hererickes for it. Neither yet can they fhew, that apparrell proper for Divine Service, anddiftinguifhed from the common? is more auncient then the dayes of Pope Caleslinus. Nor laftly, that kneeling in the ad of receiving the Communion was evet ufed before the time of Pope Honorius the 3. They can not prove any one of the contro- veited Ceremonies to have becne in the Church the fir ft two hun- dreth years after Chrift , except the feaft of Eafter ( which yet can neither be proven to have beene obferved in the Apoftels owne age, nor yet to nave beene eftablifhed in the after age by any Law , but only to have crept in by a certaine privat cuftome } and for fome of them they can not find any cleareTeftimony for a long time there- .. r , after: Now, in the 3. Centurie, (I) Hifteriographers obferve,that l}a ? " Pwlaiim Ceremonial auBa funt , hominum fuperftitioforam opinionibus : r " lh Vnhin Baptifmo unBionem Olei , Cruets Signacufum^ & Ofculumaddide- Qem. $.m. riint c(ymoniff weye by litle and litle augmented , by the opinions of fuper- 3 . cap. 1 1 . pt-tQU5 men. wf:enCe it was that they added the unSlion oj Oyle , thefigne of the I m\ %datd ^roJJe ? ane^aKJfi in Baptifme. And in the Fourth Centurie {m) they c '* J: fay, Sub'mde magis magifyue , Traditiones human* cumulate funt. Forth c '1 "f ' with humane Traditions were more and more augmented* And fofrom that ' "44 . rimeforward.vaineandidlcCeremonics wereftill addedto thewor- fhipofGcd, till the fame was under PoperiewhoLy corrupted with (rfCaffknJi ^upcrftitious Rites. Yea and (») M*. Sprint hath told us even of the Amht. * firft two hundereth years after Chnft , that the DiVell in thofe dayes bt- P*** 104. ganne t0 fow kis tares {as the watchmen beganne tofleep) both offalfe DoBrint and corrupt Ceremonies. And now, though fome of the controverted Ceremonies have becne kept and telcrved in raanv (not all) the re- fer-
in the Reformed Churches > &c.
formed Churches, yet they are not therefore to be the be:ter liked of. For thereafonof therefervation, was, becaufe fomereverend Divi- nes who dealt and laboured in the reformation of thole Churches, perceaving the occurring lets and oppofitions which were caufed by mod: dangerous Shifmes and Seditions, and by ihe raging of bloudy warres , fcarce'y exfpe&ed to effe&uat fo much as the purging of tie Church from fundamentall errors and groiTeIdoiatry:which wrought them to be content, that JeiTer abufesin Difcipline and Church po- litic fhould be then tollerated , becaufe they fawnothowto over- cake them all at that time. In the meane while they Were fo farre from deflringany of the Churches to retaine thefe Popsfh Ceremo- nies, which might have convenient occafion of ejecting them, (farre leiTeto recall them beeing once ejected, ) that they teftifyed plainly their diflike of the fame, and vvifhed, that thofe Churches wherein they lived, might have fome blefled opportunity to be rid of all fuch rotten Relicks , riven Ragges , and rotten Remainders of Poperie. AH which, fince they were once purged away from the Church of Scotland, and caft forth as things accurfed into the lakes of eternall deteftation,how vile and abominable may we now call the refuming of them ? Or what a piacular prevarication is it , to borrow from any other Church which was lelTe reformed , apatterneof politic for this Church which was more reformed. But, 2. though there could be more alledged for the Cercmonie?> then truly there can be, either [o)Caffknd. from thecuftomes of the Auncient , or Reformed Churches , yet Ang.p.%1. doeour(o)Oppofites themfelves profelTe, that they will not Iuftify 85.93.no all the Ceremonies either of the Auncient or Reformed Churches. And indedwho dare take this for a fure rule, that we ought to follow (f) Ex&c. every auncient and univerfaly receaved cuftome ? For as Cafaubone H CaP> 1 r. (f) (heweth , though the Churches confent ought not to becontem- (•]) Umtsr* ned, yet we are notalwayestoholditfor a Law or a right rule. And *» Rom. doc nor our (q) Divines teach, that nihil faciendum eft ad allorum exem- 15. *!■• plum , fed juxta Verbum , Nothing u to be done according to the example (r) Hifl.cat. of others , but according to the Word. Vt autem . ere. As the multitude Cent. 4 ./._j. of them who erre(fa\th (/) Qjjander,)fo long prefcription of time purchafeth c*p 38. no patrociny to error. pag. 5 < £,
VI II. Moreover, becaufe the foredecke and hindeckeof all our V III. Oppofites probations, doe rcfolve and reft finally into the Au&ority of aLaw>and Authority they ufe asafturpe knife to cut every Gor- dian knot which they can not unloofe, andas'a dreadfull pale to found fo loud in all ears , that reafon cannot be beard : therefore wecertiorat you with (s) Calvine , that Si acqukvijluimpcrio , peffimo {s^b.Etifi. Uqueo vos induiflis. If you have acquit feed in AuBority > you have wrap- col. 446, pxd your f elves in a very evi'd fnare. As touching any ordinance of ( )deauth, the Church, we lay with {t) Whinakers, Qbtdimdum Ecclefa eft, fed Scrip. Lb. i„
B 5 jubentipag. 129.
The EpistlEjW all and every one
jubenti acdocenti reEla. We are to obey the Church , but commmandlngand teaching right things. Surely , if we have not proven the contro- verted Ceremonies , to be fuch things as are not right to be done , we dull ftraight obey all the Ceremoniall Lawes made thcreanent. And as for the Civill Magistrates parte , is it not hoi- (u) Taylor ^en> M t^ac ne may not injoyne us to doe that, whereof w e have not good upon Tit. : groun(L t0 d°° lt of faith ? And thar, although all thy external condition k in j pa„ * j V the power of the Magiflrate , yetint email things , as the keeping of faith and (t) Rom. 14, obedience and agoodconfeience , arenot in his power. For (x) every one of i2. us f ball give account of himfdf to God. But untill you heare more in
the Dilpute of the power which either the Church or the Magistrate hath to ena& Lawes anent things belonging to the worfhipof God, and of the binding power of the fame, let me adde here touching hu- mane Lawes in generall,that where wehave no other reafon, to war- rand unto us, the doing of that which a humane Law pr:fcribeth, befide the bare will and au&ority of the Law- maker , in this cafe a (v) \a i* humane Law can not bind us to obedience, {y) Aquinas holdeth with 2'9S>art 3! Ifi^ore, that a humane Law (among other condicions of it) muft " both be neceffary for removing of fomeevill, and likcvife profita- /z\ Qrf ble for guiding us to fome good. (^ Gregorius Sayrus following them. Confc lib \ herein , faith, debet lex homines a malo retrahere , &ideo diciturnecefjaria : capt ," ■ " debet etiam promovere in bonum-, £T ideo dicitur utilts. <A Law ought to draw num 60. back, men from evilly and therefore is called neceffary : it ought alfo te promove U)Eccl pol ^Km unt0 £00^ » and therefore is called profitable. Humane Lawes (in / 1 feci 1 o (4)^r Hookers judgment) muft teachwhat is good , andbemade (b j Natal *or c^e benenl:e of men. {b) Demojlhenes defenbeth a Law , to be fuch a Comit w ^ n S cul C0»VfW/V omnibus parere, which it is convenient for every one to obey, tbol hb 2 M Camcyo noc only allosvethus to leeke a reafon of the Churches cap' 7 ' ' Lawes [fion enim ( faith he )ver<e Ecclefix libet leges ferre quarum non reddau (oSprdcB rationem , It pleafethnot the trne Church to make and publijh Lawes whereof torn 1 pa* (heegivethfiot a reafon : ) but (d) he willlikewiie hive us,iniuch things .' ' g' as conccrne the glory and honour of Cod , net to obey the Lawes (i) tb'd ofany Magiftrate, blindly and without a reafon. There was one faith P V7 2 {c ) m e Bifnop of Wincbefier , that would have his willfiand for reafon And U)Scrm on was there none fuch amongthe people of God ? Yes: we find 1 .Sam. 2. one of I oh 16 7 whom n wai fa** ' ^m u muft ^ f°r H°pkni will not have it fo , but tints. Bis reafon is, forhewi'lnot. And God graunt none fuch he found amoyig Chri- (F) BLom,f 3.4. fiians. From Scripture we learue that (/) neither hath the Magiftrate (;; Ephef 4, jUy power, but for our good on'y , (g) iior yet hath the Church any I2' power , but for our edification only. Law-makers therefore mav
not in joy nc quod' libit, that which jikech'then), nay nor allwayes^o^ licet t that \\huh ii in it fclf lawfull, but only quod expedit , that winch is expedient and good for edifying. And to them we may well fay f u ) *?-l?g- v gth ,h) Tenidi!jn,biiquam exercttis dominationtm fi idso negatfi licere,quia t»f. 4. Vuhis,
tn the Reformed £ hurcbesy &c.
Vultii 5 nonquiadebuitnon licere. You exercifeunjufi dominion > if therefore you denie any thing to be free, becaufe you will fo , not becaufe it ought not to be free. Befides ah this , there is nothing which any way pertaineth t > the worfhip of God left to the determination of humane Lawes, befide the mere circutnftances , which neither have any holinetTe in them, forafmuch as they have no other ufeand praiic in Sacred, then they have in Civill things;rior yet were particularly determina- ble in Scripture , becaufe thev are infinite. But facred fignificanc Ceremonies fuchas CroiTe,Kneeling,Surplice,Holy dayes.Bifhop- ping, &C which have no ufe and praife except in Religion only.and which alfo were molt eafily determinable(yetnot determined) wit' - in thofe bounds which the wifedome of God did fet to his written Worde,are fuch things as God never left to tie determination of any humane Law. Neither have men any power to burthen us with thofe or fuch like ordinances : For (i) faith notour Lordhimfelfe to the (i) Revel. 2, Churches, I will put upon you none other burden : but that which ye have all- 24> 2** ready hold faft till I come. 'Wherefore pro hac ,' Wc. (k) Fortlm liberty (l<\ Conrad, we ought ftoutly to fight againsl falfe Teachers. Finally, it is to be no:ed, pfeilen clav. that though in (omc things we may and doecommendably refufe tbetl.art.g. obedience to the Lawes of thofe whom God hath fetoverus, y^ fag. 373. are we ever obliged (and accordingly intend) ftill to fubjecl: our iel- ves unto them. For to be fubjed , doth fignify (as [l) %anchiusft\e- (1) comm.in weth) to be placed under , to be fubordinat, andfoto give honour Ephef. 5. and reverence to him who is above , which may well (land without de fubjecl. obedience to every one of his Lawes. Yea and (m) Dr. Field alfo tells (m) of the us , that fubjeBion it generally and abfoluiely required , where obedience Church bb. & notj, 4. cap. 34.
IX. Forafmuch as fome ignorant ones are of opinion, that when I K« they pradife the Ceremonies neither perceiving any unlawfulneifc in them, (but by the contrary beeing perfwaded in their confeiences of the LawfullnelTe of the fame ) nor yet having any evill meaning (but intending Gods glory and the peace of the Church ) therefore they pradife them with a good conscience. Be not ye alfo deceived,, but rather advert unto this , that a peaceable confeience allowing that which a man doth, is not ever a good confeience, but often times an Erring , Bolde, Prefuming, Secure, yea perhaps a Seared confeience. A good Confcience,theteftimony whereof giveth a man trae peace in his doings, is, and is only fucha one, as is rightly in- formed out of the Word of God. Neither doth a good meaning cx- cufeany evill adion, or elfe they who killed the Apoftleswere to (»)!•. r&«v beexcufed,becaufe in fo doing (w) they thought they did God good (n) AV*in' fervice. It istheobfervationeven of (») Papifts, that men may com- 2*- 2* ?• niitmany a foule-ruinating fcandall? though they intend no fuch 43- **. U thing as the ruine of foules. lteSa **
X. If Luc. 1 7.1.
The Epistle to all and Every we-
X. X. If once you yeeld to thefe Englifh Ceremonies, think not
that thereafer you can keep yourfelves backe from any greater evillsor grofler corruptions which they draw after them. Forasit (o^ Thiff. 2. is juft with God (o) to give fuch men over ro ftrong delufions , as io. 1 1. have not receavedthe love of theTrueth , nor taken pleafurein the fincerity of his worfhip: fo there is not a more deceitfull and dange- rous tentation then in yeelding to the beginnings ofevill. He that fp) Luc. 16- vsunjuH in theleasl, is unjust alfo in much (p) faith he who could not lye. (qU.Kin^.Kj When Vr\\ab the Prieft had once pleafed King *Aha$ , in making an i o'.to the0i6. Altar like unto that of Damascus, he was afterward ledde on to pleafe him in a greatter matter , even in forfakingthe Altar of the Lord, and in offering all the Sacrifices upon the Altar of Damafcus. AH your winning or lofing of agoodconfeience, is in your firft buying: for fuch is the deceitfuUneue of finne , and thecunning convoyance of that old Serpent , that if his head be once entering in , his whole body will eafily follow after, and if he make you handfomcly to fwallow gnats at firft , he will make you fwallow Camells ere all be (v) PkU 1 37. done. O happy they , (r) whodafh tne litle ones of Babylon zgzirtfk 9» the (tones .'
XI. XI. Doe not reckon it enough to beare within the inclofure of
your fecret thoughts , a ceriaine diflike of the Ceremonies andothec abufes now fet afoot, except bo:h by profeflion and adion you evi- dence the fame , and fofhew your faith byyourfaft. Wearecon- (s}i. Kfeg.it. {traineci lo fay t0 f0me among you , with Elijah > (Horn long hah ye (t)fiExod.?i. between two opinions f and to call unto you with Mofes , (t) Who Hon z6> the Lords fide? Who? (w) Be nop deceived : God is not mocked. And
<u) Gal. 6.7. (x) No man can ferve two mafters. Howfoever (y) he that is not againft (X)zlt!h' 6' us ■ Pro tmo> ls w^ us , that is , in fo facre, as he is not againft us, (y) Made p. in as fane he fo obligeth himfelf unto us that he can not lightly 4r. fpeake evill of our caufe, and (*) we therein rejoyce,& will rejoyce ;
/a)PMath '* yet./w*/>/i«*w\ [a) he that is not with us is againft us , thatis, he who 3o.a * " by Profeflion and Pra&ife fhe veth not himfelf to be on our fide , is
accounted before God to be our enemy. ■Y t r XII. Think no: the wounds whichthe Church hath received by
the meanes of thefe nocent Ceremonies to be fo deadly and defpe- race, as if there were no balmein Gilead. Neither furTer your minds fo farreto mifcany , as to thinkethat ye wifhwell to the Church and are heartily forry rhat matters frame with her as they doe, whiles in the meanetime youaiTay no meanes , you take no paines and 10 Either a- travell for her help, (b) When King Ahaffwem had given forth a de- cree for the utter extirpation of the Iewes , Mordecay feared not to . tell Efiber that if fhee fhouid then hold her peace , enlargement and deliverance fhouid arife unro the Iewes from another p'ace , but fhee and her fathers houfe fhouid be deftroyed. Whereupon fhee > after
three
in the Reformed (^htircheh &c. three daycs humiliation and Prayer ro God, put her very life in ha- zard by going in to fupplicat the King, which was not according to the Law. But now(alas) there are too many Profcflburs who detract themfelves from undergoing letter hazards for the Churches liberty, yea, fromufing thofe very defences which are according to the Lawes of thcKingdome. Yet molt certaine it is , that wichout gi- ving diligence in the ufe of the meanes , you (hall neither convince your Adverfaries,nor yet exoner your owne confciences,nor laftly have iuch comfort in the day of your iuffering as otherwife you jfhould. I know that principally and above all we are (c) to offer up fc) HcM.7. to God , Prayers and Supplications with ftrong crying and teares, which are the weapons of our fpirituall warrefare : but as this ought to be done, fo the atchieving of other fecundary meanes, ought not to be left undone.
If you mifregard thefe things thereof in the name of God I have admonifhedyou , and draw back your helping hands from the re- proached and afflicted caufe of Chrift, for which we plead3then doe not put evill farre from you , for wrath is determined againft you. And as for you, my deare brethren, and Countrymen of Scotland^ as (d) it is long , fince firft Chriftianity was preached and profeffed in (d) Speed. this Land : as alfo it was blefTed with a moft glorious and much re- Hitt.ofBritl nounned Reformation: and further , as the Gofpell hath beene Ion- book 6. ger continued in purity and peace with us then with any Church in cbap»s>.f9. Europe: Moreover,as the Church of Scotland hath treacheroufly bro- ken her bonds of oath and fubfcription , wherewith other Churches about us were not fo tied: and finally,as Almighty God , though he hath almoft confumed other Churches by his dreadfull Iudgments, yet hath fhewed farre greater Ion gfuffering-kindneiTe toward us ,to reclairne us to repentance , though (notwith (landing of all this, ) we goe on in a moll: dolefull fecurity, induration, blindnelTe, andback- fiiding. So now in the moft ordinary courfe of Gods Iuftice, we are certainly to exfpecl:, that after fo many mercies , fo great long- furTering , and fuchalong day of grace , all defpited , hee is to fend upon us iuch Judgements as mould not be believed though they were tolde. O Scotland I underftandand turne againe , or elfe as God lives , moft terrible Iudgements are abiding thee.
But if you lay thefe things to heart , if you be humbled before God for the provocation of your defection , and turne back from the fame, if with all your hearts , and according to a 1 your power, you beftow your beft endeavours for making help to the woun- ded Church of Chrift , and for vindicating the caufe of pure Re- ligion, yea though it were w'th the lofte of all that you have in the world (e) (augctur enimReligioDei , quo magps premitur , Gods true Reli- (e)La{lantl
C gion lib. 5. CIO'.
The Epistle to all and every one &c.
gton u enlarged, the more u is prejfed downe • ) then fhall you not only ef- capetheevills which fhall come upon this genera ion , butiikewife, be recompenfed a hundreth fo'de with the iweet conlolations of Gods Spirit here, and with the immortall Crownc of never fa- ding g'Ory hence. Now, our Lord Iefus Chrift himfelf, and God even our Father, which hath loved us,and ha h given us eveiia- fting confolation,andgoodhope through grace, ftablifh you and keep you from cvill, that ye may beprefen- ted before his Throne. The Grace of our Lord Iesu-s Christ be with you all.
A Diftftte
\ w("
A Dtjjjule against
The Englifh-popifh Ceremonies,
O'STRF'DE'D
Vpon the Chvrch of SCOTLAND, Confijting offoure Paries,
THE PROLOGUE.
0 W good reason thofe Wife men had for them > who did not allowe of the Englifh-T^opifh Ceremonies , at thefirfl in- troducing ofthefe novations into the [hutch of Scotland, fore feeing the bad e fells and dangerous evils which might tnfne thereupon; and how greatly the other fort were mifiaken,who did then jeeld to the fame , apprehending no danger in them-jt is this day too too apparent to tu, whofe thoughts concerning the event of this courfe, can not be holden in [ufpenfe betwixt the appnhenfions of feare, and ex- fpeSlmons of hope, becaufe dole full experience hath made us feele, that which the wifer fort before did ft are. Since then thus Church Which was once a praife in the earth ,is now brought to a moft deplorable and dayly increasing defolationby themeanes of thefe Ceremonies , which have been both thefparkjes to kindle, & the bellowesto blow up the confuming fire of inteftine diffentions among us \ it concerneth all her children, not only to cry out Ah,and Alas / and to (a) bewaile with the weeping of (a) IC 169* lzzei',but alfo to bethinkjhemf elves mvfl ferioufly,how to fuccour their deare (though diflreffed) Mother in fuch a calamitous cafe-. Our best indeavours which we arc to employ for this end, next unto (b) praying (b)rfai.izi^ earneflly for the peace of Ierufalem,^ /£?/<?> /. (c) So farreas s *"hi, g# we have attained to walke by the fame rule>to mind the fame thing, and to labour as much oa is poffible that the courfe of the CjofpeU , the fDoBrine of godlinejfe , the praclife of piety lye not behinde.becaufe of cur differing one from another about the (Ceremonies , left otherwise *3 ioyov grow to be 7FXgzoyov* 2. In fuch things whereabout we agree not, to make diligent Jearch and enquiry for the Trueth, For to have our ludgement! in our heels , and fo blindly to folkwe every opinion which
Q 2. is broa-
THE PROLOGVE.
is broached, and fqnare'y to conform e unto every cuflome which is fet afoot y becommeth not men Who are endued with reafin for difcermno of things befeeming from thing* not befeeming ; farre leffe Chnftians, (dJHeb.s.Tj, ^) Veho (1)0 aid have their fences exercfed to df erne both good and 5, ii/"L' e villi and who have receiveda commandemem (ej to prove all things, before they hold fatt any thing - and leaU of ail doth it become m who live in thefe mo ft dangerous dayes , wherein error & dsfetlion fo much abound. 3 . When "We have attained to the akyowledging of the Trueth 3 then to give a Teftimony unto the fame, accordingto our vocation, con- tending for the Trueth of Cfod against the errors of men, for the purity, ofChrisl again ft the corruptions of ' Antickritt . For to under/land the Trueth ,and yet not contend for it, argueth Qowardlineffe,not Courage-, Fainting,not Fervour ; Lukewarmene(fe,not Love ', Weakneffe,not Va- lour. Wherefore fmce we can not tmpetrate from the troublers of our I fall that true peace which derogateth not from the Trueth , 'We may not y We dare not leave off to debate with them, tslmong the LaWei of
(f) flat, in Solon , ( f ) there "Was one which pronounced him defamed and unhoneH vita.Solon. -who in a civill uproar e among the Citizens ftteth flilla looker on and
a Newter : much more deferve they to be fo accounted of, 'Who fhur.ne to meddle 'with any controverfy which difquieteth the Church , whereas they fhould labour to "Wmne the t/fdverfaries of the Trueth , and if they proove obftinate, to defend andpropugne the Trueth againft them.
(g) in tpift. In things of this life ( as (g) Calvine noteth ) we may remit fo much ad protest. 0f the right, as the love of peace requireth , but as for the regiment of •d^l' the Church which is fpirituall , and therein every thing ought to be or- dered according to the Word of (Jod , it is not in the power of any mor- tallman , quidquam hie aliis dare , aut in iiloriim gratiam defle- ctere. Thefe con ft derations have induced me to be ft owe fome time, and to take fome paines in the fludy of the Controverfies 'Which are agita- ted in this Church about the Ceremonies , and ( after due examination anddifcuffion of the writings of fuch as have played the Troclors for them) to compile this enfuing Difpute again ft them , both for exonering
Cfr if. 6. 21. m7 feV> an^ for fY°vocking of others to contend yet more (h) for the Truth, and for Zions fake not to hold their peace, nor be at reft , unt ill the amiable light of long wifhed for peace, breake forth out of all (\) in 16, 12. thefe confufions: Which, O Trince of Teace,haflen, who
wilt ordaine peace for us : for thou alfo haft wrought all our works in us.
THE
THE ORDER.
Iggg Ecaufe ^olemicke and Eriflicke dfcoarfes mufi $ foil owe the Adverfaries at the heeles 3 whberfi- ever they goe , finding them out in all the lurking places of their elaborate fubterfugies ^ and confli- cting with them ^herefoever they pitch, untill not only all their blowes be awarded ^ but themf el- ves alfoall derouted: Therefore perceiving the informality of the Forma! iff to be fuch , that fome times they plead for the controver- ted Ceremonies a* necejfafy , fo me times 04 expedient , fome times 06 lawfully and fome times a4 indifferent ; / refolve to follower the trace , and to evince by force of reafon that there u none of all thofe refpecls to luflifie either the urging ortheufng ofthenL^. And albeit (k) the Archbifhop ^Spalato commeth forth //^_, W pref. an Ofympicke Qhampion ^ foutly brandifhing and bravading, and libro^- ^e making hit account , that no Antagonift can match him except" a Trelate : Albeit likewife the (\) Bif hop of Edinbrugh would (l) Proc* havemtothinke tbatve arenotwell advifed to enter into combatcs T/r>ertu with fuch Achillean frength at they have on their fide : Tet muH part. 3. * tut Oppoftes tyiovp) thatwe have more daring minds 3 then to be^> pag. 5 5 • dafhed with the vaine flourifh of their great words. Where- fore in all thefe fourewayes wherein I am to draw the line of my ^Di/pute 3 I will not fhunne to encounter and handle frokes with the moH valjant Champions of that faclion^nowlngShat-1
- Trophaeum ferre me a forti viro , pulchrum eft ;
Sinautem & vincar, vinci a tali nullum eft probrum. But what if hall 1 fpeake doubtfully of the viclory ^or feare the fife ? Nay^ I confider that there u none of them fo ftrong as hes wot wko(m)fa?dy we can doe nothing againft theTrueth3 H2 C013 but for the Trueth, / will therefore boldly adventure to com- 1 3
C 3 talcs
THE ORDER,
bate with them , even 'ft here they feeme to he ftrongeH , and to difuffe their befl Arguments, Allegations > Anfaeres , Affenions, andDiflinftons. AndmyVifputefbaU confifl of four e farts a ac*. cording to thofe fiure pretences which are given out for the Cere- monies: which beeingfo different one from another 3 muBbe fea- verally examined. The lawfuUlneJfe of a things ii^tn that it may be done : the indifferency of it in that it may either be done or left undone : the expediency of it^ in that it u done profitably : and theneceffity of it 9 in that it way not be left undon. 1 will beginne with the laftrefpeft firH^OA that which h the weightiest.
*$*
THE
The firft parte
<tA gain fl the necessity of the Ceremonies
CHAP. L
7 hat our Oppofaes doe urge the Ceremonies m things necejfary.
Hislprove, i. from their pra&ife. i. from their Sect, h pleading. In their pra&ife, whofeethnot, rhac they would tie the people of God , to anecefliry of fubmitting their necks, to this heavy yoke of humane Ceremonies ? which are with more vehe- mency, forwardnes , and ftricknes urged , then the weighty matters of the Law of God, and the re- filling whereof is farre more inhibited, menaced, efpied, delated> aggravated, cenfu red, and punifhed, then Idolatry, Popery,Blafphe- my , Swearing , prophanation ofthc Sabbath* Murder, Adultery, &c. Both Preachers and People, have bcene, and are , Fyned, Con- fyned? Imprifoned, Banifhed, Cenfured, and Punifhed fo fevearly,, that we may well fay of them, thatvvhich our Divines fay of the Pa- pi fts, (a) Htecfaam'ventaDecalagoanteponunt, & Cravius eos muUarmt7 (a) P. Mm* qui eavhlarent , quamqui divma py<ecepta tranfgnderentur. Wherefore in, i . Reg. feeing they make not only as much, but more adoe , about thecon- 8..tie2im& troverted Ceremonies, then about the moll: necefTary things in Re- dtdic* ligion, their pra&ife herein makes it too too apparent, what neceflity they annexe to them*
And ifwe willhearkentothcir pleading, it tells no IefTe; for how- Seel, 1 1* beit they plead for the Ceremonies as things indifferent in their ownenature, yefwhen the Ceremonies are confidered. as the ordi- nances oftheChur h, they plcadefor them, as things ncce (la ty.MG, Votvitt inh'? confideration of the Arguments directed to the high C :of 5 liameht , in bsfcdfc of the Minifters fufpetided and de- prived*
2 That the Ceremonies Part. i.
[b)tAf}. prived, (b) hath thefe words: yea thefe particulars, Subfcription, Cerc- to the 1 6. monies, <$c. being impofed by the Church , and commanded by the Magifrate A'l . are neceffary to be obferved under thepaine offimie. The B lfho p of Edinburgh
refoives usconcernmg the neceiiity ot giving obedience to the La,.es {c) Epifl. to of the Church , enactedanent theCeremonies, thus (cj Whereaman the Taft. of hath not a Law , his judgment is th&rule of his confeience, but where there is a the Church of Law , the Law mutt be the rule. tAs for example t before that Aposlolicall Sc«tl. Canon that forbade to eate blood or ftrangled things , every man might have
done that which in his confeience he thought moft expedient, (2c . but after the ?nakjng and the publication of the Canon that enjoyned abftinence , the fame was to rule their confeiences . And therefore after that time , albeit a man had thought in bis owne private judgement, that to abjlaine from thefe things wot not expedient, tyc. yet in that cafe he ought not to have eaten , becaufe now the will of the Law and not the judgment of his owne mind, was tberuleof his confeience. The Archbifhop of SainSlandrews to the fame purpofe (d)Serm at fayetn.« In things indifferent, we mufialwayes ejleeme that to be beft and moft ttrth. *ffem. ftemty > which ftemeth fo in the eye of publike ^Authority , neither^ it forpri- infert h Dr. vate men t0 coni;yo^ePn^e judgment as they can not make publicise Conflitu- liniftl ' tlons ' f° ^:ey mal not contr°le mr dijfobey them, being once made , indeed Au- thority ought to lookj well to this , that itfrefcribe nothing but rightly , appoynt noRjtes nor Orders in the Church , but fuch as may fet forward godl'meffz and pietie , yet put the cafe that fame be otherwife eftablifhed, They muft be obeyed by fuch as are members of that Church , as long as they have the force of a Conjiitution, &c . But thou wilt fay, my confeience fuffers me not to obey > for I amperfuaded that fuch things are not right, nor wellappoynted. I anfwere thee, in matters of tim nature and quality the fentence of thy Superiors ought to dire3 thee, and that is a fuffcient ground to thy confeience for obeying. Thus we fee that they urge the Ceremonies , not only with aneceflity of [ejPraatc. pra(^1fej upon the outward man, but alfo withanecefllty of opinion, def. cup. 3 . Up0n the confeience , and that meerly becaufe of the Churches de- r-?' 20- termination and appoyntment. YeaDr Mortoune maketh kneeling ^)'( inthe a& of receiving the Communion, to be in fome fort necefTary hen. Lb in itfelf, forhe [e) maintaineth, that though it benotefTentially ne- i.c«/>.5§. petfaty as food, yetiris accidentally necefTary as Phyfkk. Nay,
6. & cap. fome 0f them arc yet more abfurde </)who plainly call the Cercmo-
7, tf, i .& 9, mornes neceflarv in themfelves befide the constitution of the Church. *?\'r*tr'j (£0 Others of them who confeffe theCeremonies to be not only un- \g)CaJJ*na. ncccfl*ary y but alfo inconvenient, doe notwithstanding plead for Anghc. pag. tjlem ag things necefTary. [b) Do&or Burges tells us, that fome of his 170. ii. fide think that Ceremonies are inconvenient, but withall, he difco- (n) anf. to vers to ll§ a drange miftery brought out of the unfearchabic deep- tksrepl.pref. neflfc of Lis pearcing conception , holding [i) that fuch things as ^*va4*' - not on^' arenotat all necefTary in themfelves,but are inconvenient
vJM-P'Sh too, may yet be urgedas neceffary.
Seel. III. The urging of thefe Ceremonies as necefTary , if there were no
more,
CHap. 2. AYcwojedatwceJpiyy&c. 5
more, is afufficient reafon for our refuting them. To the precepts of Cod (k ) faith Balduine , nothing* to be added.Deut \2. now Cod bath com- (k) decaf, manded theft things which are neceffaryjhe Rites of the Church are notncceffa- confc. ltb.4,. ry , whefore if the abrogation , or ufurpation of any B^te be urged as neceffary , *. 1 1 . caf 3 .- then is an addition made to thecommandement of God, which ts forbidden in the Word , and by conference it can not cbli?e me} neither foould any thing herein be yeeldedunio. Who can purge theie Ceremonies in controverlie aniongrt us of groiTefj perdition , fince they are urged as things ne- ceffary? But of this fuperftition wcfhall heare afterward in its pro- per place.
CHAP. II.
The reafon taken out of Aft. 15. to prove the neaffity
of the Ceremonies , becaufe of the Churches appoint*
went, confuted.
H E Bifhop of Edinbrugh, to prove that of neceffity our con- fciences muft be ruled by the will of the Law , and that it is neceffary that we give obedience to the fame, albeit our confeiences gainefay , alledgeth that Apoftolicall Canon AB. 15. (ij ubifupr* foranexample , juft ^BeUarmine (m) mainraineth , fefiorumobferva- [m)decu!t. tionem ex fe indifferent em ejfe , fed pofita lege fieri neceffariam. Hofpinian Sanely. 10. anfv\enng him, will aknowledge no necellity of the obfervation of (n) dt crig, Feafts, except Divine Law could be (hewed for it. So fay we, that/*/?. chrifr the Ceremonies, which areaknowledgedby Formalifts, tobcindif- tian. cap.i. ferent in themfelves , can not be made neceffary by the Law of the Church, neither doth that example of tie A poftolicall Canon make (o) Repl, ta any thing againft us , for according to (0) Mr. Sprints confefion, it theanf. was not ihe force or authority of the Canon , but the reafon and^jg. 258. ground whereupon the Canon was made, wrich caufed the neceflity (p) C*h. of abstaining , and to abftaine [p ) was neceffary for efhewing of com. inhuns Scandall,v\hecher the ApofHes and Elders hadenjoyneJ abftinence, locum. or not. The reafon then why the things prefcribed in that Canon, (q)deexam* are called nccelTary V*rf. 28. is not becaufe beeing indifferent before part. 1. dt the making and publication of the Canon: they became neceffary by bon. oper. vertueof rhe Canon after it was made, as the Bifhop teacheth, buc^*j. 180. quia tunccharitai exigebat , tit ilia fua libertatequi ex Gentibus conVerfi eranty (r) Synt . propter proximi edificationem inter judeos non uteremur, fed ab ea abfiinerent> part . % dtfp • (5) faith, CtarawH'tf. This law (r) laiih Hfm, was propter charit at em <s? vi- ij.thtfio. tandi offendiculi ncceffitatem ad tempos fancita. So that thefe things were (f) BeV. necefiary before the Canon was made, Neceffaria fuerunt (f) faith enerv torn. sAmes , antequam Apofioli quidquam de w/?atuerant} non abfolute , fed qua* 1 . lib. 3 • c. 7,
D tt>m
4 Thttt the Ceremonies <u they are urged Part, rj
tenus in 'tis chmtcu jubebat mourn gerere infirmis > ut C*jttanta not At. Qpgfnobrem (t)uhifu$ra (t) faith Tilen> cum charitits fimper fit coUnda }femper vitanda fcandaU. Charity thef. j I , is necejfary (u) faith Be%*> even in things which are in themfelves indi ferent .W hit (u) annot. they can alleadge for the neceflity oftheCeremonies/romiheautho- m Ad.15.rity and obligatory power of EcclefiafticallLawes, fhall beanfwered 2?. by and by.
CHAP. III.
Thai the Ceremonies thm impofed ani urged oa things m~
cejfary ^doe bereave us of our ChriHianltl?eYiie}firsl^
hecauje our praftife u adffricJed*
Sfi^tS Ho can blame us for /landing to the defence ofout Chriftiaij ^^&M liberty, which we ought to defend and pretend in rebus quibuf- SffltWk vis (x) faith Bucer ? fhail we bearethenameofChnftians , and ^y™'*"*' yet make no great account of the liberty which hath beene bought I cap , touSj bythedeareft drops of the precious bloud of the Sonne of • P ' ' God? Sumus empti {y) faith Vareus : non igiturnoftri juris utnos mancipemm ' ' kcminum fervith : Uenirn manifefia cum injuria redemptoru Chrifii fieret : fumm
j *.\ Iljfr hberti Chrifii. Magtfiratui autem (Y) faith Tilen , & "Ecclefm fupofiis , non nifi I ^V uf¥i2*darM obtemperandum , neauevllum cert amen aut periculum pro liber t at k
*' ' . ' Ji' perChrifium nobis part* defenfionedefugiexdumjfiquidcm mortem ipfius irritam fieri-, <)--cLlx> 1 ' Pau^ "IF™1 » fi fpvitualu firvitutis jugo , no; imphcari patiamur. (a) Let U4 ,; ' fi and fat! therefore in the liberty when with Chrift hath made u* free , and not be
■entangled againe-with the yoke of bondage. But that the u rgi ng of the Ce- remonies as neceiTary , tfoth take away our Chnftian liberty , I will make it evident in foure points. $c€t, II. Firft, they are impofed with a neccfliry of praclife. B. Sfotfwooi ij\iibi fupm (^)t'-lis usithat publike constitutions mud be obeyed,andthat pnvat men may not cUiTobey them , and thus is our pra&ife_ad{tri&ediri the ufe of things which are not at all neccflary , and'aknowledged gratis by the urgers to be indifferent, adftrifled [I (ay) tot. e one pare ic)tiomU. without liberty to thco;her, and 'that by the mere authority of a hu- I . wfy. man constitution, whereas C .hriftian liberty gives us freedome , both &dTit. forthe omidion, and for the obfervation of a thing indifferent , ex-
it .1) $09. cept feme other reafon doeadftricl & r eft-rain e it,then a bare humane Hheol.Hb. 6. conftitution. Ckryfoflome (peaking of fuca as are fubject to Bifhops, -£«/>. 38-. [c) faith, In potefiats pofitumtsiobodir: vtlpori. Liberty in things indiffe- (e) fnHHt rent [d) faith Amanda* Vchmis , eft per qmm Cbrifliani frmt hben inufuvel :hl. 3 i:\9.abftlncntiarzrumadiaph0rarum, Calvine freaking of our hbeny in things fid. 7. ., indirferentj (A faith, We may ens nunc ufurpare nunc omittere wdijfcrenter> \f) ibiC. 1 o. and places this If) liberty, tarn in abftimntio'quam mutendo. It is marked
of the
Chap. $• Ta{eaway Chrlflian Liberty^. 5
of the Rites of the auncient Church (g) that libera fuerunt horum (g)Cbem. RituumobferVationes in Ecclefia. A nd what mcaneth the A poftle while* 'x*m part. he faith, (b) Ifyee be dead with Chriff from the rudiments of the world , why 2« de rit in as though living in the world , are yee fubjetl to ordinances , {touch not , tafte a<t™- s^r. tiot , handle not , which all are to perifh with theufing) after the commands- P*l 3 $ ■ ments andDoBrines of men ? Sure he condemneih not only (i ) humana (h) Co1, z* decretadeRitibus, buc alio fubjedion and obedience to fuch ordinances \*'V*?j& of men, as takes from us liberty of pradife in the ufe of things indif- ($mr£ ' m' ferent , obedience (1 fay) for confeience of their ordinances merely, q j ' What meaneth alfo that place , 1 . Cor. 7. 23. Be not ye the ft wants of menflt forbids m (/0 faith Paybody to be the fervants of men, thatisinwic- (k) ^7 kfdor fuperjlitioui adions according to their perverfe commandements or de- part.$. c.i. fires, if he meane of actions that are wicked or fuperftitious in yi#. j# themfelves,then it folio weth that to be fubjed unto thofe ordinances, touchnot, tasie not 3 handle not, is not to be the fervants of men , becaufe thefe adions are not wicked and fuperftitious in themfelves Not tou- ching, not tafting , not handling are in themfelves indifferent. Bat 4f he meane of adions which are wicked and fuperftitious in refped of circumftances, then is hisreftndive gloffe fenfelefle , for we can ne- ver be the fervants of men , but in fuch wicked and fuperftitious adions, if there were no more but giving obedience to fuch ordi- , nances, asareimpofed with a necefluy upon us , and that merely for confeience of the ordinance , it is enouch to infed the adions with fuper ftition. Sunt hominum ferVt fa'uh(l)BuIlmger,qui alhpid in gratiam ho- {Vcomm. in. minum faciunt ■• This is nearer the truech, tor to tie our feivestothe 1 Cor. doing of any thing for the will or pleafureof men , when our con- 7. 2^. fciencecan find no other reafon for the doing of it, were indeed to make our lelves the fervants of men. Farre be it. then from us , to ftibmiDour necks to fuch a heavy yoke of humane precepts, as would overloaden and undoe us. Nay, we will ftedfaftly red ft fuch unchri- ftian Tyranny, asgoethabout tofpoile us of Chriftian Liberty , ta- king that for cer.aine , which we find in Cyprian, (m) periculofumesl (cr\)deh*reu In divinis rebus , utquiscedat jure fuo. B;pti%.
Two things are here replied, 1. That there is reafon for adftriding Sect. HI. of our pradife, in thefe things , ( n) becaufe weare commanded to (<n) £. Und% obey them that have the rule over us, and to fubmit our felves, Hebr. Epi8. to the 13.17. And to fubmit our felves to every ordinance of minfor pail', of the the Lords fake , 1 Pet, 2. 1 6. and {0) that except publickconftitutions Chunk of muft needs be obeyed, there can be no order , but all fhall be filled Scotl. with ftrife and contention. Anf, 1. As touching obedience to thefe (o) Spoif. that are fet over us,ifth?y meane not to[p) Tyrannize over the Lords Sermat Inheritance, andto(g) make theCommandements of God of ho ef- penh.ajjemb. fed by their Traditions, they muft give us leave to trie their precepts tp)'.P«M 3. by the fure rule of Gods Word , and when we finde that they require (v)hlk -7-9* of us any thing in the worfhip of God, which is euhcr againft or be-
D 2 fide
6 That the Cermonies as they are urged. Part, i •
fide bis written Worde, then modefty to refuie obedience , which is theon'yway for order, and fhunning of ftnfe and contention. Ic will be (aid againe,that except we prove the things commanded by thefe who are (et over us, to be unlawful! in themielves , v e can not be allowed to refute obed.ence to their ordinances, Anf. This unlaw- fulnefo of the Ceremonies in themielves , hathbeene proved by us already, oc (hall yet againe be proved in this Di'pute.But put the cafe they were lawfull in themielves , yet have we good reafon for refu- sing them . David thought the feedingofkit body was caufefufficient to breast the Law ofthefhewbread. Christ thought thefatisfying of the Difciples hunger; to be caufe fuffxient to breahe the Ceremony of the Sabbath-.He thought alfo, that the healing of the leapers bodies was a juft excufe to breake the Law that forbade the touching of them Much mere then mas wethinkjiow in our eftimatim, that the feeding of other mens foules, the fatisf\ing of our nwne confeiences, toghher with the confeiences of other men & the healvigofmens fuptrflition Cfpiritual (r)6fthe leprofie are caufes fuff.cient to breake the Law of the Ceremo?,ies w of the Croffe, Crcj]icap.\. which arenot Gods but mens [r] yiaith Parker i. As touching fabrroflion or feci 1 1 " fubjedion we tay wi h Dt.Fidd(s)that fubjeBion ^generally tyabfolutly re* (%) of the quired where obedience is not , and even when our consciences fufFer us Chhrch lib. not to obey , yet ftill wefubmit and fubjed our felves , and neither 4 c*P. 34. doenorfhali (l truft) fhewany the leaft contempt of Audority. £>eci. 1 V. Secondly , it is replied, that our Chriftian liberty is not taken away when pradife is retrained, bccaufecpnfcienceis ftill left free, (t) Apol. The Chriflian Liberty (t) faith Parody , is not taken away by the necejfny of part. \c\. dw>g a thing indifferent , or not doing , but only by that neceffity which taker faSl a. ' ft ' away the opinion or ferfuajion of its indijferency. So [u) faith Dr. Burgeffe, ■L,. vl/ that the Ceremonies in queflion are ordained to be ufed neceffarily , though the Vrt I i c }U(lgment concerning them, & immediate con fcience to God", be left free. Anf. r. ii tf " / w no doubts of (his that liberty of pradife may be reftrained in the &6. ufeof things which are in themielves indifferent ? butyet if the bare
( j ) M*nu- aLlC^ority °f an Ecclefiafticall Law , without any other reafon 5 then duStt-Ai tbewi'land pleafure of men , be made to reftraine pradife, then is (x)Ther' Chriftian Liberty taken away. (x)Iunhtt, ta'uh that exttrnumopusligatur theol de li- ^rom l^e u*e °* r^ngs indifferenc,wnen thcconf:ience is not bound; berv'chnfi ^ut m that iame place hefheweth/hatthe outward adion is bound & thef o re ftramed, only quo ufque circumjlantiaf ob qtias necefjitat imperata eft}fe ex* J* tendunt. So that it is not the auctority ot an £ccle(ialtjcall Law , but
the occaficn and ground of it , which adftrids ihe pradife ,when the confcicncc is left free. 2. When the audority ot the Churches con- ftitu'ion is obtruded to bind and reftrainethe pradife of Chriftians in the ufe of things ind.fTerent , they are bereaved of ih.ir Liberty as well as if an opinion of nccefiiry were borne in upon their con- feiences. Therefore we fee when the Apoftle, i.Cor. 7. gives Liberty of Manage, he doeth not only Idvcthe conscience free in its ludg- men: ofihe iawfullnefle of MariagCjbutallb give liberty of prad.fe,
to marry
Chapt.4* uke away (%rlflian Liberty 7
to marry or notto marry. And Coll i. 21. Whenhegivethinftanccs of fuch human ordinances as take away Christian Liberty , he faith not , you muff thinly that you may not touch, &c. but, touch not , cVc. tel- ling us , that when the pra£ti(e is restrained from touching, tafting, handling, by the ordinances of men , then is Chriftian liberty fpoy- led, though the confcience be left free. Camtro (peaking of the fervi- tudew^.ich is oppoed to Cbriftian liberty {y) faith, that it iseirher (y) Trel m unhnl fervitw, or corpora fervitus. Then if the outward man be brought Math. 1 B. in bondage, this makes up fpiri'uailt1 raldome , though there be no 7. tom.j. more. But, 3. The Ceremonies are impofed with an opinion of ne-/>. 340* ceflity upon the confcience it felf, for proof whereof, I proceed to the next point.
CHAP. IV.
That the Ceremonies take aft ay our chiJlUnlibeny pro- ved by afecoundreafon^ namely \Jbe 'c aufe confcience^ itfeifii bound and adjlri&ed*
tf* Ifhcp IfwJ/^hath told us ft) that thewill of the Law muft be $CQ. j# ' e rule of our confcience, o that confcience may not Iudge [z)ubi (upm otherwayesthen the Law determines, B. Spotfwood (a) will t3yHfo rupra have the fentence of Superiours to direcl the coutcience , and will have us to efteeme that to be. heft and moft feemly, which fcemetb fo to them. jB. xAndrewts (b) fpeaking of Ceremontes.not only will (b)Serm.of have every perlon inviolably to obferve the Rites and Cuftomes of thtwotfhip- hisowne Church , but alfo will have the ordinances about thofeRi- ytng cfima- tes, to be urged under the paineof Anathema. I know not what the gmattom. b nding of the confcience is , if this be not it. (c) tApoflolw gemendi (c)T*/.5y«fc partes relinquh 9 noncogmdi auBoritatem tribuit Miniflrx quibtts plebs non *mt 2 dtfp. rf«/c«/^f.Andlhaliihey who call themfelvcsihe A potties Succeffors, %jjhtf,%%, compell ,conftraine , andinthralethe confeiences cf the people of Go i ? Charles the 5. as popifh rs he was . (d) did promrfe to the Pro- /j ) t^#a»». teftants , Nullam vim ipforum confeientiis Ulatmn iri. A nd fhall a Po pifh fcffjjL 1 14] Prince fpeake more realbnablythenptotclbnt Pre'atsPButtomake pag, gZzt ityetmoreand plentifully appeare , howmiferably our Oppofires would inthraleour confeiences, I will here fhevv,i. What the binding of the confcience is, 2. How the Lawes of the Church may be faid to bind. 3. What is t^e judgment of Formal, fts touching the bin- ding power of Ecclefiafticali Lawes-
Concerning the firtt of the'e ' e will beir^wba- Dr. Tidd e) faith, SeGt. IT, To bind the confcience faith he , is to Bird the. foulc and (pint 0/ man , with (c) t>f the the fare of fuck punifhments (fo be irflitledby bimtljap fo b'lhdeth ) m the Church yUK
D$ fonfeieme 4.^. 3J0
3 Of the binding power Parr. r.
confeience feareth , that ti , as men fare, though none but God and themf elves he privie to thir doings , noiv theft are only fuch as God done iafiicdeth , &c . Tnisdslcnption i^loo imperfed, anddeferves to be correded. To bind the confeience isillam auHoritatem habere, ut confcientia illi fubjicere
(f) d'.tonfc. fefe dcbeat,itaut peccatum fit , fi contra illam qaidquam fiat if) faith Ames, lib. i .cap. i . 'Xhebindcr (g) faith P.erkines, is that thing whatfoever, which hath power and
(g) Treat, of auSiority over conference to ordir it. To bind, is to urget caufe , and confiraine it confe. cap. i. in every Action, either to accufe for fiane, or to excujefor well doing , or to Jav% feci. i. this may be done, or it may not be done . To bind the conference (/;) i'a i th Alfiedy (h) Thiol, eft ilium urgere ($ adigere ut vel txeufet (? accufet , vel indicet quid fieri aut (*f.cap,%. non fieri pojfit. Vponthefe ddenptions which have more trueth and
reaion inthem, I inferre, that whatsoever urges, or forces confeience
to a (Tent to a thing as lawfull, or a thing that ought to be done, or di(-
affent from a thing as unlawfull , or a thing which ought not to be
done , that is a binder of confeience, though it did not bind the fpi-
ritofa man with thefeareof fuch punifhments as God alone infli-
f\\ Amtf &e:h. For fecludingaUrefped of punifhment , and not confidering
LLfc j. whatwill follow the very oblipin^ of the confeience for the time ae conic. 1. 1. ,.. * rr r r j • r • °
cap x W a^ aJjenfm IS a binding of it.
Sed. III. Toaching the i. it is certaine, that humane Lawes> as they come
from men , and inrefpedof any force or a-idority which men can
give them, have no power to bind the confeience. Neque enimcumha-
(k) Infi.lib. minibus fedcumuno Deo negotium eft confejentiis nofirh , (kj faith Calvine.
4. cap. 10. Over oar foules and coniciences, nemini quicquam juris nifi Deo (/) faith
feci. 5* Tilen. From Hieromes diftin&ion, that a King protest nolentibus , but a
(\) Synt. Bilhop Volemibus, Marcus Antonius de Dominvs well concludeth (m) Vo*
part.i.iifp. hntibus gregi prceeffe, excludit omnem jurifdiclionem (f pot e fiat emimp era -
32. thef 4. tivamac coa&ivam, & folam fignificat diretlivam ubi viz. mlibertate fub-
(m)de Rep. &** e& & par ere & non par ere 3 it a ut qui pr we ft nihil hdeat quo nolentempa -
Eccl. I. 5. rere adigat ad parendum. Tnis point he proveth in that Chapter at
*.2. N. 12. length, where he difputteth both again ft temporall and fpirituall
' coadive Iurifdidion in the Church.lt it be demanded, to what pur-
pofeferveth then the enadingof Ecclefiadicall Lawes , fince they
have not in them any power to bind theconfeiente? I Anftvere. The
life and end for which Eccleuadicali Lawes doe ferve, is. 1. For the
plaine difcovery of fuch things as the Law of God or Nature doe
require of us, fothat Law which of it feir hath porver to binde, com-
meth from the Prieds and Minidersof the Lord, neither clu]ox.£$q-
{/K&g nor voftodiiticSg but declarative, Mai. 2. 7. 2. For declaring
to us what is fkteft in fuch things as are in their owne nature indlrTe -
rent, and neither inforeed by the Law of God nor Nature , & which
parte mould be folio.ved id ibefe things , as mod convenient. The
Lawe> of the Church then areappoin:ed to let us fee the neceflity
ofthefird kinde of things , &what is expedient in the other kin de of
things,
Chap. 4* *f Ecchfia$icall Ldton. *>
things, and therefore they are more propperly called Direaionr, In- ( . ftruttions, Admonitions, then Lawes. For I ipeakeof Ecclefiafti- ' ; ,"!? call Lawes^fd/ex, that is, as they are the conflict tiorsof men who \^'far' are fet over us, thus con(idered,they have only (n) Vim dirigendi & mo* >r/J'39' fiwtft Itis faid of the A potties , that they were conftitute (o) doBrma ( 7 ^Jf*' Cbrifli tcfics , non noV* dotlrin* legijlatcres. And tie fame may be faid amr ' %At Von of all the Mmifters of the Gofpell, when Difciphneis taken in with °fer^i}l9m DocVine.Heis no Nonconforming who (p) holdeth Ecclefiam inter- ^> ^arC' yh avert partes oratoris , feu legati obfecrantis & fuadentfi. And we may
fteriy fo named, much leffeflritlly b'mdir.g the confciencc , but for Hhreatnings , ***• e7« Admonitions, Counfels, and Directions only, and when there groweth a general £..*%!, neglect , *% /* »«* f o cow/m* f o rfa abolishing of them againe, for feeing , fox ^ */ '.£*' in{\huitur)Cumpromulgatur> vigor em habet , cum moribus utentium appro- Church"^ Vatur. i 4.^.34-
But as we havefeene in what refpec~t the Lawes of the Church doe $e#t jy^ not bind, let us now fee how they may be faid to binde. That which bindeth is not the Au&ority of the Church , nor any force which the Church can give to her Lawes. It mud be then fomewhat elfe which makeththem able to bind, when they bind at all, and that isip^atio Le- gs, thesHeafon of the Law, without which the Law it felf can not bind, and which hath the chiefeftand moft principall power of binding. (z)Animnd, An Ecclefiafticall Law (r) faith lunim^JiTU^c five depojitio, nonVert ^^^ontr. Ux eft , fed 2±lg,TU7r6dQg ant Canon, acproinde dirigit quidtm ut Canon agen* , '6tHota $7[ tern Voluntarie : non autem necefjitate cogit, ut Lex, etiam inVoluntarium quod (s)Synt.p, z, fi forte ante ace edit coa&io, ea non efl de natura Canonn fed aliunde pervenit. Difpm 27.* An Ecclefiafticall Canon (s) fakh Til en , duck Vol ent em , nontrahitno- far 39, lentem: quodfi accedat coaElio , ea Ecclejiajlici Canonn natura est prorfus (c\ inft ftfc aliena. Calvines Iudgment is, {t) that an Ecclelifticall Canon binds, 4/^ 1CK when maniftftamut Hit at em prxfe fert , and when either 73 vrfi'srov or /*#. 3 2. eharitatii ratio doih require, that we impofe a neceflity on our liberty. (u) dtcr. It binds not then by irs owne an&oritv in his mind. A nd what faith p*rt.i di&. t'^e Canon Law it felf? (« ) Sed fciendum eft quod Ecclcfiaflicce prohibi - 6l- c 8. thnes propria habent caufas, qnibus ceffantibus }affant £T ipfa. Hence I«- (v) ubi fu~ nius \x) (atth.t' at rhc Law binds not per fe , but only propter ordinem , pr*>*rt 2 j. charitatem, & cautionem fcandali Hence Ames/y) quamvtsad juftat leges {v)deccnfc. humane, juflo modo obfervandas , obligentur homines in confeientw futs s ./. i>cap 2. Deo • ipf<e tamen leges humana , qua funt leges hominum , non cbligaritcon* fcientiam. Hence Mflcd : [z) Lawet made by mm of things i;.diff< rent , [z)Tkeol. whit her they be chill orEcclefiaflicaU, doe bind the cafcin.c tin fo farreas cafuumc.i, they sigrce with Godsworde,ftrve for the publikegotd, maintain* oxder , and finally , take not away liberty of ccnfcience. Hc::lc ,. . . . ofelTors o: X-.fi-
io Of the binding poVter. Parr, i .
dm fay , (a) that Lawes bind nor prima & per ft , fid fecundario & per ( nN]5y»./>wr accident , that is [b) quatenus in illis lex aliqua Dei violatur. Hence 1 may tbsol difp, compare the conlticucions of the Church with refponfa juris confitltorum H.thef.i9> among the fymans tYth\ch obliged no man, nifiex<equo 0 bono faith
(b ) Amef. (c) Danceus. Hence it may be laid, that the Lawes or the Churchdoe "Bell tmrv. only bind Scandali <$ contemptus ratione, as (d) Hofpinian , and in cafe U- tom. \ .lib 3 . bert4S fiat cum fcandalo, as (e) Parous: for it were icandal!, not to give tap. 7. obedience to the Lawes ofthe Church , whenthey prescribe things
(c) depot, neceflary or expedient for the efhewing of fcandall , and it were thrift. Ub. 5. conrempr to refufe obedience to them , when we are not certainly cap. r. perfwaded of the unlawfullncfTe or inexpediency of the things pre- (d ) deorig. fcribed.
fefl. Chrifi. cap, 2. (e) Comm. in 1 Cor. 14. 40.
Se&. V. But out ofthe cafe of fcandall or contempt, Divines teach, that con- (fjTheftbeo! fcience is not bound by the Canon of the Church m ade about or- ie lib. Cbrift. der and polici e. Extra cafum fcandall & dejlinata? rebellions, propter com* thef. 1 1 . mune bonum, non peccatqui contra confl'itutiones ijlas feceritjmh (/) lunius. (g) Treat. of If a Law ( g ) faith Perkins concerning fome external Rj te or thing indijfe* confc cap z. rent, be at fome time, or upon fome occafion omitted y no offence given, nor con* feel. 8 . tempt fhetved to Ecclefiajlical Authority ttbere is no breach made in the confidence. (-)tbeol.caf. %Alfied his rule is {h) Leges bumana non obligant quando omit tipoffunt fine cap. 2. vnped'imento finis ob quern feruntur fine fcanaalo aliorum , O* fine contem- (\)Synt.part.ptu Legifiatoris. And Tilen teache:hus, that when the Church hath de- z.dtfp. 27. terminedihe mutable encumftances, intheworfhip of God, for pti- thefi 9. blike edi fication , [i)Privatorum confeientiii liberum est quandoque ijla omit* tere , modo offendicula Vitentur , nihilque ex contemptu Ecclefia ac Miniflerii publici petulanti KoufVolopLiot, vel KtVQ$o£iafacereVideamur. Seel:. VI. We deny not then that the Churches Canons about Rites which (k) Calv. ferve for publike order and edification, doe bind; We fay only,thac refp.adlibel. it is not [he Au&ority ofthe Church framing the Canon that binds, depiiviriof- bat the matter of the -Canon chieflly , warranted bv Gods Word. ficio, p. 4. 1 3 , (k) Scimus enim quoccunque ad decorum <$ ordinem pertinent , non habenda ejfe (l).Th. Bez. pro bumanit phcitis , quia divinitus approbantur. Therefore we thinke confejf. c. $.. .concerning liich Can ons,tbat they (I) are neceffary\to be obferVed fo farrt Art 1 8. Perk, forth only , as the keeping of them maintained decent order, and pnVcn- ubi f(4pra,& teth open offence. Meifner. Vhilofi fobr.part. $.fe3. 2. quefi. I 2.
Sed.yil. If any fay , that I derogate much from the Authority of the Church, when i doe nothing which fheeprefcribeth, except I fee it lawfull andexpedient ; becaufe I fhould doe this much for the exhor- tation and admonition ofa Brother. Anf.i. I give farre more reve- rence to the direction ofthe Church, then to thcadmonitionof a Brother,becaufe that is Minifteriall,this fraternall: that (Omesfrom A udority, this only from Charity: that is Publike, this Privat : t'lac -is given by many ^his by one: And finally >the Chutch hath a calling
todi<
Chap^ Of Scckfufticdll LaVrefl n
to direct me in fome things, wherein a brother hath nor, 2. If it be ftill inftanced, that in the point of obedience, I doe no more for the Church then for any brother ,becaufe I am bound to doc that which is made evident to be lawfull and expedient, though a privat Chri- flian doe but exhort me to it, or,whether 1 be exhorted to it or not. For anfwereto this, I fay, that I will obey the directions of the Church in many things, rather then the directions of a brother; for in two things which are in themfelves indifferent, and none of them inexpedient, I will doe thatwhich the Church reqaire'h , though my brother fhould exhort me to the contrary. Butaliwayes I hold me at this fure ground, that I am never bound in confeienceto obey the ordinances of the Church , except they be evidently lawfull & expedient. This is that, fine quo non obligant ,and alfo that which doeth chiefly binde, though it be not the only thing which bindeth. Now for making the matter moreplaiue, we rnuftconfider, that the con- stitutions of the Churchjare either lawfull, orunlawfull : if unlaw- ful!, they bind not at all: if lawfull, they are either concerning things neceffary as *A£i. 15. 28. andthen the neceflity of the things doeth tind , whether the Church ordaine them or not ; or elfe concerning things indifferent 3 as when the Church ordaineth , that in greac Tovvnes there fhail be Sermon on fuch ajday of the wecke,& publiks prayers every day at fuch an houre,here it is not the bare Auctority of the Church that bindeth , without refpe&to the lawfulIneiTe or expediency of the thing it felfe which is ordained, (elfe we were bound to doe every thingwhich the Church ordaines , were itnevee fo unlawfull, for quod competit aliemqua tally competit omni tali. We be- hold the Au&onty of ihe Church making lawes , as well in unlaw- full ordinances as in lawfull : ) nor yet is it the lawfuUnefle or expe- diency of the thing it felf, without refpeci to the ordinance of the Church, (for poffibly other times and diets were as lawfull, and ex- pedient too, for fuch exercifes , as thofe ordained by the Church: ) but it is the Auclority of the Church prefcribing a thing Liwfull or expedient. In fuch a cafe then neither doeth the Au&ority of the Curch binde, except the thing be lawfull and expedient , nor doeth the lawfulnefTe & expediency of the thing binde, except the Church ordaine it, but both thefc joy ntly doe binde.
I come now to examine what is the judgment of Formalists, touch- Sect, VIII. ing the binding of the confeience by Ecclefiafticall Lawes. Dr. Fidd , {h) faith , that the queftion fhou'd not be propofed , whether (h) of the humane lawes doe binde the confcience.but, Whether binding the out- Church I. 4. ward man to the performance of outward things , by force and feare of out' cap. 33. ward punijhment to be inf.iB.edby mm , the not performance of fuch things or the not performance of themwith fuch ajfe&ions <u were fit , be not afinne agaxnefi Godt of which the confeience willaccufe us,§Lc. Vnto this queition tnus ptopoied , and underltood of humane Lawes , and where no
A E more
ii Of tht binding power Part. I.
more is confidered, as giving them power to binde, but only the Au- ftcrity of thofe who make them; fome Formalifts doe give(as I will fhe.v, ) and all of them (being well advifedjmuit give an affirmative {\)ds Pont, anfwcjre. And I pray what did (i) BeUtrmme lav more, when exprcf- Rom. Wo. 4. finghow conlcience is fubje&to humane Auclority , hecaughtjthat cap. zo, conlcience belongeth ad humanum forum , quatenns homo ex prtceptoita obli- g.iturad op'44 txurnum faciendum , ut finon facial , juitcat ipfe inconfcientU fu* fi mzle fiare, & hoc fujfick ad confcismtam obltg.indam f bu: to proceede par- tial lady. SecV IX. I begmne with Fitli himfelfe,whofe refolution of the queftion pro- {k) ubi pofed, is , (k) tha: we are bound only to give obedience to fuch hu- fupra. mane Lawes as prefcribe things profitable , not for that humane
laves have power to binde the conlcience, but becaufe the things they command are of that nature, that not to perform e them, is con- trary to Iufticeor Charity. Whereupon he concludcch out ofStaplc- ftfr,that we are bound tothe performance of things prefenbed by hu- mane Lawes, in fuch fort, that the not perrormance of them is finne, not ex foU Itgiflatorisvoluntate , fed ex ipfa legum utihtate. Let all fuch as be of this mans mind, not blame us , for denying of obedience to the conftitutions about the Ceremonies, fince we find (for certaine) no utility, but by the contrary much inconveniency in them. If they fay, thai we muftthinke thofe lawes to be profitable or convenient, which they, who are fetover u?,thinketo be fo , then they know not what they fay : for, exeemmg confidence from being bound by hu- mane lawes in one thing , they would have it bound by them in ano- ther thing. If confeience muft needs judge that to be profitable,, which feemeth fo to thefe that are fet over us , then ( fure ) is power given to them for binding the conlcience fo ftraitiy , chat it may not judge otherwife then they judge , and force is placed in their bare Au&oruy , for neceflitating andconftraining the aflenting judge- ment of confeience. Sect. X. Some man perhaps will fay, that we are bound to obey the lawes made about the Ccremonies,thoughnotfor the fole will of the Lav- makers, nor yet for any'.utility of the lawes themfelves, yet for this realon , that fcandall and contempt would follow in cafe we doe otherwife. Anf We know that humane Lawes doe bind in the cafe of fcandall or contemor. But that Non-conformity is neither fcan- (m ) efthe da'l nor contempt, Parlor [m) hath made it mofteviden:. For as tou* Crojicx?.]. ching contempt, hefheweth our of Fathers, Councells , Canon law, Stti.14.154 Schoolmen , andmoderne Divines , that no* obtdirt \s not contempt, bui nolle ob:din , or [upirbiindore^ugmn. Yea, out of Formalifts them- felves, hefheweth the difference betwixt fubjection and obedience,. Thereafter he plcadeth thus , and we with him : Wfcj* fym fee mm i* ui of pride *ndc&mtem?t?\\"oit b: our cetera opera tbatbuvnv fuch an humour ? Ut it hi mmid wherein vvU got not two my!e,vv!oen wee arc commanded to got
*% ha
C hapt« 4 . of Ecckfiajlicall Lawes. 13
hut one, yea wherein weegoe not as many myles,as any fbooe of the preparation of the Go f pell will bean us f What payment, what p'aine, what labour, what ta- xation made us ever to murmur e «* Survey our charges where we haVc laboured, if they be not found to be of the faith fallesl fubjecls that be in the Land , we deferve no favour. Nay, there #, wherein we flretch our confeiences to the utter - moH to conformed to obey in diver fe matters. Are we refraBary in other things as Balaams affe faid to his Mafler? have 1 ufed to ftrve theefo at other tymes ? And as touching icandali, he fheweth h'rft , that by our not confor- ming, we doe not fcandalize Supenours , but edify them , although it may be wedifpleafe them, of which we are forry, even asloab d 1 1 - pleafed David, when he contefted a^ainft the Dum bring of the peo- ple, yet did he not fcandalize David, but edify him. And fecoundly, whereas it might be ailed ged, that Non-conformity doeih fcandalize the people, before whom it foundeth as it were an aliarum ofdifobe- dience, we rephe with him ? Daniel will not omit the Ceremony of looking out at the Window towards Ierufalem. Mordecai omitteth the Ceremony of homing the knee to Haman- Chrifiwill not ufe the Ceremony of wafhing hands , though a tradition of the Elders and GoVernours of the Church then being. The auBority of the Magiflrate was violated by thefe , and an incitement to dif obe- dience was in their Ceremoniall breach, as much as there fs now in ours.
But fome of our Oppofites goe about to derive the obligatory Seel:. XL power of the Churches Lawes , not fo much from the utility of the Lwaes themfelves , or from any fcandall which fhould foilow upon the not obeying of them , as from the Churches owne Auctority, which maketh them, (w) Camero fpeakethof two forts of Ecclcfia- {n)pr*L flicall Lawes, 1. Such as prefenbe things frivolous or unjuft, mea- torn, i.de ningfuch things as (though they neither derracl: anything from poteH'.eccl. the glory of God, nor caufe any damnageto ournighbour, yetjbring contr. 2. fome detriment to our felves. 2. Such as prefenbe things belon- pag, 371. ging to order and fhunning of fcandall. Touching the former , he teacheth rightly , that confeience is never bound to the obedience of fuch Lawes, except only in the cafe of fcandall and contempt, and that if at any time fuch Lawes may be neglected and not obfer- ved, without fcandall given, or contempt fhevvcd.no mans eonfeience is holden with them. But touching the other forte of the Churches lawes, he faith , that they bind the confeience indirectly , not only refpeBu materia pr&cepti ( which doeth not at all obliege, except in re- fped: of the end whereuntoit is referred , namely, the confervingof order, and the not giving of fcandall ; ) but alfo refpeBu praciptentts, becaufe God will not have thofewhoare fctoverus in the Church to be contemned. Heforefawefbelike, ) that whereas it is pretended in behalfe of thofe JEcekfiafticall Lawes which injoyne thecontro- verted Ceremonies , that the things which they prefenbe percaine to order and to the fhunning of fcandall, and fo bind the confeience in- directly in refped of the end : one might anfweare j I am perfuaded
♦ E z upon
!4 Of the binding power Parr. i.
uoon evident grounds , that thofe prefcribed Ceremonies perrainc not to order , and to the (hunriing of fcandall , but to mifordcr, and to the giving of fcandall. Therefore he laboured to bindc inch a ones conference with another rie,wi:ich is the Auftority of the Law- makers. And this Auctority he would have oneto takers ground enough to believe, -hat that which the Church prefcriberh, dotth be- long to order and the (hunning of fcandall , and in that perfwafion. to doe it. Bur, i. How doth this Doctrine differ from that which (o) Ibid. (o) himfelfe fetreth downe as the opinion of -Papifts ,poJJe eos quipra* P*glb6* Imt Ee&fi*! cogere fi^les m id cn&an* Ve* faciam > quod ipfi judicaverim ? {p) Par. 2. It is wcllobfcived by our (p) Writers , that the A pottles never iom.in made things indifferent to be necefTary , except onely in refpeft of
Rom. 14. fcandall , "and -that out of the cafe of fcandall, they ftill left the con- M. 7. (ciences of men free, which Obfirvation they gather from *AB. 15. (q) ubi fu- & 1 Cor. 10. (q) Camero himfeUenotetb,that though the Church pre- praj. 372. fcribed abftmence from things facrificedto Ido s , yet the Apoftle would not have theFaithfull toabftaine for confciencefake , why then holdeth he, that befide the end of fhunning fcandall and kee- ping order, confeience is bound even by the Churches owne Au- thority? 3.Asforihe reafon whereby he would prove that the Chur- ches Lawes doe binde , evenrefpe8upy<eapienw, his forme of fpea- king is very bad:D<?/# (faith he) nonvult contemni pnepofitos Eccleji^nifi jufta & necejfaria de caufa. Where falfely he fuppoietb,not onely that there may occurre ajuftandneceffary caufe ofcontemningthofe whom God hath fet over us in the Church , but alfo,that the not obeying ofthem inferreth the contemning of them. Now>the not obeying of their Lawes , inferreth not the contemning of them - felves , (which w:ere not allowable) but onely the contemning of (rM»Dan. tne*r Lawes, And as {r ) Hi erometpczketh of Daniel, Et nuncDanielRe- 6. ' SP JuJTa contemnms , &c. So wee fav of all Superiours in generall > that we may fometimeshave juftreaibns for contemning their com- mandements,yet are we not to contemne,but to honour themfelves. But, 4. Let us take Cameros meaningto be, that God will not havens to refufe obedience , unto thofe who are fet over us in the Church : none of our Oppofitcs dare fry, that God will have us to obey thofe w'.io arc fet over us in the Church, in any other things, then fuch as may bee done both lawfully and conveniently for the (hunning of fcandall ; and if fo , then the Churches precept can not binde , ex- ccptas it is grounded upon fuch or fuchreafons. Sect, Xil ^' SpQtftvood , and B. Lindfej , in thofe words which I have here- tofore aiiedged out of them , are likewife of opinion , that the fo'e Will and Auctority of the Church,doeth binde the confeience to obedience. SpGtsivood will have us without more adoe,to eiteeme that to be beit and mod feemly, wh;ch feemeth fo in the eye of pii- blike Auctority, Is not diis to binde the Confeience bythe Chur- ches
Chap. 4. Of the Eccleftaftict/l LaVrcs. ij
ches bare Will and Aucloriry, when I muft needs conftraine Lite judgement of my conference , to bee conforaic to the Churches judgement , having no other reafon to move me hereunto, but the foie Will and Au&ority of the Church? Further, he will have us to obey even fuch things as Authority prefer ibeth not rightly, (that is fuch Rites as doe not let forwarde Godlines) and that becaufe they have ihe force of a Conftitution. He faith , that we fhould be di- rected by theientence of Superiours, cV take it as a fufHcient ground to ourConfcicnces for obeying. { f) BeliarrnineCpeakeih morerea- {{)depont, (bnably : leges hitman* mn obUgant fub j>ana mortis atern*, nifi quatenm Rem. Lb. 4. vioiationelegps human* offend it ur Dew. Lindfey think eth, that the will of cap. 20. the Law mult be the Rule ofonrconfeiences-, he faith not, the Rea- fon of the Law , but the Will of the Law. And when we talke with the chiefe of our Oppofites, they would binde us by folc Auclority , becaufe they can notdoe it by any reafon. But weearfyvcr out of ( . ,. - (p)Pareus , that the particular Lawes of the Church bindc not per fe, '^ *n~ or propter ipfum fpeciale mandatum pcclefi*. Patio : quia Ecclefia res adia- *ra' pboroinonjubet facere velomht ere propter fuum mandatum , fedtantum pro^ pter juftai mandandi caufas, ut funt confervatio ordinjf, v\tatio fcandali: qu* quamdiu non violantur , confekntias libera* relinquh.
Thus we have found.what power they give to their Canons about SecT. the Cercmonies,for binding of our confcienccs, 6c that a neceiliry, X I IJ. not of practice onely upon the outward man, but of opinion alfo upon the confcience,is impofed by the fole will of the Lawmakers. Wherefore , we pray God to open their eyes , that they may fee {u)com. fo their Ceremoniall Lawes, to be fubftantiall Tyrannies over the Con- 1 Pet. 5. fciences of Gods people. Andfor our felves, we ftand to the judge- 3. ment of founder Divines , and wee h old e with Luther, that (u)unum (x) Emhi- Dommum hab emus qui animas noftrasgubernat. With Hemmingius, that we rid. cfoff. j* are free a<b omnibus humanis pitibus , quantum quid em ad confcientiam atti- cap.. 14. net. With the ProfelTors or Leiden , that this is a part of the Liberty [y)Syn.pur% of all the Faithfull , that in things pertaining to Gods Worfhip , ah 1'mol. Difp9 etnni traditionum humanarum jugo libera* habeant confeientias- , cum folius 3 5 • Thf. Drift > res ad Religionem pertinent es pf*fcribere, 17, , . ■
CHAP. V.
7 hat the Ceremonies take away Qmfiian Liberty, proved by
a third reafon, viz. hcaufe they are urged upon fuch >
04 in their confeiences doe condemne them-**
^2ft§? ^ Chriftian Liberty bee taken away , by adftricVmg con- ^ ^ j« f||fS| fcience in any;, much more by adftn&ingjt in them who - 5 $M$Sl are fully peiiwaded of the uniawrulnefle of theihings in-
E 3 joynedj
i£ That the Ceremonies are tinjftfi'j prcjfecl Part. i.
joyned; yet thus are wee dealt with. B. Lindftj gives us to under- ftand, that after the making and publication of an Ecclcfiafticall Canon,about things of this narure.albeit a man in his owne private judgement thinke another thing more expedient then that which the Canon prefcribech, yet m that cafe his confeience muft be ru- led by the will of the Law , and not by his owne judgement. And B.Spotfivood , to fuch as object that their confeience will notfuffer them to obey , becaufe they are perfwaded that fuch things are not right, anfwereth; That the fentence of their Superiours ought to di- rect them, and make their confeience yeeld to obedience. Their words I have before tranicribed. By which it doeth manifeftly ap. peare, that they would beare dominion over our confeiences', not as Lords onely, by requiring the willing and readie afTent of our confeiences, to thofe things which are urged upon us by their fo!e Will and Au&oriiy, but even as Tyrants , not caring if they get fo much as conftrained obedience > and if by their Audority they can com pell confeience , to that which is contrary to the *zir^ood)op/ce> and full perfuafion which it hath conceived.
Sed II It will be faid, that our confeiences are in an error, and therefore
ought to be corrected by the fentence of Superiours , whofe Au- thority and will doeth binde us to receive and imbracethe Ceremo- nies, though our Confeiences doe condemne them. Anf. Giving and not granting that our confeiences doe erre in condemning theCe* remonies, yet fo long as they can not be otherwife perfwaded , the Ceremonies ought not to be urged upon us , for if we be made to doe that which our conkiences doe condemne , wee are made to z)com. in finne. Row. 14.23. It is an audacious contempt in (*) Calvines judge - ore. 14. ment, to doe anything repugnante confeientia. The learned Cafuilts 5, teach us , that an erring conicience , though non obligat , yet ligat $
though we be not obliged to doe that which it sprefcribeth , yec are we bound not to doe that which it condemneth. Quicquid fitrepu* gnante (f reclamante confeientia ipeccatum eft , etiamfi repugnantia ifta gra- ta) Theol. ™m errorem includat 5 laith {a) Alfted. Confeientia erronea obligat , fie in- e*f. iap.z. telligendo, quod faciens contra peccet (h) laith Hcmminghu. This holds ever (b) Etukir. true of an erring confeience about matters of fact, and cfpecially a- d*(f.i.cap'. k°ut things indifferent. If any fay, that hereby a necefllty of finning 7. * is laid on them, whofe Confeiences are in an error, lanfwer, that • fo long as a man keeps an erroneous confeience, a neceflity of fin- ning litfs on him , and chat through his owne fault. This necefllty ari - feth from this fuppofitron , that he retaine his erring confeience , and fo is not abfolute , becaufe he mould informe his confeience rightly, fo that he may both doe that" which he ought to doe, & doe it fo from the approbation of his confeience. If it be faid again, what
mould
i
Chap./, upon fuch as in their confeience s condemn e them* 17
fhould be done to them , who have not laid downc the error of con- science, but doe ftill rccaine the fame ? I anfwer , (c) eligatur id quod (c) Bald ds- tutiust? melius eft. If therefore the error ofconfeience be about weigh- confe. caf. ty and neceffary matters , then it is better to urge men to the doing lib. 1, cap A. of a neceffary duty in the fervice.of God >then to permit them to ne- glect the fame, becaufe their erring confeience difapproveth it : for example •, It is better to urge, a prophane man to conic and heare Gods Word , then to fufferhim to neglect the hearing of the fame > • becaufe 'his confeience all ovvcth him not toh'eare. But if the error ofconfeience be about unnccetTary things, or luch as are in them- fclves indifferent , then it is pars tutior t the futeft and fafeft part not to urge men, todoe that whichin theit confeiencesthey condemnc. Wherefore , fince the Ceremonies are not among the number of fuch necefTary things > as may not be omitted without the perill of Salvation ; the invincible difallowance of our confeiences , Chould xnake our Oppofltes notpreffe them upohus, becaufe , by pra&ifing. . them we could notbut finne, in that our confeiences judge them unlawfull. If any of our weake Bremerenthinke, that hemuftand fhould abftaine from the eating of fleih upon fome certaine day, though this thing bee in it felfe indifferent and not neceffary , yet (d) faith Balduin, he who is thus per fwaded in his conscience , if he fhould \y™£<>»fi. doe the contrarie Jinneth. caf. lib. 1.
Confeience then though erring , doeth ever bindein fuch forte , 5^3. jtj. that he who doeth againft his conlcience,finneth againft God. Which is alfo the Do&rine of (e) Thomas. But without any more adoe , it (e) \* 1+. is fufficiently confirmed from Scripture. For , was not their con- %.i$,art. ji fcience in an error, who thought they might notlawfully eate all forts of meat ? yet the Apoftle fheweth,that their confeience , as er- ring as it was , did fo bindc , that they were damned if they fhould eat fuch meate as they judged to be unclean, Bom 1 4. 1 4. 2 3 .The rea- fon wherefore an erring confeience bindeth in this kinde, is,(/) quo- (0 -Amf. i mam agens &c. Becaufe he who doeth any thing againft his confeience^ doeth it *e confc- "fo againft the Will of God 5 though not materially and truely , yet formally and I •£<*?• 4» by way of interpretation^ f or fomuch as that which confeience counfelleth or pre - fcribeth, it counfelleth it under the refpeB and account of the Will of God He who reproacheth fome private man , talqnghimtobethe Kjng^ is thought to have hurt not the private man , but the KJng him felfe So he that contemneth his confeience , contemneth God himfelfe, becaufe that which confeience coun- felleth or advifeth-iis taken tobeGods will. If 1 goe with certaine men upon fuch a courfe,as I judge and efteeme to be a treafonable con* fpiracy againft the King, (though it be not fo indeed) would not his Majefty ( if he knew fo much) and migh: he not juftly con- demne me , as a wicked Traitour ? But how much more will the King of Kings condemne me, if I pra&ife the Ceremonies , which
I judge
i S Tb.rt the CtYeinoniet are un)u$lj Part. 1 2
1 judge in my confeience to be contrary to the Will of God, and to robbe him of his royall prerogative?
CHAP. VI.
That the Ceremonies take away [hrijlian liberty 5 proved by a fourth rea/on, viz. becaufe they areprejjed upon m by naked Will and t^iutboritj , without giving any rea/on tofaiisfj our confeiences.
Se&. I. f|S|§l ^en l^e (g) A poftle forbiddeth us to be the fervants of men,
(g) i Cor. ggWB is it not his meaning, that wee mould doe nothing upon
7.23. w|$3 the mere will and pleafure of men , orpropter hominem&non
(h) M <*»«*/. propter Deum? as ( /? ) Becane thelefuite expoundeth it, iliuftraeing
iib.4. up. that w^ich he faith , by another place, Epb. 6.6. 7. (i) Chriftian fer-
4- vants thought i: an unworthy thing, to ferve wicked men , neither
(1) Zwch. yet tooke they well with the ferving of godly men, for that they were
com. inil- all Brethren inChrift. The A poftle anfwereth them , that they did
lum locum, not the will of man , becauieic was the will of man, but becaufe it
was the Will of God, and fo they fervedGod rather then man : im-
portingjthat it were indeed a grievous Yoke for any Chriftian , to
doe tie will of man , if he were not fure that it is according to the
Will of God. Should any Synode of the Church take more upon
(\r\ An them , then the Synod of the Apoitlesdid , who injoyned nothing
* ' t ■ ,l * at their owne pleafure, but (k) onely what they fhew to be neceflary,
nN p ; becaufe of the Law of Charity? Or mould Chviftians, who {I) ought
\h P • 4- not to be children .carried about with every wind , who (m) mould
( l\*uJ, k~ aD^c to mfcerne koth good and cviil , (n) in whom the Wcrd of
^m) ' God ought to dwell plentifully , who are (0) commanded to beware
r ^J^Jj of men , {p) not to believe every fpirit, (j) to prove all things, and
\nj Lou to(r) jud^e of all that is faid to them, mould they (I fay) be ufed as
f }\J I -flocks and ftones , not capable of realon, and therelore to be borne
fo, Math. jowne. by naked Will and Auclcriiy ? yet thus it fareth with us.
r \°\l7\ {f) ^' L'mtfc'J w*^ have tne will ofthe Lavvto rule curconfcien.es,
^p; 1 Ion. ^hjcb is by interpretation , SiCvolo ,Jic jubeo, Jit pro ratione Voluntas.
^ j* _ He gives us not the rcafon or equuy of the Law, bu: onely the will
%i%. C ' °f ir» to De °111' ru^e' W5* Spotswood will have us to be fo directed
(rj 1 Cor. by the fentenccof cur Supenours , that we take their fenter.ee as a
10. m. (urricient ground to ov.r confeiences for obeying. Which is fo
{C)nbifu- much as to fay, you mould not exarcinothc reai'on and utility of
pra. the Law, the fentenccof itis cnoughforyourtry no more when you
(i) ubifm-bcue the fentence of Superiours: [reft your confeiences upon this
priu as a
Chap. &• <tnd tynnnicaUj preyed upon us. 1 9
as a diffident ground: fcek no other, for their fentcnce rmift be o- beyed. And who among us knoweth not , how in the Aflembly of Perth, free rcafoning was (hut to the doore ,and all eares were filled with the dreadfuil pale of Audority ? There is this much chronicled ( ,
in(«) two Relations of the proceedings of the fame.howbeit other- Vy fn Wife very different. Thsy who did fue for a Reformation of Church *u<m**}*°* Difciphne in England, complained, (x) that they receaved no other "?'1^J? anfwer but this , there is a law , itrnuft bee obeyed , and after the fame . ' , «*> $ manner are we ufed,y et is this too hard dealing, in the judgement of m t,e ?ro7 (y) a Formalift , who faith , that the Church doeth not fo dealc with ** in&lu them whom Chrift hath redeemed ,ac finonpojfint capcre quid fitrcli- .3Wne J ghfum, quid minus, itaquc quce ab Eeclefia proficifaintur , admonitioncs pot'vu nm *' $ ' & hortationes did detent ,quam leges. And after he fa yes ofEcclelia- \t' l, fticall Audority, tenetur redder eprafcriptirationem. I graunt (*) faith y'. af * Paybodyjt is unlaw full to doe in Gods TVorfhip any thing, upon the metre plea- °* Cro»e jure of man. Chemnitins (a) taketh the Xndentine Fathers , for not ex- cfy * ' poundingWiottej- decreti. (b) lunins obferverh, thar in the Councell ofy * 1°' -' the Apoftles, mention was made of the reaibn of their decree. And ^'. Camtr' (c) a learned Hiftorician , obferveth of the auncient Councels , that ?J* ' "J?'1 ' therewere in theni reafonings, colloquies, difcuflfons, difputes, ?^'^ • yea, that whatfoever was done or fpoken, was called the ads of the c, ' y^l'J* Councell , and all was given unto all. Caeterum fai h (d) Danaix, quo- ^z' J - mam ut an TirtuUiamts in ^Apologetico , miqua lex eftqu* fe examinari non ?art' 3 * patitur ; non tarn vi cogere homines ad obfequium quam rationt per f nadir e c^n l\
ncgotw fie prof piciatur. fccclefiafticall Audority ihould pi- fenbe what it thinks fit , magis docendo , quam jubendo ; magis monendo , Pa&' 3 °* quam minando, asj(e) Auguflin ipeaketh. Non oportep vi vel ncceffitate con- (b) Am' firingere, fed rationed Vita exemplis fuadere, (/) faith Gregory Naqanzm , ^^d.tnBel, fpeaking of Ecclefiafticall Regiment. They therefore wno give ^"o-"** their Will for a Law? and their Audority for a Rcafon , and anfwer 4« caP- 1<S- all the Arguments of opponents, by bearing them downe with the \c)Htft- ?f force of a publike Con(titution,an'd the lodgement of Superiours , tbscounc. of to which theirs muft be conformed , doe {g) rule the Lords flocke ^rmt ^M* with force and with cruelm. (h) as Lords over Gods heritage. \ ^ ! Vo!zt-
J \i * C»ifl. lib.
5. cap. 3 . (c) Epifi. 64. ( f ) in apologet. fg) Ezech. 34.4. (h) 1 p^.5 .3.
A Iwayes. Cu\ce men give us no leave to trie their decrees and con- Sed. II. flitutions , that we may holde fad no more then is good \ God bee thanked , that we have (i) a warrant to doe it ( without their leave) (*) 1 ThcfT. from his owne Word. Nonnumeranda fujfragia, fed appendenda (k) faith ( A" \^'vn uAttgufiine. Oar Divines hold, that (I) all things which are propofrd 3£.m a*
(I) Qhcm. exam, pm I . de bon. cper. pag. F by 180.
(rr\)fy-4.pttr. thiol, difp. 49.thef.7t. {n)M^d. cent. i,Li, f.4 ^.4.4.3. (o)i**. fxrt.i.dift. li. cup 1 .
(?) A™
2. 2rf- 4.
147*^.4. (q)comm* in. 1 Cor. 10. 15. [\)com. in 1. Theft 5.21.
2 o That feftivdll dayes Part. 1 .
by the Minifters oftheChurch, {m) yea by Oecumenicall Couti- cels 3 fhould bee proved and examined; and that when the Guides of the Church doe inftitute any Ceremonies as neceflary for edifi- cation , yet (n) Ecclefia liberum habet judicium approbandi autrebrobandi eas. Nay, the [0) Canon law prcbicing todepane or fuervefrom the rules and difcipiine of the Roman Church , yec exceoteth difcretionem juftitice , and fo permitted! to doe orherwife then the Church pre- fcribeth, if it be done cum difcretione juftitice. The Schoolmen alfo give liberty to a private man, of proving the ftatutes of the Church, and neglecting the fame, if he fee caufe for doing (b , (p) Sicaufa fit evident , per fe ipfum licit e poteH homo jlatuti obfervantiam proetmre. if any be not able .0 examine & trie alt iiach things, debebant omnes pojfe, Da juffu : deficium ergo fua culpa , faith Pareus Si recle proband] facul- tatedejlhui nos fntimw ■> ab eodon fpiritu qui per prophet as fuos loquitur petenda eft, (r) faith Calvine. We will not then call an/ man Rabbi, nor jurare inVcrba magiflri > nor yet be Pythagorean difciples to the Church herfelf , but we will believe her , and obey her , in fofarre only, as (he is the pillar and ground of trueth.
CHAP. VII.
sea. I,
That fefl hall dayes takeaway our liberty which god hath given m proved : and fir 8 out of the Law.
Hat which hath becnefaid again ft all the controverted Ce- remonies in generall , I will* now inftance ofFeftivall dayes , in particular •, and prove both out of the Law and GofpelJ, that they take away our liberty which God hath given us,& which no humane power can take from us. Out of the Law, we frame this Ar- gument: If the Law of God permit us to worke all the fixe dayes of the wet k, the law of man can not inhi.biteus. But the Law of God doth permit us to worke all the fixe dayes of the week. Ergo. Our Oppofaesdeny not the auumprion,whichis plaine from the fourth commandemen 5 Sixt dayes fiialt thou, labour , &c. But they would have ibmcv'-.atto fay a gain ft rhe proportion, which we will heare. (s) Feci, pol, (s) Hool^r cells us , that thofe tilings that the Law of God leaves ar- fi&.J. n.71. bitrary and at liberty , arc fubjeft to the positive ordinances of men. This (I rhuft fay} is ftrange divinity, for if this were true,then might the Lawes of men prohibite Manage , becaufe it is left arbitrary , 1 Cor. 7. 36. Then might they aifo have dtfeharged the ApottlePaul to take wages, becaufe herein he was at liberty, i.Cor.o. 11. 12. 13. Se£t. II. Tilen lendeththe caufe another lift , and [t) nnfweareih,that no fo- (t) Var&f.ad ber man will fay , permiffimem Dei, principibm fuum circa res media* jm Scot. c. 16. 'mmi'
Chap. 7 i take way our liberty. 2. 1
imminuerey numenimob permiffum hominibus dominium involucres call, inp*fr6^* pi fees maris , <2 beftias agri 3 impia fuerint leges principum , quibtts aucup'iiy pifcationis , <$ Venations libertatem , fubditvs aim indulgent , aim adi - mum. Anf. That cafe and this are very different. For every par- ticular man hath not dominion and power overall Foulcs , Fifhes, 6c Beafts, (elfe, befide that Princes fhoald have no priviledge of inhi- biting the ufe of ihofe things , there fhould be no propriety of heri- tage, and poiTeflion among lubje&s:) but power overall t'.efc is gi- ven to mankinde. («) Parens obfervetb fiominem collective imelligi in that (\x)comm in place, Gen* 1 . 26. and (x) Junius obferveth, nomen Adam de fpecic effe in iUum locum telligendum. But each particular man, & not mankynd alone, is per (x) prdecl. mitted to labour fixe dayes. Wherefore it is plaine, that mans liberty ineundstn is not abridged in the other cafe , as in this, becaufe mankyndehath locum, dominion over thefe Creatures , when fome men only doeexerce the fame, as well as if all men did exerce it.
B. Lindfey his anfweare is no better , Viz. (y) That this liberty Seel:. III. which God hath given unto men for labour, is not abfolute butfub- (y) Vrot. in j eel: qnto order , For. 1.- what tyrannie is thereto great, fpoyling Perth. Af- m en wholly of their liberty, but this pretence agreeth to it? for by femb.part.$, order, he underftandeihthe constitutions of our Governours , as is pug. 13. cleare from his preceeding words , fo that this may be alleadged for a juft excufeof any tyrannie of Governours , (that men muft be fub- jed unto order, ) no lefle then for taking away from us the liberty of labouring fixe dayes. z. This anfweare is nothing elfe bur a begging of that which is in queftion , for the prefent queftion is , whether or nottheconftitutionsofour Gouvernours,may inhibiteus to labour all the fixe dayes of the week , and yet he faith no more, but that this liberty or labour mud be fubje&to order, i. e. to the constitu- tions of Governous. 3. Albeit we mould moft humbly fubjeel: our felves to our Governours , yet we may not fubmitour liberty to (\ them , which God hath gracioufly given us , becaufe, (z) we are for- 25\ °Z7' bidden to be the fervantsof men,or(4):obe intangled with the yoke (a)Gal.-j. :. of bondage.
Yet we muft heare what the Bifhop can foy a^ainft our propofi- Se&. IV. tion. (b) If under the Law(faith he) God did not fpoyle his people of liberty, {b)ubifupra when he appointed them to reft mo dayes at Pafche, one at V/hitfonday , O'c. how can the Kings Majefly and the Church, be ejleemedto fpoyle us of our li- berty•) that command a ceffation from labour on three dayes , &c. O horrible blafphemy .' O double deccitfulneiTei Elafph my : becaufe (o much power is afcribed to the. King and the Church over us , as God had overhispeople of old. God did juftly command his people under the Law to reft from laboure on other dayes befide the Sabbath, without wronging them , therefore the King and the Church may as juftly , and with doing as litlc wrong, command us to reft likel. wife: becaufe God by a Ceremoniali Law, didhinderhis people
F 2 from
2 1 *Th*t feftivall day a Part, r .
from the ufe of To much liberty , asthe Morall Law did give them; T. ereforc the King and the Church may doc io aifo. Deceit fulneffe, in that he faith, God did not fpoyle his people of liberty , &c. We know, that by appointing them to reft on ihoie dayes , God did not takeaway liberty from his people, fimply and absolutely 5 becauie fjfhey had nomore liberty then he did ai ow to them by his lawes, whxh he gave by the hand of Mofes , yet he did take away that liber- ty, which one part of his lawes did permit to them, Viz. The fourth: Com mandement of the Morall Law, which permitted them to la- bour fixe dayes. The B. knew, that this queftionin hand, hath notto doe with liberty in thegcnerall notion of it 3 but with liberty which the Morall Law doth permit. We fay then, that God tooke away from his people Ifraell, ib me of the liberty, which his morall Law permit- ted to them, becauie lie was the Lawgiver , and Lord of the Law, and that the King and the Church can not doe the like with us , be- caufethey are no more Lords over Gods Law, then the people who are fet under them. Seel V ^uc ^e ^atn yet more t0 ^sy again ft u?, 1/ the King ( faith he, )
may command a ccffathn from economic all and privat worses , for worlds civill and publike , fuch as the defence of the Crowns , the liberty of tin Country , O'c What reafon haVe ye , why he may not injoyne a day of cejfation from nil kjnde of bodily labour , for the honour of God an&exer- c'ffeof B^ligion) cxc. <Anf this kinde or reasoning is moft vitious , for three reipeds, I. Icfuppofeth,that he who may command a ceffa- tion from one kind of labour, upon one of the fixe dayes, may alfo com mand a ceiTation from all kind of labour, but there is a differen- ce: for the Law of God hath allowed us to labour fixe dayes of every week, which liberty no human powercan takefrom us. But we can not fay , that the law of God allowcth us fixe dayes of every week 3 to CXconomicall and private workes, ( for then we fhould never be boundto put our hands toa publike worke. ) Whence itcomroeth, that the Magiftrate hath power left him tocommanda neceiTarion fromfome labour, but nor from all. 2. The Bifhop reafoneth from a ceiTation from ordinary labour for extraordinary labour , to a ceiTation from ordinary labour for no labour: for they who ufe their weapons for the defence of theCrowne orhberty otthe Coun- try, doe not ceafe from labour, but only change ordinary labour into extraordinary , andpnvate labour into publike: Whereas our OppoiTtes pleade for a ce(Tation from all labour upon their holy dayes. 3. Heikippeihdegenereingenus : becauie the King may com- mand a ceiTation forcivni vvorkes , therefore he may command a holy reft for the excrcile of Religion , as if he had (o great power in Sacred as in Civill things. Se& VI. TieB ha:h yet a ttriddart to throw at us. If the Church (c) faith (c) ibid* he , hath power upon occafionall motives, to appoint, occafanall Fajls orFefii- ^£.2627.. yitiesy
Chap. 7. l*\ea$?<ty6uY liberty, iy
Viiies. may not face for Confiant and et email blefllngs, which doe infinitly ex- Cell all occafionall bcncfites, appoint ordinary times of commemoration or thanks* ghing Jnf. There are two rea(bns,for which rhe Church may and lhould appoint Falls or Feftivities upon occafionall motives, and neither of them agreethwith ordinary Feftivities. 1. Extraordina- ry Fa fts either for obtaining fomc great blefiing , or averting Tome great judgement, are neceftary meanes to beuiedin fuch cafes:like- wife,extraordinary Feftivities are neceftary teftiflcations of our thank, fulneffe for the benefits which we have impetrate by our extraordi- nary Fafbs; but ordinary Feftivities for eonftanc ck eternall bleflings, have no neceftary ufe. The celebration of fet Anniverf-iry daycsy is no necefTary meane forconferving the commemoration of the benefits of redemption, Becaufe wehave occafion , not only every Sabbath day , but every other day , to call to minde thefe benefites, ei'herin hearing, or reading, or medicating upon Gods Word. Dies Chri/io dicatos tollendos exifiimo judi coqu t faith [d Danaus : quotidienohi in (d) apud Evangelii prcedicationenafatur , circumciditur , moritur , refurgit Cbrifius , BaldJscaf. 2. God hath given his Church a generall precept for extraordinary confejtb. z. Fafts.IoeJ, 1. 14. and. 2. 15. as likewife for Extraordinary Feftivi- c. ii<caf,i. ties, to praife God , and to give him thanks in the publike aiTembly of his people, upon the occafionall motive of (ome great benefits which by the meanes of our faftingand praying y we have obtained, Xgchar. 8. 19.. with. 7. 3. If it be faid, tha-c there is a generall com- mand for fet Feftivities , becaufe there is a command for Preaching and hearing the Word, and for praifingGod for his benefices 3. and thatthere is- no precept for particular Fafts, more then for parti- cular Feftivities ? I anf. albeit there is a command for preaching Ss hearing the Word, and for praifing God for his benefits s,ye. is there no commnad ( no not in the moft generall generality,} for annexing thefe exercifes of religion to (et anniverfary dayes , more then to other dayes: whereas it is plaine, that there is a generall command for fading and humiliation, at fome times , more then at other times. And as for particularities, all the particular caufes , occafions , and times of fafting, could not be determined in Scripture, becaufe they are infinite, as(0 Camero faith , But all the particular caufes of fet fe. (^prtfeovti /tivities , and the number of the fame, migh have been eafily deter- 1. dt$ou mined in Scripture , fince they are not, not may not be infinite : for Eccl. the(/) Bijfhop himfelfeacknowledgeth , that to appoint a feftivali t$mr. 2. day for every week ; can not ftand with Charity , the infeparable {f)ubi fupn companion of piety. And albeit fo many were allowable, yet who pag. i6», fcerh not, how eafily the Scripture might have comprehended them, becaufe they are fet,conftant, and anniverfary times, obferved for permanent and continuing caufes, and not moveable or mutable, as Fafts which are appointedfor ocurring caufes, and therefore may !>c infinit.I conclude , that fince Gods Word hath given us a generall
E 3 com^
i4 V*k feftivall dayes Paru t .
command foe occafionali Fafts, and likewife particularly determi- ned fundry things, anentthe caufes , occafions, nature , and manet (gl Al- rije of Fading: we may well fay with (g) Cartwright, thatdayes of fading Rhetn. an- are appointed at fuch times and upon fitcb occafions , as the Scripture doeth not. on Gal. fet forth: wherein becaufethe Church commandeth nothing, but that which God 4.10. commandeth , the 'Religious obfervation of them , falleth unto the obedience of
the fourth Commandement, ai well in of the feVenth day it felfe. Seel:. VII. The (/;) Bifhop prefleth us with a fourth Argument , taken from (h) ubifupra the calling of people in greatTownes, from their ordinary labours pag 16.17. to Divine fervice. Which Argument {i) Tilen alfo beateth upon. (1) Pann ad Anf, There is huge difference betwixt the reft which is injoyned up- Scot c. 16. on annivetfary Feftivities, and the reft which is required, during the pag. 64. time of the weekly meetings for Divine Worfhip, For, i.VponFe- ftivalldayes, reft from labour is required all the day over , whereas upon the dayes of ordinary and weekly meetings , reft is required , onely during the time of publike Worfhip. 2. CefTation from la- bour for Prayers or Preaching on thofe appointed dayes of the week , at fome occafions may be omitted , bucthe reft , and comme- moration appointed by the Church to be precifely obierved upon (kyubifupra the anniversary Feftivall dayes , rnuft not be omitted, in the [k) Bi- tag. 25. fh°Ps judgment. 3. Men arc ftraitly commanded 5c compelledto reft from labour upon Holydayes , but to leave worke to come to the ordinary weekly meetings, they are only exhorted. And here I marke how the Bifhop contradið himfelfe: for in one place where his Antagonift maintaincth truly, that the Crafifman can not be lawfully commanded nor compelled to leave his worke, and to goe to publike Divine Service.excep: on the day that the Lord hath (an- (1) ibid. ct-ificd: {I) He replieth , if he may be lawfully commanded to ceafe from hn pa„ j - labour , during the time of divine ferVice , he may be ai lawfully compelled to obey the command. Who can give thele words any fence , or iee any thing in them laid againft his Antagoniftspofition , except he be ta- ken to fay , that the Craftman may be both commanded and com- pelled to leave his worke , & goe to Divine Service , ontheweek dayes appointed for the fame?Nay,he laboured to prove thus much out oftnecj. head of the firftbooke of Difcipline , which fan h : In great Townes ^we.thinkexpedient that every day there be either Sermon or com- monPrayers , dec. Where there is nothing of compulfion, or a for- cing command , only there is an exhortation. But ere the Bifhop ( m } ib':d. have (aid much, he forgetteth himfelfe , [m) and tel's us, that it were pag* if, againft Equity & Chanty , to adftrict the husband-man to leave his plough. To oft as the dayes of weekly preaching doe rcturnc, but that on the Feftivall dayes, reafonwould, that if he did not leave h:s plough willingly , by Auctorky he fhould be forced. Which place confirmeth this difference , which we give,betwixt reft on the holy- dayes, and reft at the times of weekly meeting.
CHAP.
Chap. 8. take away ow Liberty. if
CHAP. VIII.
That Fejiivall dayes take away our Chrijtian Liherty , f roved out of the (jofpell.
\ Y fecondc Argument , whereby I prove, that the impo- <;c& j _ | ting of the observation of Holy dayes , doth bereave us of IS^lJf our Liberty, I take out of t*o p'aces of the Apoftle : the one, Gal. 4. 1 o. Where he finds fault with the GaUtians, for obferving of dayes , and giveth them two reafons againft them: the one, Verf.3. They wereayoke of bondage which neither they nor their Fathers were able to beare : another Ver/ 9. They were weake and beggarly rudiments, notbefeeming the Chriftian Church , which is liberate from the Pedagogicall infnuction of the Ceremoniall Law. The other place is, Col. 2. 16. Where^the Apoftle will have the Coloflians, not to fuffer themfelves to be judged by any man in refped of an Holy day, i.e. to be condemned for not obferving a Holy-day? for, (n) judicarc hie fignificatculpce reum facers-, and (0) the meaning is: fuf- (n) Calv. fur not your lelvss to be condemned by thole falfe Apoftles, or by torn. in ilium any mortall man , in the caufe of meate, that is, for meate or drinke he. taken, or for any Holy-day, or any part of an Holy-day negledled. (o) Zancb* Two other reafons the A poftle giveth in this place, againft Feftivall com. ibid. day:s; one,Verf 17. What fnoutd we doe with the fhadow, when we have the body? another, verf. 20. Why fhouldwebe fubjecl: to hu- mane ordinances , fince through Chrift we are dead to them , and have nothing adoe with them i Now , by the fame reafons are our Holy-dayes to be condemned, as taking away Chriftian Liberty; and fo that which the Apoftle faith, doetn militate as well againft them , as againft any other Holy-dayps: for whereas it might bee thought, that the A poftle doeth nor condemne all Holy-dayes , be* * caufe both he permitteth otl ers to obferve dayes , 'Rom 14.5. And hehimfelfe alfo did obferve one of the IewifhFeafts, A£l. 18*11. It is eafily anfwered, that our Holy-dayes have no warrant from thefe places, except our Oppofites will lay, that they efteeme their Fe- ftivall dayes holier then other dayes , and that they obferve the Ie- wifh Festivities. Neither of which they doe ^knowledge ; and if they did , yet they mtift confider , that that whichthe Apoftle either faid or did hcreanent, is to be expounded and unde.tftcod of bea- ring with the weake Iewes, whom he permitted to efteeme one day above another, and for whofe caufe he did in his owne praclife,thus farreapplie himfelfeto-their infirmity at that time, when they could not poffibly be, as yet 5 fully and throughly inftrudted, concerning Chriftian Liberty , and the abrogation of the Ceremoniall Law, becaufe the Gofpell was as yet not fully propagated : and when the
Mofaicaii
z4 TbatFefthalldajcs Part. !•
Tvlofaicall Rites were like a dead man no: yet buried, as Augufi'mes
fimih runncs. So that all this can mak^ no:hing for Holy- a^yjs ,
afcer the full promulga:ion ofthe Gofpell , and after that the Iewifh
Ceremonies are not onely dead, butalfo buried , and fo , deadly to
be ufed by us. Henceitis, that the Apoftle will not beare with the
obferva;ion dayes in Chriftian Churches, who have knowneGod
as he fpeakes.
Se&. II. The defenders of Holy-dayes, anfwerto thefe places which we a!-
ledgeagainft them, that the Apoftle condemncth the obfervation
of ludaicall dayes , not of Ecclefiafticall dayes, which the Church
(p) Proc. in inftituteth for order and policy ; which evafion [f) B. Lindfey follow-
Terth.Af- eth fohard ,that he fticketh not to hold, that all the dayes whereof the
ftmb.pxrt, 3 Apoftle condemneth the obfervation , were ludaicall dayes prescribed in the Ce-
t>*gAh remoriia.il Law , dec. Andthisheis not contented to mamtainehim-
(clfc, bun he will needs father it upon his Antagonist , by fuch logick
forfooth, as can inferrc quidlibet ex quolibet. The Apoftle, comports
with the obfervation of dayes in the weake Iewes,who underftood
not the fullneiTe of the Chriftian Liberty , elpecially , fince thofc
dayes having had the honour to be once appointed byGodhim-
felfc , were to be honorably buried : but the iamc Apoftle reproves
the Galathians , who had attained to this liberty , and had once left
off the obfecvation of dayes. What ground of confequence can
warrant fuch an illation from thefe premises, ?s ths whichtheBi-
{hop formeth , namely . that all the dayes whereof the Apoftle condemned
the obfervation , were judaicall dayes: <2c.
Now for confutation of this forged expofition of thofe places of the- Apoftle, we fay, i. If all thedayes whereof the Apoftle con- demned the obfervation, were judaicall dayes prefcribed in the Ce- remonial! Law , then doe our Divines falfely interpret the Apoftles Words againft Popifh Holy-dayes, and the Papifts doe truly alledge, that their Holy-dayes are not condemned by the Apoftle. The Rhemifts affirme,7tfj tn^t the Apoftle condemned onely Iewifh dayes, but not Chnitian dayes ,and if) that we doe falfely interpret his words againft their Holy-dayes. (/) Carthwright anfwercth them .that if Paul condemned the obferving ofFeafts which God himfelfe inftituted , then much more doth he conJemne the obfer-
Sea.III.
(q) annot. on Col. 2.
1 6. (v) annot. on G^\. 4.
10. ( f) annott
ibid.
U)decult. fanci. cap,
10. f\l) de orig. fefl. Chrifl
CAJ) 2.
{x)de temp!,
&fi(l. tn
"Ericbirid. either he condemneth the observing ofth^ir dayes materuX'ntr or for -
ttntr. inter, malbcr, i. e. either he condemneth the obfervation ofthe fame Feafts
Evang.& which the Ievves obferved , or the obferving of them with fuch a
fcntif. meaning,
vation of Feafts of mans deviling. So {t)Beuarmine aJiedgeth > /o£//i ibi Afofiolum de judwum tantum feftti. lu) Hofpinian anfwering him , will have the Apoftles words to condemne the Chriftian Feafts , more then the judaicall. (x) Conradm Vorf\m reje£bth this pofiuion , yApoftolu nonmfiludaicum difcrimen dierum in N.T.fub latum effe docet , as an Popifh error. 2. If the Apoftle meane onely of judaicall dayes, either he condemneth the obierving ofth^ir dayes materuYntr
Chap. S. t*k* aty >aj our Liberty. 27
meaning, after fuch a manner, and for fuch an end, as the Iewes did- The former, our Oppofltes dare not hold, for then they fhouJd giant that he condemneth their owne EaJIcr and Pemecojl, becaufe thei'e two Feaftswere obferved by the Iewes. Nor yet can they hold them at the latter , for hecondemneth that observation ofdayes which had crept into the Church oiGolat'ia , which was nor Iewifh norTypi- call , feeing the Galatians , believing that Chnft was already come , could not keep them as figures of his com ming, as the Iewes did, but , » ,. . rather as memorialls that he was already come, faith (y) Cartivright . *J >'-/*' 1. If the Apoftles realons wherewith he impugnes the obiervacion "' * ofdayes, hold good againft our Holy-dayes.fowell as againft the Iewifh or Popiih dayes , then doeth he condemne thofe, no lefle then thefe. But: the Apoftles reafons agree to our Holy dayes. For, *. according to that reafon, Grf/4.3.they bring us under a Yoke of bondage. (*) Augufline complaining of fome Ceremonies, wherewith (2) Epijt. the Church in his time was bunhened, thought it altogether beft that 1 iB.adla* they fhould be cut off, etiamp fidei nonVideantur adverfari; quia rcligio - *umt. ncmquamChriftwliberam ejfe voluh , ferViWbm oneribm premunp. Yea, he thought this Yoke of iervitude greater bondage , and leffe tollera- blc , then the fervility of the Iewes, becaufe they were fubjed to the burthenesofthe Law of God ,and not to the preemptions of men. The Yoke and Bondage of Chriftians in refpect of Feafts , is hea- vier, then the Yoke of the Iewes , noronely for the multitude of them , but becaufe Chriftianorum Fefta , ab bommibut tantum , judaorum Vero a Deo fmrht inffhuta, fairh (a) Hofpinian. Have not we then rea- (a) de orig* fon to excUime againft our Holy-dayes , as a Yoke of bondage, ~£eft. Chnji. heavier then that of the Iewes, fonhat our Holy dayes are mens in- cap. 2. ventions , and fo were net theirs ? The other reafon, Gal. 4 ^.hoi- deth as good againft our Holy dayes. They are Rudimentall & Pe« dagogicall Elements, which befeemc not the Chriftian Church ? for as touching that which '(b) Tilmob):dc:h, that many intheChurch (b) Taw, of the New Teftament, are frill babes to be fed with raiike , it ma- adfeot. cap, kethas muchagainft the Apoftlc, as againftus, for by this reafon , *$• p. 66, he may as well throw backe the Apoftles ground or condemning Holy dayes among the Galatians , and fay, becaufe many ofthe Ga- latians were babes , therefore they had the moreneede cf thofe E- lements and F.udiments. The Apoftle , Gal. 4. 3„ comparcth the Church ofthe old Teftament , to an infant, and infinuateth, that in the dayes of the New Teftament, the infancy ofthe Church hath taken an end. And whereas it might be objected, that in the Church ofthe New Teftament there are many babes, and that the Apoftle himfelfe fpeaketh ofthe Corinthians & Hebmves as babes. It is ahfwe- red by 'c) Partus Non depaucts perfenis , fed de ftatu totius Ecdeji<e in- (c) com. m utigmdum eft quod htcdicitur. There were alio tome in the Church of Mum locum, the olde Teftament aduUifide farocs ; but in refpeft of the ftate of
G the
2 8 That Feflhad dayes Part. i.
f4)Lufc»7. the whole Church, (A) he who is leaft in theKingdomeof God , is 1<J» . greater then lohn Baptist Lex fa: h (e) Beza.yocatur elementa , quia Wk >V *;^'7:''•", Vf'ivf ruiimentis , DeusEcclcfiam fuam crudivit, poftea pleno cornu effudit -Gal. 43. SpjrjtumSan&wn tempore Evangelij. J That ccafon alio taken rrom the oppofitionof the fhadow and the body, Co/ 2.17. do.h miluate againfl: our Holy dayes: for the Apoftle there fpeaketh in the pre- lent time t^t onici: whereas the Iudaicail Rites were abohfhed, (£)com.in whereupon (/) Zanch'm noteth , that the Apoftle doth not fo much iUumloium. fpeake of things bypaft , as of the very nature of all Rites. Deficient ergo ipfos rum in fife, dixit eos mlaliud effequamumbram. If all Rites , then our Holy-dayes among the reft , ferve onely to adumbrate and fl-udow foorth fomeihing, and by confequence , are unprofitable and idle, when the fubftance it felfe is clearly fct before us 4. That rcafon , Col 2. 20. doth no lefle irrcfiftably infringe the Ordinances about our Holy-dayes, then about the Iewiflv,for, if mens Ordinan- ces about things once appointed by God himielrc, ought not to be obeyed , how much lefle Ihould the precepts of men be rcceaved about fuch things in Religion , as never had this honour to be Gods ordinances , when their mere Au&ority doth limit or adftrid us, in things which God hath made lawfullor free to us. Se&. IV. Thus we fee , ho a' the A pottles reafons hold good againft our Holy-dayes : let us fee next , what relpe&s of difference the B. can imagine ro evidence .wherefore the judaica.l dayes may bethought condemned by tl e Apoftle, and not ours. He devifeth a double rc- (%)ubi[u- fpeft: and fir ft (g) he tels us , that the Iewifhobfervation of dayes, pra pag.40. was to a typicall ufe, and whereas it is objected by us, that the con- vened Ie.ves did not obferve them as fhadowes of things to come , becaufe then they had denied Chnft: he anfA'ereth thus. Howbeit the concerted Icwes did not obferve the Jewijh dayes , as fhadowes of things to come, yet they might have obferved them, as memorials of bypaft temporal! and typicall bemfites, andforprefint temporal! bleffings, as the benefit e of their de- livery out of Egypt, and for the fruits of the earth, which ufi was alfo typicall. Anf. 1. This is his owne conjecture onely > therefore he himielfe propounded it doubtfully , for he dare not fay , they did obferve them as memorials, &c. but , they might have obferved : to which guefli'ig , if I reply , they might alfo not haue obferved them as memorials of thofc bypaft or prefent behefites , we fay as much againfl: him, and as truly , as he hath faid againft us. 2. His forme of reafoning is verv uncouth , for to prove , that the obfervation of dayes by the converted lew js was to a typicall ufe, he a'leadgeth , ih'it they might have obferved , &c. Thus proving a pofinon by a fuppofition.'o brave ! 3. There is no fence in his conjecture , for. h eyeelds.that they did not oblerve thofe dayes, as fhadowes of things tocome, andyethefaith, they might have obferved them as memo- rials of bypaft typical' bencfites; now they could not obferve thofe
dayes
C Lip. 8. **k* 4ty$ W Libert} * 1 9
dayes as memorials ofty pes, except they obfervcH them alfo , as fhadowint* forth the antitypes. Pentecofte [\uh (h)Da\>i>nartt,& ilia legis (U) com. in dat<e cdebratio Spiritus S.wSli miffionem ,<? legts in tabula cordium per eun- Col. 2. 1 7. dan Spiritum inferiptionem , adumbravh. Scenopegue feftum peregrination tiembommttpij per hoc mundi defertum ad calejlem patriam delineabrtt* 6V c. So that the Fcatt of Pentccoft , if it had beenobierved, as a memo- riall of the promulgation of the Law , could not but Pnadowe forth the fending of the holy Spirit into our hearts , to write the Law in them. And the Feaft of Tabernacles , if it had been obfcrved as a memoriall of the benefits, which Cod beftowed on his peop'e in the wildernefle, could not but fhadowe out Gods conducting of his cl il- dren, through the cours of their pilgrimage in this world, to the hea- venly Canaan. 4. U Feafts which were memorialsof temporall be- nefites , were for this reafon mifticall , then he muft graunt againft himlelfe , that much more are our Feafts mifticall, which are me- moriallsofSpirituallbenefites ,and confecrated to be holy fignesSc fymbols, for making us call to mindethe mifteries of our Redemp- tion. 5. Before this Dilpute take an end , we Hiall fee out of the beft learned among our Oppofites , («) that they obferve the Holy (') *nfr* dayes as mifticall , and more mifticall , then the 13. here defenbeth ?«"• 3- '» the Iewifh dayeS to have been , and fo we fhall fee the falfhood of tlx arg'°f that pretence , that they are obferved onely for order and policy % fvperftitio*, and not for miftcry. 6. If we would knowe the true reafon , which made the converted Iewes to obferve thofe dayes, it was not any mifticall life , but that which made them thinke themfelves obliged to other Mofaicall Rites ; even propter au&oritat&m UgU , faith (k) lu- (k)anim*il, runt: for albeit they could not be ignorant , that thefe Rites wefc *&&***&* fhadowes of things to come, and that the body was ofChrift, in idib.^.cap, whom , and in the vcrtueof whofe death , they d;d ftablifh their l6- mt* Faith , yet they did not at firft underftand , how fuch things as were 10- once appointed by God himfelfc , and given to his people, as ordi- nances to be keeped by them throughout their generations , could be alcogitheraboiifhed, and for this caufe, though they did condef- cendto a change ofthcufe and fignification of thofe Ceremonies , as being no more typicall ofthe Kingdome of Chrift, which they believed to be already come: yet ftill they held themfelves bound to the ufeof the things themfelves, asthmgs commanded by God.
Thus inuchmaybccoileaedfrom-48.ij.2i. Where L*»w give's (I) com. in a reafon , wherefore it was expedient, rhat the Gentiles fhohldob- itlumbcum ferve fomc of the Iewifh Rites for a time, as (l)Calvine, [m) Beta , (m) annot. and (n) lunw expound the place: His reafon is , becaufe the lew.s, ibid. being fo long accuftomed with the hearing of the Law ofMofes] (n)*nim*d. and fuch as did preach the fame , could not be made at firft to under- adBtll.contr. ftand, bow the ordinances which Gad gave to his people by the -hb^.cap hand of Mo/px, might be caft offand not regarded: which importeth 16. not*
G 2 as -ji.
5 © That FefiivMl dyes Part, r I
as much as I fay , namely , that the reafon wherefore' the conver- ted I ewes were to apt to be fcanda'ized by fuchas cared notfor the Ceremoniall Law, and held themfelves obliged to obferve the fame, was, becaufe they faw not how they could be exeemed from the or- dinances and ftaturesof the Law of Mo/cf with which they had been educated and accultomed. Sect- V. Refts the feconde refpecl of difference given by the B. Further,
(o) tibifu- (o) faith he , they did obferve them with opinion of neceffity, as things iriftitu- fm. ted by God for bit worfhip and their falvation, which fort of obfervation was
IcgalL Anf. i. Be it io: he can not hereupon inrerrc>that the Apoftle doth onely conde nne the obfervation of Iudaicall dayes, for he feet h nothing of obferving dayes with opinion ofneeefficy, but fimply andabfolutely he condemneththe obferving of dayes ,and hisrea- fons reflexe on our Holy-dayes , as well as the Iewifh. 2. Their opinion of neceffity , he either refers to the inftitution , which thefe dayes once had from God, or elfeto theufe which at that time they had for Gods Worfhip and their Salvation. That they obferved them with opinion of neceffity , as things v\hich had been irrftituted by God, it is moft likely: but that they obferved them with opinion of neceffity , as things neceffary for Gods Worfliip and their Salva- tion , is more then can be made good -, it is more probable , that they obferved them merely and fimply, for that they had the ho- nour to beinflitutedby God in his Law. For tofay,thatthey obfer- ved them to the fame ufe and end , for which God did inititute them,, is falfe; becaufe then they had obferved them as types and fhadowes of the comming of Chrift, and fto had denied Chrift. 3 . if the Apoftle condemne the obferving of dayes inftituted byGod , with opinion of neceffity , much more doeh he condemne the ob- ferving of dayes inftuuted by men, witl« fuch an opinion. And luch is the obfervation of dayes urged upon us. Though the B. pre- tend , that the obferving of our Ho-y-dayes is not iinpofed with opinion of necelfity, fhall we therefore thinke it is fo? Nay,Papifh (r) Bell, de doe alfo pretend, (p) that the obfervation of their Ceremonies is Zuchar. lib. not neceffary, nor the neglecting of them a mortall fmne-. I have 6. cat. 1 3 . proved heretofore out of our Oopofites their ownewordes, that the Ceremonies inqueftion , (and by conference Holy-dayes among the reft) are urged upon us with opinion of ueceffi.y , and as their words, (o their workes bewray thenv, for they urge the Ceremonies with fo exoibi:ant vchemency^and punifh refufers with fo exceffive 11: verity , as if they were the weightieft matters of the Law of God. Ye;: they would have us believe, th it they Ha Va but fober and mesne ih-jugh-.s oftbefe matters, asof circumftances determined for order
v a
■'$ j Prove b.
nd policy ouely : tuft like (if) a man whocafts firebrand's and ar-' j ,vei,and yet foithj A,m not I m iporce ? They wdl tell uj, that they
urge
I
Chap. 9 j take away our Lihevij. $ r
urge not the Ceremonies as neceflary in themfelves , butonely as
nccefTary in refpcd of the Churches determination, and becaufc
of the neceflity of obeying tl pfe, who are fee over us. But I pray,
is not this as much as the [r) Rhemifts fay, who place the neccdiiy (t)*nnot.on
of their Riresand obfervances, not in the nature of the things them- Math. 6*
felves, but in the Churches precept? ij.fecl. 5.
CHAP, IX,
Shewing the wea\najfe offome pretences ^hich our Opprfite^ ufe forHolj-dajes,
Ince it hath becne evinced by unanfwearable reafons , that Se£fc, L Holy-dayes,as now urged upon us, take away our Chriftian Wg&i liberty .1 will now pull offthem, the coat of fo me figge lea- ves wherewith they are trimmed up. Andfitft, I hope it will ap- peare, to how fmali purpofe (s)Dz VaVenanr would conciliate his rea- (^)com. m dersminde to allow of the Churches ordinances about Holy-dayes, Col.2.16., (peradventure becaufe he faw all that he had laid of that purpofe to betooinvalide proofc.) by fixe Cautions, whereby all fuperitiaon and abufe, which may enfue upon them, may be fhunned. For, what- foeverdoth manifestly indanger mens foules, being a thing not ne- cefTary in it felfe,at which they takeoccflaon of fuperftitiousabufe, fhould rather beremovedaltognher out ofthe way, then be fet about with a weak and eafily pene rab e hedge of fome quidditative Cau- tions, which the ruder fort doe alwayes, and the learned doe too oft, either not underftand or not remember. Now (f) B. L'mdfey confef- {t)uhifupm feth and puts it out of al! doubt , that when the fetnmes'of thefepJg. 7. Solemnities returric, fupcrftitious conceats aremoft pregnant in the heads of people;therefore it mu ft be the fafeftcourfero banifh rhofe dayes out ofthe Church, (Ince there is fo great hazard andnonecef- fity of retaining them.
What they can allcadgefor holy-dayes,from our duty to remem- ber the ineftim able benefits of our redemption , and to praife God (u) fupta for the fame, (V) harh been already anf* eared. And as touching* 7. feel. j>~ any expediency which ihcy imagine in Holy -dayes , we (hall fee to (tylwfr*. th ar (x) a feerward. ; p**t 1, c i,
"Kic ad of Penh A fTcmbly^lleadgerh the o -a&ife ofthe auncte.nt Sec*. I [. Church for warrant of Ho'.y -dayes, (7) and 7ihn alledgeih the jud- (y)P««w, gement of antiquity to the fame purpofe. Anf. The Fefln vines of ad Scot. cap. the Auncicnr Ci urlh can-not warrant ours , for, t. In the pureft 1 6 ^^g 6 5 . time:; ofthe Church 'here w *> no Law ro tie men to the obfervntion (z) Cm.i0 xjf Ho'y-diyes. Otfi'watutum'efi {$) fay the iAWinSes-bf jAAMttrge^^ &***£■
G 3. Jjiofto-i i£*.
3 * Our Oppoftes pretences* Part, i .
Jpoftohs & apofiolkos viros , neque de pa bate neque de aim quibufcunque fe - (i) Lb. 5. Jlivatibw legem aliquant conftituijfe. Socrates {a) reportcth , that men did cup ii. Ceklxat tne Fe.ul of £ A\tr' and other Feftivall dayes , Sicuti Volue*
(b) lib. 12. runty eyxonfuetudine quadam. Nicephoriu (5) faith , that mendidcelebut cap. 3 1. Feft 1 vities , ficuti cuique Vifum erat, in regionibus palfim ex confuetudine qua*
dam per tradhionem accepta adduBi. In which place, as the reader mil plainly perceave , heoppoie h tradition to an Evangeiicall or Apo-
(c) lib. 7. ftolicall ordinance, (c) Socmen tells us , that men were lefc to their sap. 19. ownc judgement about the keeping of Eaftcr, (d) Hierome faith of (d)i» Ga!. the Feafts, which theChurchin his time obferved, that they were/>ro
4# V/trietateregionum diver/a. (e) The firftwho eftabliftied a Law about
(e)Hofpin. any Feftivall day, is thought to have beene Pius 1. Bifhop of Itywe,
deorig fen. yet it is marked, that the Afiatican Do&ors , did not are much for
Chrifl p.71. tnis constitution of Pius. Iconclude with (/) Cartwright , thatthofe
{£)annot. Feafts of the Primitive Church cameby cuftome , andnot bycommande-
on Math. w*w^ ty ifc />*ee choice of men > andnotby conftraint. So that from thefe,
1 J. 9. no commendation arifeth to our Feafts , which are not only eftabli-
fhed by Lawes, but alfo impofed with luch necefTity and conftraint,
as fpoyleth us of our liberty; u The feftivall dayes obferved by the
Auncient Church, were not accounted more excellent then other
[g)ubifupra dayes: for faith {g) Hierome, non quod celebrior ft dies ilia qua convenimitsy
&c. But our feitivall dayes are made aim d'ubus celebriores yea are
{h)part. 3. taken to be holyer then other dayes , as I wd {h) afterwards
prove. Scd. III. Moreover,the Pro&ors for holy-dayes among usythinke to make advantage of the praclife of other reformed Churches, and the jud- gement of Moderne Divines. But we are to confider, 1. As they have rhc example of fome Cnurche? for them,fo we have the exam- ple of oiher Churches for us-, for the Church of Genevak in Savoy y and the Church of Strasburge in Germany did abolifh Feftivall daves , as (i) lo.Cfi.lv. (*) CaWine writ! eth. Ycajnhactota provincia aboliti fuerunt dies Fefti, epift.&reft. iaith he. The Church of Zurich in Helvetia did alio banifli them all edit. Gem v. away, as (i) BuU'mger writetnto Calvine. 2. The practife of the grea- *n. 1 61 7. teft part of the reformed Churches in obferving Hoty-dayes can col. 157. not com mend them in the Church of Scotland. 1. Becaufe fhe did (i) Ibid. fpue them out with fo great deteftation , that me is more bound to 138. abhorrcthem , then other Churches whi< h did not the like , and I
(k) ib coh may well apply to them that which(^)C4/v?we faith of the Ceremonies 119. of t he Interim , t o Valentinus Paccew. Vt concedam f&tidas ittdi fordes qui-
* bus purgata fuerunt vcftrae Ecclefice, in rebus mediis pojfe cenferi : earum ta - men refiitutio crime res media? 2. The Church of Scotland is tied yet with another bond, to hate Holy-dayes , of which other Churches are free ; for by a folemne oath fworneto the God of Heaven, fhe hath abjured all Aiuichriftian and Popifh Rites, and dedicating of dayes (\)parm c. particularly. When (i) Tilen would make anfweare to this Argument, 16.pa1.68. he
C hap» 9 / For holy dayes confuted* 5 $
J- e faith, that mens confciencesfhould not be fnared with rafh oaths, and fuperftitious vowes , and if that fuch bonds be laid on , they fhoulu be broken and fhaken of. What ? calls he this a fuperftitious vowt, which abjured all fuperftitionand fuperftitious Rites? or calls , he this a rafhoath , which upon fo fage and due deliberation , fo fe- rious advifment, fo pious intention, lb decent preparation, fo great humiliation, was religioufly,publikly,folemnely fworne throughout this Land, & that at the ftrait command of Auclority ? who is igno- rant of thefe things , except he be a ftrangerinour lfraetl? But fay the oath had been rafhe and temerarious , (hall it not therefore obli- ge Phis Iudgement is , it doth not. And fo thinks t\\Q(m)B. of Win- (m) Serm. chefler , who teacheth us , that if the oath be made rafhly, pxnitenda on Ier.4.2* promifjio non ptrficienda prafuwptio ; he had fa id better thus pamitenda pnefumptio, perfirienda promiffio. For was not that a very rafh oath which the Princes oflfratl did fweare to the Gibeonhes , not asking Counfell at the mouth ot the Lord? lof 9. 14. 15. 16. yet it bound both them , lof. 9. 19. and their poftenty fome hundreth yeares af- ter, i Sam. ii. 1 . if the matter then be lawfull , the oath binds, were it fworne never fo rafhly.
As touching the judgement of Divines , we fay, 1. many Di- Seel:. IV » vines diifalowe of Feftivall dayes , and wifh. the Church verefree of them. For the Belgike Churches in their Synod anno 1578. Wifhed, that the fixedayes might be wrought upon , and that the Lords day alone m;ght be celebrated. &n<\Luthtr in his book de bonuoperibus wifh* ed , that there were no Feaft dayes among Chriftians but the Lords day.This wifh oftheirs declarech plainly.that they allowed of noHo- ly day except the Lords day ;yer B Lindfey muft make a fafhion of fay- ing fomething for an anfwear.T/?/* wifh (n) (faith hejLutber&tbe Bel- gify Churches conceived, out of their mifcontentment at the number, corrupt (njubifu* tions , & fuperftitions , of the Fefiivall dayes befide the Lords dayt as ye doe, pra pag. 84. %Anf 1. Their wifh importethaumple and abfolute mifhkmg of all Feftiyall dayes befides the Lords day, and not of their number , and corruptions onely. i. It is well, that he acknowledged both them and us to have reafon ofmifcontentment at Holy- dayes, from their , '
corruptions and fuperftitions. The old Waldmfes alfo (0) (whofe \°) AWd- Do&rme was reftored and propagated by John Huffe, and Hierome of in ' chrono[* Prauge after fViJ4ijfe> and that with the congratulation ofthe Jhurch tefitHm'*tri~ of Constantinople) p) held , that they were to reft from labour upon *at*' no day , but upon the Lords day. Whereby it appeareth, that Ho- '?' ^**"j ly-dayes have had adverfaries before us. I finde , that they pervett * ^uf fome places which they aileadge againft us out otCalvine. (tfTilen Dt **' alleadgeth Calvin. In/?, l.i. c.8. tf.32. aknowledging alios quoque dies Dat7?ar , feftos prater Dominican, &c. I marvell,ho.v a judicious Reaacr could PaZ-7°7' imagine fucha thing to be in that place, for both in that and the fub- ' 9 * ****••
fequent"'1 ***
3 4 Oar Opp.Jltes pretences part. r .
fequent fe£lion , he isfpeaking cf the Lords day againft ihcAnabap- tijls , and if any man will thinke , that $. $2. he is (peaking of holy alfemblicsof Cririftians in the generail, yet he can fee nothing there of any Feftivall dayes bciide the Lords day dedicated to holy mee- \*)S'rm ** tings. There is another place of Calvme abufed by (r) Bi f hop Spot f- Pmfe. Af- wooci ^ antj ^ g Vindfey , taken out of one of his epiftles to Halierus : /C\ A* r ^kichl fTndein the volume before quoted, pag.i 36.1 3 7. that which ( jubi/H- they gripe to m this Epiftlc, is, thatG*/vwe,(peaking of theabroga- &*}*&• 03. tjon Gf Feftivall dayes in Geneva , faith , hoc tamen teflatum effevolo > fi mihi delata optio futjfet , quod nunc confiit mum */?, non fuiffe pro fenten* f \ %'J tm diftur.im. lAnf. That which made Calvme fay fo , was not any li* [t, tbta. king which he had to Feftivall dayes , for he (t) cals the abolishing *"%' x3°' of them ordo benecompofitm. But as himfelfe fheweth in the following Epiftle which beareth this title. Cat Miniflro Burinfx>> S. D. The reafon, why he durft fcarcely have fo determined, if his judgement had been required , was , becaufe he faw neither end nor remedy for the prevailing tumult of contention raifed about Feftivall dayes, and Jikely to impede the courfe of Reformation, therefore fovendce pacts Ftudio , he profeffeth , that he durft not make mention of the abroga- tion of thofe Holy-dayes. Becaufe he would have tolerated Ho- ly-dayes, becaufe he durft not at that time , and as the cafe then flood, have fpokenofthe abolifhing them, can it be hereupon con- cluded, that he allowed of them? No fure. But it is obfervable, how borh thefe Prelates pervert Calvins words. B. Spotftvood a Hedgeth his Worcis anent the abolifhing of thefe Feftivall dayes , thus: Ego nequt fuafor nequc impulfor fui, at que hoc tefiatumVolo ,Ji mihi delata opt to } Sec. Whereas he words in that Epiftle lie thus , ego tametfi neque fuafor nc* que impulfor fui , fie tamen accidifjenon mole fie ftro. Quod fi ffatum no- flr<e EccUfice .eque compertum haberes , non ditbitares meo judicio fubfcribere. Hoc tamen teflatum effe Volo , fi mihiddata oftio, e^c.The B. would have made his hearers believe, that Calvme win not content with the abolifkinr of the fe/livatt dayes > whereas his words certify the very contrary. B. Lvndfiy is as gro(fe in perverting the end of that Eriftle. Nectamen cficur homines adeo exefeerentur , fi libertate noslra utEcclejice edificatio poBidat utimur-i &c. from which words he concludes , that in Calv'mes judgement the obfervation and abrogation of tho'.e dayes , is in the power and liberty of the Church. But the reader will pcrccave, thai Calvine there fpeaketh only of the Churches liberty to abrogate Holy dayes, and no thing of her power to obferve them , for he is fnewingthat howbeit he durft not have given advifeto abolifhihem, if the decifion had been referred to him v yet they had no reafon for them who were off ended at the abolifliing of them in Geneva , be- caufe that Church had done no more thenfhc had power and liberty to doe for edification, 3. Other Teftimonies thev produce, which (u)jibifx' can not help them much. That which (u) B. Lindfey allcdgeth out of prap*g.9i> X^ncUus
Chap. 9. for holy dayes confuted; $$
%*nchi»sh\s confeflion.maketh him but fmall advantage, for though %anch'w there allowcth of the fan din cation offome Feftivall dayes, yet writing on .he fourth Commandement, heaknowledgeth that it is more agreeable to the firft inititution , and to the writings of the Apoftles,that one day of the week only be ian&ificd. Wha: meant thc{#) B. to fay, that this place is falsified & mutilated by his An- (x)ihid. tagonift ? who quotes it not to prove that ZgnchitK di (Tallowed of f<*£. 41. Feftivall dayes, but to prove that in %ancbvts his judgemenr,thefanc- tification of the Sabbath on'y,& no other day in the Week , agreetft beft with Divine and A poftolicaliinftitution : was there any need o aljedgemore of A^anchiui his words then concerned the point which he had to prove? {y) the B.alledgerhalfoa Teftimony out of Perkins (y) ibid, onGd. 4. 10. which makes him but very htlehclp : For albeit Per- pag. 9j« kins thought good, infomefortto excufethe obferving of dayes, in his owne mother Church of England, yet I find in that place, 1. He compiaineth that the greateft part reipe&s thofe Holy-dayes more then they fhould. 2. He alloweih only the obferving of dayes for orders fake, that men may come to the Church to heareGods Word : which refped will not be enough to the B. if there be not a folemnizing & celebrating of the memory of fome of Gods inefti- triable benefites, and a dedicating of the day to his end &pu:pofe. 3. He fai-h, that it is the priviledgeof Godto appoint an extraordi- nary day of reft : fo that he permittech not power to the Church, for appointing a fet, conftant, andanniveriary day of red: , for fuch a day becommeth an ordinary day of reft. '4. He preferreththe prattife of thofe Churches of the Proteftants , who doe not ob- ierve Holy-dayes , becaufe ( faith he ,) the Church in the Apoftles dayes, had no Holy-day befide the Lords day, and the fourth Commandement injoynes the labour of fixe dayes.
The B. meeteth with another anfweare in his Antagonift , which Se&. V. croffcth his Teftimonies, namely, that howfoever forrain Divines in their Epiftles and Councells, (pake fome times fparingly againft Holy-dayes, when their advife was fought of Churches newly rilen out of Popery and greatly diftreiTed,yet they never advifed a Church to refumc them , where they were removed. The (z) B. obje&cth {i)uiifi^r4 againft this aniweare , that Calvinc Epift. 5 1 . advifctbtbe Monbetgar- ?*£> S3. 4tm not to contend againft the Prince for not refummg (he fhould have lai d , for not receiving, if he had tranflated Calvines words faithfully) of all TeFtivaU dayes , but only fucb as fervednot to edification , and were fecn to he fupcrslhioits.iAnf 1 . Albeit he fpake fparingly againft Holy dayes, when he gave advice to that diftreded and lately reformed Church, Jeft the worke of Retormation fhould babe been letted , yet he did not allow Ho'y-daycs among them. Fot in (/^-another Eoi- (,\)Tc.C*lv* ftle written to them , he faith , De pulfu campanarum & diebm fiftx epifts&r>rp. it a fentwns , fermdti pot'r.is effe Vobti \m incptUi , quam fationem in col, 59:.
H . $1A
3 6 Ohy oppoftts pretences for holy dayes confuted. Part, i -
qua eftis a domino collocati deferendam, modo ne approbettf; modo etiam liberum Vobz fit reprtbendcre 3 qu* inde fcquentur fuperftitionts\ And this l.efetteth clown j tor one ot thci'e lu per Unions, quod dies a die difcmntur ; where alfohecondemneth both the oblerving of dayes to the honour of men as (upentitious , andtheobferving of them for ihe honour of God as jiidaicall. If holy dayes in Calvines judgement be fooirics; If he gave advyce not to approve them ; If he thought them occa- fions of (u perdition ; If he held it fuperftition todiitinguifh one day from another, or to efteeme one above another; If he call them Iu- caicall , though kepttothe honour of God ; judge then whatallo- tyancc they had from him. z . If the B. ftand to Calvin ts judgement in that place which he quotteth, hernuft alio* us to refufc fomeFe- ftivall dayes though injoyned by the Prince. In feftti ncn rccipundk cuticrem Vos effe conslantiorcs , fictamen ut non Utigetts dc quibuflibet Then h; allowed tnem to contend agarnfi fome Hoiy-daycs, though the Prince im poled them. 3. The Church of Scotland did remove Fefli- yail dayes in another manner, and bound hei ieife never to receave them , by another bond then ever the Monbdgard ens did; fothat ha,* viii.g other bonds lying upon us s then other Churches have, we are iomucti the more ftraitly obliged , neither to receave Holy -dayes , nor any other Antichri-. ftian and Popifh Ceremony;*
The
The feconde part,
Again ft the expediency of the Ceremonies.
chap, r,
AgdhH fome of our Oppojttes , who aknowkdge the inconve- niencji of the Ceremonies , and yet would Iwve ns yttld to them-*.
dBdyfei
H E Arcbbifhop ofSamclandrewes, now Lord Chan- Sc<3:. T. cellour forloothjpeaking ofthefyve Articles con- cluded at the pretended Aftemb'y cfPerth (a)iavh, (a)Scrm.at Tbeconveniency of them for our Church ps doubted of by P^rth Af~ many > but not without caufe , &c. novations in a Church femb«tofettt even in the f matte ft things are dangerous, tSfc. had it been by B.Undfey. in our \>owey to have diffwaded or declined them, most cer- tainly we wo uld 3 &c but now btingbrought to a neceflity , either of yedding , or di [obeying him whom for my felfe , ] bold it religion to offend, eVc. J>. Burgeffe [b] confeffeth , that fome of his fide think Si (b) mf t9 bdeeve, that the Ceremonies are inconvenient, and yet to be obCcr*tkere[I prtf, ved for peace and the Gofpels fake • And how many Formalifts let p«g. 43. us heare their hearty wifhes , that the Ceremonies had never beene brough: into our Church, becaufethey have troubled our peace, & occasioned great ftryOWhcn they are demanded why doe they yeeld rothem,fince they aknowiedge great inconven'ency in hem ? They anfvveare; left by their refufall, they fhould caft their coall to the fire, toecteitaineand increafedifcord, & left fhunningone inconvenien- cy, they fnould draw on a greater. A>. Sprint faith , {c} It may be gran* (r) rnl. ts ted, that offence znd hinder ance to edification , doe arife from tkofe our Cere- the anf monies, (d) He coofefleth alio , That the beft Divines wiihed them to pag, 2.70. be aboli[hed,as bee ing many wayes inconvenient. Notwithstanding, (d) Caf- hc h.ith writ:en a whole Tieatiie 3 of the necelfity of conformity iivfa*d angl'tn cafe of deprivation. p 46.
Bui let us understand , how he proveth, (e) [Rat fometiroes it r> Seel 1 1.
A a expe-( ) -bf 25.
t That/owe of our Oppofnes aknowkdgi Part. 2.'
expedient andnecetTary to conformc unto fuch burthenfome and beggarly Ceremonies, as are many wayes inconvenient , and oz- ff)ibid. ca^ons of fundry evill effe&s. His principall reafon is, (f) That tat 8 :^e Apoftles °y direction of the Holy Ghoft , and upon reafonsof
" common and perpetuall equity , did pra&ife themfelves, and caufed
others to practice , yea advifed and injoyned (as matters good and necefiary to be done) Ceremonies fo inconvenient and evill in ma- ny mairre and materiall re£pe£ts, as the Ceremonies injoyned and prefcribed in the Church of England arc fuppofedtobe ; whence he would have it to followe, that to fuffer deprivation for refufing to conformeto the Ceremonies of the Church of England, , is contra- ry to the do&rine and pra&ifeof the Apoftles. ZAnf. Thefelewifh, Ceremonies in the ufeand pra&ife of the Apoftles. were noways evill and inconvenient, ashimfelfe every where confefleth; whereas Mb'J b lneret"orc (g) hetels us ,that thofe Ceremonies were abufedtofu- * 10 /, pcrftition , were of mifticall figrnfication limpofed andobferved as parts of Gods worfhip, fwerving from the generall rules of Gods word , not profitable for order > decencie, and edification , offenfive many wayes, and infringing Chriftian liberty j he runnes at random all the while : for thefe things agree not to the lewifh Ceremonies , as they were rightly ufed by the Apoftles themfelves, and by others at their advife , but onely as they w:*re fuperftitioufly ufed with opi- nion of neceflity by the obftinatclewes, and by the falfe teachers , who impugned Chriftian liberty. So that all that can followe upon Mr. Sprints Argument, is this, That notwithftandingoftheevilsand inconveniences which follow upon certaine Ceremonies in the fu- perftitious abufc of them by others, yet if in our pra&ife they have a ncceiTary or expedient ufe, then (after the example of the Apoftles) we may well conforme unto rhem. Now all this commeth not neere the point , which Mr. Sprint undertaketh to prove, namely , That gra anting the controverted Ceremonies to be in our ufe and pra- dife of the fame , many wayes evill and inconvenient, yet to fiifrer deprivation for refufing to conforme to the fame, is contrary to the dodiine and praclifeof the Apoftles. Andastouchingthe compa- nion inftiruted bet,vixtour controverted Ceremonies, and thefe an- tiquated Ceremonies of the Iewes , pra&ifed and prefcribed by the Apoftles , after the afcenfion of Cbrift, and before the full promul- gation of the Gofpell , many evils there be in ours which could not be found in theirs. For, i.'Oars, have no ncceftary ufe and might well be fpared: Theirs, had a neceflfary ufe for avoiding of fcandall, Acis 15.28. 2. Oirs,prcd.ice manifold inconveniences (whereof we are to fpeake hereafter) in our ufe and pra&ife of the fame , which is prefcribed : Theirs , in the ufe and pradife of the fame , which was injoyned by the Apoftles , were moft expedient , for winning ofthe obftinat: Iewef>i Cor 0.20. &: for keepingof the weake;i Cor. 9.22.
And
Chap. i. the wcoKvenkncy of the Ceremonies. 3
And for teaching ihe right ufe of Chriftian liberty, to fuch as were ftrong in the faith, boih among the beleeving lew^s, and con- verted Gentiles , Rom. 4. &c. 1 Cor. 8. & 10. 3. Ours , are proven to be inrheir nature unlawfull : Theirs, were (during the forefaid fpace) in their nature indifferent , ~R*m 14.6. Gal. 6.15. 4. Ours, are impo- fed and obferved as parts of Gods Worfhip (which we will prove (h) afterward:) Theirs, not fo , for where reade we , that (during the (h) infra forefaid fpact) any holinciTe was placed in t'em by the Apoftles ? pun. 5. 5. Ours, have ccrtaine mifticall fignifications. Thcirs,notfo : for u chap. i. is no where to be read, that the Apoftles either practifed or prefcri- bed them as fignificative refemblances of any mi fiery of the King- dome of God. 6. Ours^make us (.hough unneceflarily) like umo I- dolaters in their Idolatrous actions: Theirs, not fo. 7- Ours, are im~ pofed with a necedity both ofpractife and opinion, even out of the cafeof fcandall : Theirs, not fo. 8. Ours, are preffed by naked will and Auctority: Theirs, by fuch fpeciall grounds of momentaneous reafon.as made the practife of the fame neceffary for a certaine time, whither the Apoftles had injoyned it or not. 9. Ours, are urged even upon fuch, as in their confeiences judge them to be unlawfulhTheirs, notfo. 10. Ours, have no better originall then humane and Ami- chriftian invention. Theirs, had their originall from Gods owns inftitution. 11. Ours , are the accurled monuments of Popifh Ido- latries be ejected with deteftation: Theirs, were the memorials of Mofaicall policy , to be buried with honour. 1 z. Oars, are preiTed by fuch pretended reafons , as make them ever and everywhere ne- ceffary. Theirs, by fuch reafons, as did onely conclude a neceifity ofufmg them at fometimes , and in fome places 13. Ours, are urged after the full promulgation of the Gofpell , and aknowledge- mentof Chriftian liberty: Theirs, before the lame. 14. Ours.are ur- ged with the carelefTe neglect of prefTing more neceffary duties;Theiis not fo. Thefe and other differences , betwixt the controverted ,and Iswifh Ceremonies, doe fo breake the backe of Mr. Sprints Argu- ment , that there is no healing of it againe.
His fecondereafon, whereby he goeth about to prove , the ne- Sect. III. ceflny of conforming to inconvenient Ceremonies in the cale of deprivation , {i) he taketh from this ground : That when two duties (i) ubi ft*- commanded c£ God , doe meet in one practife, fo as wc can not doe prapag> 24» them both , intMs cafe we muft performe the greatter du'y, and rVe- 2,8.
ect the leiTcr. Now, whereas hefaiih,when two duties doe meet, Sec.
e means not, that both.may be duties at once ,for then a manfhall be fo ftraitned , that he rrmft needs commit a finne , in that he mint needs omit one of the duties. But (is he explaineth himfelfe) heca!- leth them duties , being confidered apart.: as , to heare a Sermon at the Church on the Sabbath, and to tend a fickc perfon ready to die at home at the fame time, both are duties being confidered apart,
A a 3 but
I
4 dgainft ihcm Wbfi acknowledge the inconv:nic;icj Parr, 2 .
but meeting togiiher in oar practiie a: on: time , thc.e is buc one duty , be caufe the leflec worke bind* not for that prefent. Now he affumes jthic:he doctrine and cractifeof fufFering deprivation for refjfingto conforme to inconvenient Ceremonies, do.th caufe men to neglect greater duties , to pcrfor me the lefTer. For proofe where- of , he enhrgetha needlefle dil:ourfe , tending to prove , that prea- ching is a greater duty and of higher bond, then the duty of labou- ring unto fit Ceremonies , orof refufing inconvenient Ceremonies; which can not helpe his caufe. That which he had to prove , was , that not to fuffer deprivation for refuting of inconvenient Ceremc* nies , is a greater duty , then the refufing of inconvenient Ceremo- nies. But it will be laid, that to iufter deprivation for refufing of in- convenient Ceremonies ,doethcau(e men to neglect the preachiug of the Word , and that is a greater duty , then the refuting of incon- venient Ceremonies. <Anf. 1. Mr. Sprw himfelfe layeth downe one ground, which proveth the refufing of inconvenient Ceremonies to (k) ibid.p. be a greater duty , then the preaching of the Word : for (i) he hoi- 5 2. deth , that the lubttantiais of the feconde Table doe overrule the Ceremonials of the fir ft Table, according to that which God faith, (/; ibid. JiviJl have mercy and not facriftce, Math 12. 7. And (I) elfewhere he fag. 28. teachcth ;that to tend a fickeperfon ready to die, is a greater du:y, then the hearing of the Word. Now to praflife inconvenient and fcanda'ous Ceremonies, is to commit Soule-murther , and fo to breake one of the moft fubftantiall duties of the fecondTable. There- fore according to Mr, Sprints ovtne ground, the refufing of incon- venient and fcandalous Ceremonies is a greater dity/hen the prea- ching of the Word, which is but a Ceemoniallof the firft Table, and if the neglect of tending aficke perfonsbodyjbea greater finne, then to omit the hearing of many Sermons , rou.h more ro mur- cher t'-e foules of men by practicing inconvenient and fcandalous Ceremonies, isagreaer Untie then to omit the preaching of many Sermons , which is alltheomiflion ( if there beany ) of thofewho furTer deprivation for refuifing to conforme unto inconvenient Ce- remonies.But, 2. We denie,tbatthe fuffering ofdeprivation for refu- fingto conforme un:o inconvenientCeremonies, caufethmento ne- glect, or omit die duty of preaching. Neither hath M*, Sprint a Hed- ged any thing for procfe hereof , except that this duty of preaching can not be done vvith us ordinarily, as things doe ftand, if Minifters doe not conforme: for by order they arc to be deprived of their Mi- ni dry. Now v\ hat of all this ? for though by the opp: effing power of proud Prelats many are hindered from continuing in preaching, becauieof the r refuting inconvenient Ceremonies.ye: they them- felves, who fuffer deprivation for this caufe , can not be faid to nc- g ect or omit the duty of Preaching ; moft glad y would they
preach.,
Chap, i . of the Cenrncnies , and yet confcrme. j
preach , but are nor permitted -} And how can a man be faidtoomit or neglect that , which he wculd faine doe, but it lieih not in his po- ^erro get it done PAUthe ftremgh of Mt Sprints Argument lieth in this; That forafmuch as Minifters arc hindred irom preaching, if they doc not con forme , therefore their fu firing of deprivation for refuting conformity , deeth caufe them neglect the duty cf prea- ching. Which Argument, thatlmay deftroy itwithhs owne wea- pons, let us note, (w)thit he ailowtth a man (though net tofuffer \m) '^ deprivation yet) to iufFer any civill penalty or externall loffe , forf,62% lefufingof inconvenient Ceremonies commanded andinjoyned by the Magiftrare. Now, put the cafe, that for refuting inconvenient Ceremonies , I be fo fined , fpoiled , and oppreffed, that I can not have fufficient wordiy meanes for my felfeand them of my houf- hold ; hence 1 argue thus 5 [if Mr. Sprints Argument hold good} that forafmuch as I am by flrong violence hindered from providing for my felfe , and them of my houfhould , if 1 doe not conforme, therefore my fuffering of thole loflcs for refuting of conformity , doech caufe me to neglect the duty of providing for my felfe , and for them of my family , which neglect fhou Id make me worfe then an infidel!.
M'. Sprint nowaddetha third, proving, that to fuffer deprivation Sect. IV..' for refufing to conforme to the prefcribed Ceremonies , (howbeit {n)ibib-p, many wayes inconvenient , is contrary tothe royall law of love : ^3» v\hich helaboureth to evidence three wayes. Firft, he faith, thatto fuffer deprivation for refufing to conforme, doeth by abstaining from a thing in nature indifferent (fuch as our Ceremonies (faith he) are proved to be) needelelly deprive men of the ordinary meanes of their falvation,which is the preaching miniftery of the Word, &c. %Anf. i. That the controverted Ceremonies are in nature indiffe- rent, neither he, nor any of his fide hath yet proven : they fuppone , that they are indifferent , but they prove it not. 2. Wedeme , that the fufferino- of deprivation for refufing to conforme to the prefcri- bed Ceremonies , doth deprive men of the preaching of the Word. Neither faith Mr Sprint ought for proofe hereof, but that whicli we have already confuted , v/^. that as things doe ftand , all fuch as doe not conforme are to be deprived : whence itfolloweth onely , 1! at the injurv and violence of Prelaw j ('not the fuffering of depri- vation for refufing to conforme) depriveth men of the preaching , of the Word. Secondly , he faith , {0) that the doctrine and practife (°/M? &7* >, of fuffering deprivation for inconvenient Ceremonies , condem- ned both the Apoftolicall Churches, and all Churches fince their times, becaufe there hath been no Church, which hath not practi- fed inconvenient Ceremonies. Anf. Ic is molt falfe which he fanh, of the Apoitolicall Churches , for thoie Iewifh Ceremonies practt- fed bv them, were mod convenient, as vve have faid before. And as * for
6 dgxinft thsm who aknawkdge the inconveniency Part. 2.
for other Churches in afcer ages , fo many of tbcm as have pra&ifjd inconvenient Ceremonies, are not herein to be follow jd by us. Bet- (Djpag.6$. tergoe right with a few then errewith a multitude. Thirdly , (p) he 65?. 70. faith , Thac the differing of deprivation for refilling to conforme, brccdeth and producech fundrv fcandals. Firft faith l:c , It is theoc- cafion of fraternal! difcord. O egregious impudency ! who feeth not that the Ceremonies are the incendiary fparkles, from which the fire of contention hath its beeing and burning ? fo that conforming, (not refufing) is the furntming of fewell , and calling of fa?gets to the fire. Secondly hee alledgeth, that the furfering of deprivation for refilling to conforme , twofold more fcandahzeth the Papifttheu conformity, for he doe.h farre more infult to fee a godly Minifter thruft out , and with him ail the truth of God preffed, then to fee him vveare a Surplice, cVc. Thirdly he faith , it twofolde more fcanda- lizeth the Atheift, Libertine and Epicure, who by the painfull Mini- sters dcprivall , will triumph to fee a doore opened for him without refiftancc , to live in DrunkenneiTe , Whooredorce , Swearing , &c. Kow, for anfwer to his {econde and third pretenfes, we fay: 1 . Mr. Sprint implieth indirectly , that when non-conforming Minifters arc thruft our, Papifts, Atheifts 5 Libertines, and Epicures, exfpeft but fmall Oppofition from thole conforming Minifters who come in their rowm.es. OurOppofites have a fkilfull Procter (forfooth) of Mr. Sprint. And indeed if Papifts and Atheifts were fo affray ed of Conforrr.ifts, as of Non conformifts, they would not thus infult. 2. We muft diftinguifh betwixt deprivation and the fuffering of de- privation. Papifts miult indeed,that their alTuredfrinds the Prelates, are fopowerfull ,as to thruft out from the publike Miniftery , the- grcateft enemies of Popery. But as for the Minifters, their fuffering of themfelves to be thruft out,and deprived for refufing of Confor- mity , it is fo farre from giving to Papifts any matter of mfulting , that it will rather grieve them & gall them to the heart,tounderftad, that fundry powerfuil , painefull , and learned Minifters , are fo a- verfe from Popery, that before they conforme to any Ceremony of the fame, they will fufferfor refulall: and that their conftancy - and courage in fuffering for fuch a caufe, will confirme many Pto- fclfors.in the perfwafion of the trueth of their Doctrine , which they taught again ft conforming untoPopifh Ceremonies. But to goe on; Fourthly (faith he) it twofolde more fcandahzeth fiich a one , as doth truly fcare the name of God, who could be more contented, to injoy themeanesof his Faith and Salvation with a fmall inconve- niency of fome Ceremonies , which he gricveth at » then toloofehis Paftor, the Gofpell, and the ordinary meanesof his Faith and Salva- tion. Jnf. 1 . Mr Sprint luppofeth , thatfuch a one , as for no refpect whatfoever, would be contended with the praftiteof fome inconve- nient Ceremonies, doth not truly fearethe name of God. And who
is the
Chap; i. of the Ceremnies ,' and yet con forme. 7
is the Puritane now ? Is notMr. Sprint , who ftandeth in fuch a huge diftance from all who are of our mind, and (o farreprcfeneth him- feife and his followers to us, as if we did no' truly feare the name of God? Secondly , hefuppofen , that when Non-conforming Mi- nifters are thruftout, the ordinary meanes of Faith and Salvation are not difpenfed (to ths comfort and contentment of fuch as truly feare the name of God) by thofe conforming Minifters, who arc fur- rogate in their ftead. Which , how his fell owes will take with , let them Iooketo ir. 3. Forafmuch as the feare of God is to depart from cvill, therefore fuch a oneasdorh truly frare thename of God, info farre, as he dorh feare the name of God ,and qutewtt , he is fuch a one , will never take well with the praftife or inconvenient Cere- monies, which is not a parting from , but a cleaving unto eviil. 4. They , who truly feare the name of God , are indeed fcandalized by the Prelates their depriving of Minifters for refufing to con- forme: but by the Mmifters, their fuffering of deprivation for this caufe, they are not fcandalized , but edified. But fiftly faith Mr. Sprint , it offendeth the Magistrate, by provoking him (perfwaded andrefolvedas he isj to difgrace thefe otherwife welldcierving Mi- nifters, and to ftrike them with the Sword of Au&ority. Anf. Our refufali to conforme to inconvenient Ceremonies, beeinga necel- fary duty, iftheMagiftrate be provoked therewith ,we areblame- lefie; neither can it any otherwife provoke him to difgrace thofe vvelldeferving Minifters, then Mofesais feeking of liberty for Ifraell togoe and fetveGod according rohis will , provoked Pharaoh the more to opprefle them •, or then Chnfts preaching of the truth, and his abftaining from the fuperftitious Ceremonies of the Phariiees, provoked them to difgrace him ,and plot his hurt. Howbeit we are not ignorant , that the Magiftrate is not provoked by our refu- sing to con forme, except as it is mifreported, mifdeemed, andmif- conftru&cd to him by the falfe Calumnies of our Adverfaries: which becing fo, he is not incited by our deed,but by theirs.
Now fixtly faith Mr. Sprint , itunjuftly condemneth the Harmo- Seel. Y% nyof all true Churches that ever were Primitive, and Reformed, and all found Teachers of all times and places , whofe univerfall Do- ctrine it hath been, that conformity to inconvenient Ceremonies is neceftary, in cafe of deprivation. Anf. That the Ceremonies prac- tifed by the Apoftles and Apoftolike Churches were not inconve- nient, it hath been already (hewed. That fince their times, fundry Churches both auncient and reformed have pra&ifed inconvenient Ceremonies, we denienot: yet (i) Mr. tyrcVtt him felfe will not defend a. \pa„ g% all the pra&ifes of tl;ofe Churcnes , whofe pra&ife he alledgeth a- «-, t x f0t gainftus. But that ail foundrTeachers, ofall times and places, have K taught the neceflity. of conformity to inconvenient Ceremonies, m cafe of deprivation , hee neither doeth , neither can make good.
Bb It is
S jJgainft thtrh who aknotokclge the incotivenlewy Ptrt.iv
It is but a bare and a bolde affirmation to deceive the minds of the (r) Hif, of Ample, r) Did not the good olde TValdenfes, notwithstanding of all tbeWaUmf. the* hot perfections railed againft them , conftantly refufe tocon- part. z.iib. forme unto any of thole Ceremonies of the Church of Rgme , which i . cap. 6. they perceaved to have no necefTary ufc in Religion*, and to occa- Ihum. Hi/?, tioii fuperftition, rather then to ferve for edification ? Andweve- lib. 6. pa°. rily rejovce to be ranked with thofc JValdenfes, of whom (j)aPopifh j 89. ' Hifteriographer fpeakcth thus : xAViis in Wbrk Cathari dicuntur, quibtti 1 H Thuan. njpndent qui hodie in Anglia purkrem doEtrinam pr<e fe ferttnt. Moreo* ibid 0.186. ver , it can net be unknowne ,tofuch as arc acquainted with the Hi- (t) Jlftcd. ftory of the Reformation, how that not FlacimlUiricm onely , but Cbronol.Ro- (t) many others, among whom was («) Calvine , and [x) the Magdt- Ib. &. 5 50. fotrgian Do&ours, and (y) all the Churches of nether SaxonieCubjett to {u)fehis Maurice, oppefd themfclves to thofe inconvenient Sc hurtfull Ce- treatift enti- remonies of the Interim, urged by the Adiaphcrifts. And howfoever thi vera they perceaved many great & grievous dangers , enfuingupon their Ecclefia? refuifingtoconformetothefame, yetthey conftantly reftnfed : and rcforman-U) many Minifters fuffered deprivation fortheir refufall. Befldes, d« r. tio. doe notour Divines require, that the Churches Canons, even in ma* ^x) Alfied. tersof Rire, {a) be profitable to the edification of the Church \*nd {b) that the tbiX. obfeivation of the fame, mud carry before it a manifeft utility ;
(y) Skid, (c) that in Rites and Ceremonies the Church hath no power to de- cow Lb 21. ltru&ion, but only to edification ? Doe they not (d) put this claufe p>ag. 3S8. in the very definition of Eccleflafticall Rites, that they be profitably (z)Sleid.tb. ordained; confidering , that otherwifethey are but intolerable mif- pag. 393 . o rders and abufes ? Doe they not teach, (e) that no idle Ceremony, (z)PoU». which ferveth net unto edifying, is to be fuffered in the Church ^and sr/2/. lib.';. If) that GodJy bretheren are not holden to fubjeft themfelves unto c'fip. 17. iuch things , as they perceave neither to be right nor profitable?
[b) Calv. (g) That whatfocver either would fcandalize our brother , or not be l.isl. 7.4. c. profitable to him for his edification , Christians for no refpeft mufb 10. §. 32. dare to meddle with it? Dee they not ftandeib much upon expedien-
(c) Chem. cy, that this tenent is received with them ?That the negative precepts txam.part. of the Law , doe binde, not only at all times , butlikewileto all ti- 2 . p. 121. mes , (whereupon it followeth , that we may never doe that which is [6)¥t2ner. inconvenient or fcandalous,) And that the affirmative precepts tktol hb.i, though they bind at all times yet not to-all times, but only quandoex- cjp. 2. pedit\ (Whereupon it followeth , that we are never bound to the prac- [t)VarhM tifc of any duty commanded in the Law of God, exceptonly when in j. Cor. it is expedient to be done ? ) But lh) M*. Sprint excepteth again ft this i-4« .*£. lu'c> tn<it it is not generally true; tor evidence whereof 3 he alledgeth it) hh. many things , partly faife, partly impertinent , upon which Iholde Calv. episJ. it not neeclfull, here to infift. As for fuch examples objected by him, &refp.col. as carry fomefhewe of making againft this rule, which he dare not 478. (g) Cah. in 1. Cor. 10. i}. Taylor on Tit. 1, iyp*g.i91* fa) *n fi*F* p*g> 5 S*
adruir3
Chap." i T of the ftrtmonks , and yet conforme. 9
admit, I will makefome anfweare thereto. He faith, that fomc times even negative precepts have beene lawfully violated : for rhefe pre- cepts were negative; none butPriefts muft cate fhew-bread , yet David did lawfully violate it:Thoufhall doe no worke upon the Sab- bath ; yet the Priefls brake this , and areblameleiTe : let nothing of Gods good creatures be loft; yet P^k/ and his company did lawfully caft away their goods in the fhip , to fave their lives, &c. Anf. hir. Sprint might eafily have undcrftood, that wl en Divines fay, the affir- mative precepts bind at all times , but net to all times , she negative precepts both at all times-, and to all times, they ever meanc , [peels aftionU manente eadem : fo long as a adion forbidden in a negative pre- cept, ceafeth not to bee vill, as long the negative precept bindcthto all times : whereas evenwhilesan adion commanded in an affirma- tive precept, ceafeth not to be good, yet the affirmative precept bin - deth not to all times. So that the rule is not eroded by the alledged examples; for Davids eating of the fhewbread 5 the Priefts labour upon the Sabbath \ and Fauls caftingof the goods into the fca^ were not evilUbuc good actions (the kind of the adion beeing changed by the circumftanccs.) In the meane time, the forefaid rule (till crol- feth M*. Sprints tenet. For he holdeth , that even whiles certaine Ce- remonies remaineevill in their ufe , and ceafe not to be fcandalous and inconvenient, yet we are not ever bound to abftaine from them, but may in the cafe of deprivation pradife them. Which diredly con- tradidech the rule.
The pofition therefore which we mantaineagainft Mr. Sprint , and Seel. VL from which we will not departethe breadth of one naile, is this , that we can never lawfully conforme ( no not in the cafe of depri- vation ) unto any Ceremony which is fcandalous and inconvenient in the ufe of it. For further confirmation whereof, we fay, 1. Every negative precept of the Law of God bindehtoall times, in fuch fort.that the adion whichitforbiddeth„(folongasit remaineth evjil, & the kinde of it is not changed^ can never lawfully be done. There- fore, forafmuch as to abftaine from things fcandalous and incon- venient, is one of the negative precepts of the Law of God; and the Ceremonies whereunto Mr- Sprint would have us to conforme in the cafe of deprivation are, and remaine fcandalous and inconvenient in ourpradife and ufe of them , according to his owne preftnpofa!!; It followeth, that the ufe and ptadife of he fame is altogi.hcr unlaw- ful! unto us. 2. That which is lawfull in the nature of it , is never Jawfullin the ufe of it, except only when it is expedient for edifica- tion , as teacheth the Apoft. i.O. 6. 12. & 10. ^}. The Corinthians objeded that all indifferent things were lawfull CO The Apoftlead- (0 P«*«w. dctha limitation, ejfelicitaquatentu conducunt .they are lawfull to be ufed tn t.Cor. in fo farre as they are expedient. 3. It is the Apoftlescommande- &'• lz- snent, {1(\ let all things be done unto edifying: Therefore whatfeever W T-C°r§
B b 2 " is net T4> l6'
in
i o tsigAinft them who aknowlcdge the focwvenlencj Part. i \
) i.Cor.s. js ^ot done unto edifying, ought not to be done. 4. CO The Apoft!-e
1 3* f.udyf mtJitc make my brother to cffend,IwiQ eat no flefh while the World fiandeth.
Now put the cafe the Apoftlehadbeen hindred irom preaching the
Gofpeil, for his precileabflaining fromthofe meats, whereat his
broiherw,ould be offended , would he in that cafe have eaten ? Nay,
he faith peremptory , that whiles the world Aandeih he would
(m)Calv n*oteat. 5. Say not (m) our Writers, that we mud fleeandabftaine
n 1 Cor' ^rom everything which is not expedient for the edification of our
10 ix. & brother? And doth not ine Bifhop of (n) Winchefler teach , thatia
Tardus ibid, our going out>& commingin, and in all our actions, we muft looks
(n) Strm.on tot^e ruIc °f expediency? And faith not Bifhop ^0) Spot[wood) it knot
1 o iV 7 /(J ^ <&«"«*, £«f '% *r* Ceremonies , JPfoVfc /«• /&* inconvenient] they bring , 0*rg&/
' ox* SfrW.* r* ^ w^rf ? 6, Dare M* Sprint deny that which Ames (p) faith he heard
at Perth! once defended in Cambridge) viz. that quicquid non expedit , quatentunonex-
afflm pedit, non licet ? whatsoever is not expedient, in [0 farre Oi it is not expedient , it U not
[pi befit lawfull. Docth not {q) Pare** likewife fhewe out of Augufl'me , that
Cute cap. 2. *lKn things as arc not expedient, but fcandulous, and doe not edify,
pa. r2- but hurt our brother 3 fiunt ex accidenti iHiceta & peccata, \roinde vitanda}
r}')ln 7* ^° conforme unto inconvenient and fcandalous Ceremonies , in
1 Cor. 10. lne cafe of deprivation , is at the belt , to doe evill that good may
2- come of it: which was the pretence of thofe Councellours, of Pope
(r)ihuan. ?'^ the 5. (?) who advifed him to fuffer (levies at Rm»*, for preventing
kijl.hbr9. ^ greater evill of abufing chaft women and honeft matrons. So the
pj "67. Ptzudo-Nicodemites alledge for their abftaining from flefh upon the
dayes forbidden by the Church , that this they doe forfhunninga
(s) -fAYOfu grater evill , which is the fcandallof Papifts. (x) Our Divines an-
in 1. Cor, fvvearethem, that evill ought not to be done that good may come of
g. 13. ii. But faith {t)M^prmt) this rulc(«) of the A poftle mull: be limited,
(r)pao.4±. ar,d Ln ^orne cafesholdeihno::fora man may fordoing of good, doe
45# true which is evill in ufe, circumftance, and by accident, fo it be not
(11)^3.8' (imply and in nature evill. ^Anf. 1. he begges the thing in queftion:
for that rule is aliedged againft him to prove, thatnodiing which is
evill in the ufe of ir, may be done for any good whatioever. 2. The
difference betwixt that which is limply evill , and that which is evill
in ufe and by accident, is in that the one may never be donc>the other
is unlawfull only pro tempore: but in this they agree > that bothare
( x) Vamts unlawful!; for [x) that wnich is evill by accident, whiles it is fuch , is
in 1. Cor. unlawfull to be done, no leffe then that which is in nature eviil.
to. &j. >• Divines hold (y) abfolutely, that inter duo vel plura mala culpt ( fuch as
[v)Aijhd. things fcandalous & inconvenient ) nullum eft e!tgenAum(z)Thzt though
thiol caf. c* inevills ofpuniflament , we may chufe-aleiTer , to munne a greater,
1 2 p 199. yet in evill* of fault, ele&ion hat': no place, neither may we doe a lef-
(l) Partus fer fault to munne a greater, nee ullttm admittendum malum , tit eveniatali*
in Rom. '{nod bmum , fivi ptr fefive per accident-^ But let us heare wiat Mr. Spri.n can
3. c* lay to the contrary.. He alled^eth, the Pciefts their breaking of the
Sab-
C hap. i . of the Ceremonies, and yet conform** # f
Sabbatb, David his eating of the fhew bread , andthe A pottles their praclifing of very hurtfull Ceremonies ; ali which things becing unlawful], were done lawfully to further greater duties. . We have anfweared already, that the Priefts their killing of the fa- crificesonthe Sabbath, and Davids eating of the fhewbread, were not unlawfull , becaufe the Circumftances changed the kinde of the a- dions. Alfo, that the Iewifh Ceremonies ufed by tl e Apoltles,were in their praclife, no way hurtfull , but very profitable. l/J. Sprint al- Jedgeth another example out of. 2. Ckron. 30.18.19.20.21. To perforrr.e Gods worlhip not as it was written , was. a finne (faith he, ) yet to further Gods fubltantiallworihips, which was a good thing, *
was not regarded of God. Anf, One cannot guefTe from his words, how he thought hereto frame an Argument , which might conclude . the lawfulneffe of doing fome evill , that fome good may come of it. Howfoever, that we may have fome light in this matter , let us diitingutfh betwixt thefe two things , 1. The peoples legall unclean;. nelTe , when they came to eat the PafTeover. 2. Their adventuring to eate it , notwithstanding their uncleannefTe. That they were at that time uncleane, it was a fin ne. But whiles they prepared their hearts truly to feek God , and repented of their 'unc'eannefTe , that in this cafe they adventured to cat the PafTeover ? was no finne : becaufejit is the will of God , that fuch as prepare their hearts unfainedly to feeke him , lament their wants , and re- pent, for thatthey arc not fo prepared and fan&ified for hiswor^ (hip as they ought, (there being no ether thingto hold them bake, befide fome defect of fan&ity in themfclves) notwithftanding of any defect which is in them, draw near to him intheufeof his holy ordi- nances. As touching the former, no man will fay thatthey choofed to be uncleane, thatthey might further Gods worfhip. But as for the latter, repenting of their uncleannes,thcy choofed to keep the PafTe- over, this they did to further Godsworfliip , and this was no finne, efpecially if we obferve with 'TremeHw, that rt is laid verf. 20. The Lord healed the people, that is, by the venue of his Spirit purified & cleanfed them,fo that, that which was lame , was not turned out of the way, but rather made ftraight and healed.
And now we leave Mf Sprint, who hath not only conformed to Seel. VII. the controverted Ceremony s, even upon preiuppofall of their Incon- veniency, but (a) hath aifomade it very quellionable, wl "ether in (a)/>.2io. the cafe of deprivation heoughttoconformeto fundry other Popihh 2 if. Ceremonies, hich as fnavenCrowne, holy water, creame,fpitle,falr, and I kow not hew many mcrcwhich he comprehendeth under 6V c. all his pretences of greater inconveniencies following upon notcon- forming , then doe upon conforming , we havehitr.erto examined. (Wjubifu* Yet what faith (k) B Spot/wood tothecauf, ? He alfo alledgeth there fra,
Bb 3 is a
1 1 Ayutfk them Who aknonledge the facenveniencj Part, i .
is a great inconveniency in the refuifing of the Ceremonies, namely, the offending of the King. But for an fweare unto this, lookev>hac is the largeft extent of the Princes power and priviledge in macters belonging unto Gods worfhip, which either Gods Word,or the judg- ment of found Divines doth allow to him , none fhall be found rtiore willingly obfequious to his commandemems then we. But as touching thefe Ceremonies in quefti on,wc are upon evident grounds perfwaded in ourconfcienccs , that they are both unlawfull , and in- expedient for our Church: and though they were lawfull in them- (I) BaU.de. felves, yet we may an fweare as the (J) oppugners of the Interim rc- taf. confe. plied to thofe who urged yeelding to the Ceremonies of the fame , lib. 4. cap. Surplice, Holy dayes, Tapers , &c. becaufe of the Emperours com- li.caf. 3. mandement. That the queftion is not about things indifferent, but about a maine Article of Faith , namely Chriftian Liberty, which admittethiiotanyyoketo be impofed upon the confeience, nonoc in things indifferent. Our gracious Princcwho now by the blefling of God happily raignes over us, will not (we alTure our felves )be of- fendedatus, for having regard toour confeiences, Godsowne de- puties placed in our foules , fo farre , that for all the world we dare not hazarde their peace and quiet, by doing any thing with their re- pugnance and averfation; Wherefore , we are more then confident, that his M. will gracioufly accept from us, fuch a reafonable Apolo- (m) Skid, gy , as {m)they ofStraesburge ufed.to Charles the 5 . Quantum omnino fieri com. In. potcsl,parati fumus iibi gratificari, non folum Cmlibus , verum etiam in re* p. 381. bits Sacra. VeruntamenoramusinVvctm, utcogites, quoniam fui faEtiratio* mm opportet unumquemque Deo reddere , merit* nos de falute nofira folicitos fi\)ib.l.i]. effe y & proVidere nequid contra confekntiam a nobis fiat. And (n) as the p. 48 j. eltates of Germany to Ferdinand, when they befought him only not to orive nor burthen their Confeiences. Te quidem fumumO1 aDeonob/s datum Magjslratum agnofcimtts , & libentiflime quidem , ac nihil eft omnium rcrum, quod non poflis aut debeai a nobis expeBare , fedmhac una re propitium tenobis ejfe fiaghamus. If thefe hoped that Popifh. Princes would ac- cept fuch aniwearcs from them, mail not we ? O fhall we not be per- fwaded •' that the defender of the faith, will not refuife to take them from us ? efpecially feeing his M, (hall ever find, that he hath none moreLoyali and true Subje&s.who will more gladly imployandbe- ftow, their Lives, Lands, Houfes,Holdes,Goods, Gear, Rents.Rc- venue?, Places , Priviledges, Meanes, Moities, and all , in his High- nesfervice, and mantainanccof his Royall Crowne; and moreover, have Co deeply conceived a ftrong and full perfuafion of his Maje- fties Princely vertues , and much renouned propenfion to Piety, and Equity , that they will urge their confeiences, by all good and lawfull meanes , toaffent unto every thing which he injoynes, as right and convenient, andwhen the juft averfation of Confeience upon evident reafans is invincible, will notwithstanding be more
willing
Chap, i » Of the Ceremonies ^nd yet conforme* j 3
willing to all other duties of fubje&ion, and more averfefrom the leaft (hew of contempt.
C H A P. II.
JgAlnft thofe ofourOpfofittSy who plead fit the Ceremonies I at things expedient.
S for thofe who alledgefomeconveniency in the Ceremonies* ^ed. ft they fay more then can abide the proofe of reafon , which the induction of fome particulars fhalf demonstrate, (o) D% Mortons alledgcrh for the Surplice, that the difference of outward («)p4ftic^ garments can not but he held convenient , for the diftinguifhing of def. cap. i { MiniftersfromLaicks, in the difcharge of their function. Anf. This/*#« i» conveniency is as well feen to , without the Surplice. If a man ha- ving a blackegowne upon him , be feeneexercidng the function of aMinifter, it is very ftrange , if any manthinkehim not fufBciently diftinguifhed from Laicks. The aft of Permanent Confirmation and Bifhoping of Children, would make it appeare ,, that this Cere* - mony is moil profitable, tocaufe young Children in their tender years, drinke in the knowledge of God and his Religion ; %Anf. It If this Rite be fo profitable for the inftruftion of Children,then why doe Prelats appropriat it tothemfelves, who life to be imployed in higher affaires , that permit them not to have leafure for exadCate- chifing of Children ? Or, 2. Though they might attend the difchar- ging of this duty ; why mould it be made their peculiar ? Is not the parifhMinifter able to Catechife them ? Or, 3. If it muft depend upon Prelats, and waitupon their leafure; what bath impofitionof hands adoe with Catechiflng? 4. How comes it, that Children who are not Bifhopped , are as well Catechiied , as they who are Bi- fhopped.
Tilen (p) fetteih out the expediency of Holy-dayes , forimprin- Seel. II. tingin the mindsof people, the fence and knowledge of the benefits (p) P*«»» of Redemption. Anf, 1. There is no meane fo good for this purpofc, ^i6.p 65, as Catechifingand Preaching, out of feafon .&! in feafon. 2. What could he fay unto them, vsho haveattained his-end without his meane ? I find people better inftruded, and made more fenfible of thofe benefites, where the Feaftsare not kept , then vs here they are. 3. Thinke they their people fufiiciently inftruded in the grounds ofReligion^ when they hcare of the Nativity , Paffion , &c. What courfe will they take for inftrufting them in ether principles of faith? Why doe they not kcepe one way,andinftuuie a Holy-day for every particular head of Catechife ? ' B ut
14 Of tbginconvenitncy Part. 2.
ButB. Lmri/Vy thinks yec to 1st us fee a greater expediency for ob- (q} Troc. in ferving Holy-davcs. Certainely [q) faith hie ynothing is fo powerfull to Tertb. af- abMfhprophaneneJfe, and to roote out fupcrftmonofrhcns hearts, as the exer* fern pzn C1fe °f D'tv'm e ^orflip , in Preaching, Praying and Thanksgiving, chiejlyrhen \ . pai> 7 '. w^en r';* fufer^'lt'l<rJi conceit so fmerkt and necefity , are most pregnant in the *'**' heads of people \as doubtlejje they are , whhi the fet times of Solemnities re* turne\jor then it is meet t to lance the oposleme , when it is ripe.
U$nf\ This is a very bad cure; and is not onely to heale the wound of the people (lightly, bu:to make it the more inveterate & fettered. I might object, that litle or nothing, is preached or fpoken by him and hrs companions at the revolution ofihofe feftivities, againft the fuperftirious keeping of them ; but though they fhould ipeaJte as much as can be againft this fuperfticion, their lancing being in word onely, and not indeed, the recidivation will prove worfe then the difeafc. The beft lancing of the opofteme were , not to obferve them at all, or to preach againft them , which are tried to vvorke this effect more powerfully , then the Bafhops cure hath done: for aU know., that there is none [o free of this fuperftuion, as rhofe who obferve not the Holy-dayes.
Sect. III. ■ ^ne ^arae W Prelate pleadeth for the expediency of giving the (r 1 ibid.p. ' Communion to the ficke in private houfes, becaufc he thinkes they 121. * ihould not want this nieane of comfort: Asif the wanting of the Sa- cramental! Signes, not procured by a mans owne negligence or con- tempt, could ftop or ftay the comforts of the holy Spirit. Nay, it is notib : we have (bene lome whoreceaved not the Communion in time of their fickneiTe , end moreglorioufly and comfortably, then ever we heard of any , who receaved the Sacrament for their toWi- ( f J Apol. cum> wllen lllev were a dying. (f)Paybody thinks kneeling m the a£fc pJt x.cap, °^ receavingthe Communion , to be expedient for the reverend u- \. feci, \±s*. ^nS aru* handling of that holy Sacrament, and that much reverence and 11% ' ****•& to the Sacrament from it. AnJ. I verily believe , that more ' ' reverence arifeth to the Sacrament from kneeliug , then is due to it ; But I am fure, there is no leflfe true reverence of that holy Sacra- ment , among fuch as kneele not in the receaving of it, then among fuch as doe kneele. I hope it is not unknowen ,ho,v humbly and reverently many fincereChriftians, with feare and trembling , doe addreite themlelves to that mo ft holy Sacrament, who yet for all the world, would not kneel in receaving it. Thus we fee, that thefe ex- pediencies pretended for the Ceremonies , are attained unto as well and better without them, then by them. But I will goe forward, to (hew forae particular inconveniences found in them."
CHAP,
Chap.' 3 . rftbe Ceremonies* &c. i j
CHAP. III.
That the Ceremonies are inexpedient , hecanfi they ar^j ' preparatives for greater evils.
Irft tben , the Ceremonies are inexpedient, becaufe our mod holy Faith, for which we fhould earneftly contend , (M receaveth no fmall harme and prejudice, and is like to re- ceavettill more and more by their meanes. Our cafe is not much different from the cftate of the Churches in Germanie, when Charles the 5. caufed the booke called Interim to be publifhed, (t) expediency (0 Skjd. then was pretended, of fetling the peace of Germanic by this as the comMb. 20* belt way : but it prodncedavery great inconveniency* and in ftead p> S6** ^* of effectuating peace , it brought forth a hotter contention , as well 37i*rfSM« between the Protectants themfelves , as between them and Papifts. » Chronol, Expediency is now no lelTe pretended for the Ceremonies , yet no ReHgionis more truly. But before the bad effects o? ih.z Interim wereieene, M.1J48. the wiferfort of Protectants (u) wrote againft it, and warned men , \^)'Sleid. tit ab eo tanquam a pYdfentWima pefie fibi caVerent. Notwith Handing c0m.Lb.11, that theEmperournad ftraitely inhibite all impugning of it. Andp-377- Sleidanetels us,the reafon which made them fo miflike it, was, (#)be- [*)ibM*p. caufe they thought fuch as were upon thatcourfe , were opening a 3 SS. way to thePopiftiReligion,/w4d<&*p/;ora feu res media*, and (y) be- (y) &M. p* caufe they wifhedto retaine the laving Doctrine puramty falvam a 191* Uchnii illorum , qui nunc dum Ceremonias refiaurare Yideri Volunt, colluVum totamdotlr'mrf Pontifici* rurfm introducunt. The like reafon have we to miflike Conformity with Antichrift, in thefe Ceremonies which are obtruded upon our Church ;for may we not juftly feare, that hereby we mall be drawne on? to conforme with him alfo in dogma- ticall and fundamentall points of Faith? Nay, what talke I of feare ? we have al ready feen this bad confequence in a great parte, for it is Well enough knowen, how many Heterodoxe Doctrines , are main* tained byFormalifts , who are moil zealous for the Ceremonies : anent Vniverfali Grace , Free-Will, Perfeverance, Iuftification , Images , Antichrift, the Church of Ity?»e, Penance, Chrift his PaG. /ion Sc defcendinginto Hell,neceiTity of the Sacraments, Apocrypha bookes , Chrifts prefence in the Eucharift , affurance of Salva- tion , &c. Their errors about thofe heads we will demonftrate , if need be, to fuch as doubt of their minde. In the meane time it hath been preached from Pulpits among our felvcs; That Chrift died for all alike ;That theFaithfullmay fall away from Grace; Thatlufti- fication is a fucceflive action ; That none can be aflured of Salvation in this life; That Images in Churches are not to be condemned; -j
That Chrift defcended locally unto the place of the damned; That
C c the
i4 ThM the Ceremonies make way Part. £
the Pope is net Antichrifi: ;Tbat %$m is not Babylon the Whoorc;
That the Government and Difeiphnc of the Church mutt alter like
the FrcnJTi fafhion,atthe will of SuperioursjThat wc fhouldnot runne
.outre, away from Papifts , but come as nearc to them as wee cans
That abftinencc and Almes , are fatisfadions or compenfations for
firme. Thefe and fundry fuch like tenets, have notbeea fpoken in a.
corner.
Sc£t. II. How farre Conformity to the Ceremonies of the Church of
(z) K^.&- How*, hath drawn Conformifh of greateft note.to conforme toher
chf.lib.j. Fai'h alio , I may give inftance in the Archbifhop ofspalato , (z) He
cap. 1 1. holds, that many Rites of the Romane Church are auncienc and
num. 107. approveable , that others, though iieithert a ancient nor univerfall ,
{a) ibid, yet becaufe of Cuftome mould bee tollerated; and that few onely
7sum.no. arc either to be abolifhed,or by fome prudent and eafy way purged
(h) ibid: an^ refined. Now, will we know how farre this unity in Ceremo-
r.um. 131. flies, drew hi en to a unity in fubftance, then let us heare,whatis his
f:eto the verdid of Proteftants, as well as of Papifts, whofuffer for their Re-
fame purpoft lig'on. {a) Certef otitis martyres mundi, quam Dti Jimh qui txutraquepar*
Vr Potter in te fi*k titulo conjcitnt'ue fanguincm fruftm fundunt : quafi Vero fides <y
lm beck cal- Rsligio R$?r>ana , <? Fides ac Religio proteJUntium fmt du<e Fides £T duaj B4-
led, Want of Hgiones, Cc (b) He tels us moreover , that if the Proteftants will not
thmtyjufih have peace with thofe whom they call Papifts , & communicate with
charged pag. them , then are they Schifhmatikes , and are not in the true Church.
75. And in the declaration of tie motives , whereupon he undcrtooke
(c) FieUcffos departure out of the territory of Venice, he exprefTeth his judge- *ht Church, ment of fuch bookes as are framed againft the Dodrine of the "append, to Church of Rows, that he held them above mcafure deteftable. Nei- the 3 books ther doth he Hand alone in this pitch, for among the led of Forma- cap. w.p. lifts. , is lwarming a fed of Reconcilers , who preach and profciTe 298. B An* unity with the Church ofBgme in matters of Faith. For example* drives Strra. (c) thcy'fjy, that that which the learned Papiils holdc concer- on Icr. 23. rung Iuftification , is Oi'thodoxe , and therefore they will not con- 6. tag. 79. tend againft them, except it be for iheir contending withus,who doe &0.81.82. agree with them.
Sell. III. Thefe Reconcilers are too. far re on in the way to Popery already* But if they will be fully reconciled withPapifts,chev muft traniporte
(d) Shid. themieives altogithcr into their tents, becaufe Papifts will not come com hb a 1. forth to meet them midway.TheIwri??;ofGi7ra/wy tededto Recoci- P 377. liation.yet the Papifts wrote againft it Caffander [ought this Reconci-
(e) da LzicU liation,but (ej Bellarmine confuteth his opi'nion.The Archb. ofSpalato, cap 1 9. vyas upon the fame courfe of Reconcihation.but his bookes werecon-- ( f) annot. denedas Hereticall,in the decree given at liomeyan.1616.by thecon- m 1 Tim. gregation of Cardinals deputed by Pope ?auh the 5. for the making
6, 20. and renewing of the Index , of prohibited bookes, (/) ThzRhemfa
tell 11$
Chap . j ? for greater evils. 1 y
tell us , that they will avoide not onely our opinions , but oar very words which wc ufe: our adverfariesprofene , that they reject fome expofitions ofcertaine places of Scripture, againft which they have no other reafon, butbecaufe they are our expofitions. Are cheic mindes fo aliened from usPandmuft we be altogithcrdrawnc over- Hayes to them? A re they fo unwilling to be recociled to the prejudice of their crrorsPAndfhall we be fo willing to be reconciled with them to the prejudice of the trueth? O ftrangeand monftrous invention.' That would reconcile Chrift with Antichrift-, agree the temple of God andldols; mixe light and darkenefletogithcr. {g) Hee had {g\Rgp.Ee* good reafon for him who objected to the A rchbifhop of SpalatOithzt d, hb.j.cap. qui ubiquetji , nufqttameft. For in ftead of reconciling Proteftants and n,n.\%\\ Papifts , they make themfelves a third partie , and faife more cou- troverly. O beUua multorum capitum I
Thus we perceate, what prejudice hath arifen, and yet arifczh, to Se&. IV. the true and favitig Doctrine , by the meanes of fymbolizing with the Church of itytfnn thefe Ceremonis. But becaufc fome Forma- lifts approve not ofthiscoutfe of Reconciliation, they ( [ knowe) would purge theCeremonies of the blame of it;I will therefore flicvv, that Reconcilers are fet forward in their courfe of Reconciliation, by meanes of the Romane Rites remaning in Reformed Churches.
G. Gajftnder in his boo kzde officio pi jviri > relates unto us , how hee Was entered into this courfe, and conceived this purpofe of Recon- ciliation : and tels , that from his youthood hee was mod obiervant of Ecclefiafticall Ceremonies ,yetfo , that he abhorred all fuperfti- tion. And when he had read the Writers of that age. who promifed fome Reformation andRepurgationof fuperftitiouswormips and abfurd opinions , he faith, mire iUorum inflitutum placuit : qui tamen tut fupcrfiitione* O* abufiones > qua nonmUn Cercmonm Ecclefiafticis admixta e- rant, exofaihabertmut tpfam Ecclefiaflicam polhiaw > qua bis Cerernonm fe- re conpat , non fublatam <& tverfam , fed repurgatam & emend at am ejfe v$U Urn, Wee fee the firft thing which induced him to a Reconciliation, was his liking which hee had to Popifn Ceremonies , and their re- maining in Protectant Churches. And as this courfe hath been at- tempted , fo is it alfo advanced by the Ceremonies : for thereby (b) people are induced to fay , as they faid once, when Popifh Cc- (h) P&k.of remonies did reenter in Germany. WeperceavenofVythattke Pope js not the crop. fo blacke a> Luther made him. And as for the Reconcilers themfelves , pm.z pag. may they not conceave ftrong hopes to compare their end ? may So, they not confidently imbarkc in this bufinefle? may they not with great exfpedation ofprofperous fuccefTe archie ve their project ?whcu once they have footing upon our union with Rome in Cere moni-s tnd Church policy j they can no; but hereupon conceive no fmall
Cc 2 - ammo-
1 8 That the Ceremonies mak* waj for greater evils. Part. *,
animofity to worke out their intended purpofc.
Doe I talk e of a Chimera, & imagine now that which is not? Nay, I will really examplify that which I fay, in that Proteus and Verfipd- Us the Archbifhop of Spalato. For in the narration of the paflages whi;h were betwixt his Majefty and him , collected by the Bifhop
(i)M- I1' °^Dll^am J we finde, (i)that he thought the procuring ofconcorde betwixt the Church of England, and the Church ofltywe, to be eafie.
[k)ibid.pag. Andhis reafons were, becauie(H') he was verily perlwaded, that the
34. Pope would approve the Enghfh Liturgie, and the publike ufe of
it , as he profefled in his colloquy with the Bifhops of London and
(1) ibul.fag. D:irhamyai\d the Deane oFWinchetter. And further, (l\ he told he was 41. ' of opinion, that the Churches of Pgme and of E«gZ4wrf>excludingPu-
(m) ibid, ritans, were radically one Church. This made him fay; (m) J doe finde
pag. 42 . here* why to commend thn Church , <tt a Church abhorring from Purhanifmey reformed with moderation , and worthy to be received into the Communion of the Catholike Church In the following words hetels , that he could carry fomething out of the Church of England, which fhould comfort all them who hate Puntane ftri&ne(Te , anddefire the peace of the Church, (meaning them who defired the, fame Reconciliation with himfelfe-.J What is more cleare , then that the Englifh Ceremonies , were that which madehim profequute , and gave him hope toefTec-- tuate , a Reconciliation betwixt the Church of England, and that of
Seek, V. But put the cafe, that as*yet we had feene no greater evils follow- ing-uponthe Ceremonies, yet mint they be aknowledged tobein- convenient,becaufe they are dangerous preparatives for many worfe things then wee are aware of., and may drawe after them fundry evill conferences which are not feared. We have heard before from Spot/wood; that novations in a Church, even in the fmalleft things , are dangerous. Who can then blame ustofhunne adanger, and fearing the word, to refift evill beginnings? to give no place tother DivelU to crufh the Viper while it is lntheiTiel]; toabltaine from all appearance of eviil , iTbejfal 5.22. And tojtake the little ones of Babylon,-, whiles they are young , and dalh their heads againft the it ones ?
Ttskiss not, thatmany will judge us too precife for doing fo.What?
doe they think this precife neflfe any other, then that which the Law
C»jDeut. i2» 0f God.requireth even (».) obferving of theCommandemcnt of
^jp*^^. God, without adding to it, or diminifhmgfrom it, and (0) ■ kee-.
i4. 'ping the fttaight path, without declining to the rght hand or the left?
(p) Efth.3.2. or doe they thinke us more precife ihcnMordecai 9(j>) who would
doe no reverence to Haman, becaufe he was ao Amalekjtey and fo not
(?) Dent. *$. ^ to t,e countenanced nor honoured by an Ilraelite? Are we more
(r),D'an.d.i.o precife then Daniel , [r) who would not dole his windowe when hce
Chap. 5» That the Ceremonies hinder edification. 1 o
was praying , no not for the Kings Edi& , knowing, that becaufe he had ufed to doc fo aforetime , his doing otherwife had been both a denying of his former profeflion, and ainfnaring of himfelfe by ycelding in fmall things, to yeeld in greater,& after an inch to take an eile ? Arc we more precife then the Apoftle Paul (f) who gave no (A) GaJ.aij. place to the Adverfaries of Chriftian liberty , nonotforan houre ? Are we more precife then David, (t) who would not doe fo much as ^ vSz^S take up the names of Idols into his lips, left from fpeakingofthem hefhould beledde to a liking of them: or may not the fad and dole- full examples, of fo many andfo great abufes and corruptions, which have crept into the Church, from fo fmall andfearcely obfervable originals, make us loath at our hearts, to admita change in the Po- licy and Difcipline , of a well conftitute Church , and rightly orde- red before the change, and efpecially in fuch things as arenotat all necefTary ?
O ! from how fmall beginnings did the Miftery of iniquity ad* vance it's progreflion ? How l'itl'e moates have accrefced to Moun- tains ? Wherefore («) Jimplicitatem Chrtfi't nos oportrt celere, k qua ubiprimum (u)Iun,ant- txtulit pedemzanitas ,vamtattm fequitur fuperjlitio , fuperftitionem error , erro- tfJad.it) Bell* rem prefumptio, prefnmpthnem impiettu Idolohtrica. We have caufe to feare , de tuh. that if with ifratl (x) we come to the facrifices of Idols, and eate offanft' ltb.$. Idolothyts , and bow downe or ufe any of fuperftitious and Idolo- *ap< 5. rrous Rites; thereafter we be made to joy ne out felves to thefe Idols, (*).N<»m,i$, and fo the fierce anger of the Lord be kindled againft us > as it was z,h again ft them
CHAP. IV.
That theCermonies an inexpedient ?becaufe they hinder edification^.
Hat the Ceremonies are a great hinderanceto edification, Se&. I. appeareth-, Firft, in that they obfeure the fubftance of Reli- gion , ana weaken the life of Godlinefie , by outward glory W. f! and iplehdor , which drawesaway' the minds of people fo aftcx'ic , TT*/; y" that they forget the fubftance of the fervice which they are about. * °* l *lm The HeathmfhPriefts (y) I bouved, per vmetatemCeremoniarum, rem in e?^2l', pretio ntinere. The ufe forwhifch Papifts appoint their Ceremonies , *iL* ' e (%) is , ut externum cpwnaxw Mnjc^item fenfibm vbijeiant: And fo are the e"e * a" Ceremonies urged upoa us , (a) thought toc'onciliate reverence &t '^T^'} dueregard to Divine Wo Erji| , and to ftirre iip devotion. In the ^. P7/T roeane ."while it is not cci\iv.\cicd , that (b) mtntes humamwinfice capiun* u - ° ! •
(b) Hofpin, Ipiji , dedic* prefix. Ubris decrig.wnacbl Gc ; tui&
io That the Ceremoniet Part, i:
(c) m[*t. tur& fafcitumtur, Cermoniarttm fplendore& Vompa. Videmut fauidem faith Liturg. Bucer, [c) vulgttt deleBari afttonibut funic it, & multu uti fgnit. (<t) Chemvitiut Angl.cap.g. markes of the cumulating of Ceremonies in the auncient Church ,
(d) exam, that it drew to this , ut tandem in theatticum ferme apparatum CeremonU iff* fart. z. <k abierint.(e)A£ttfcuhu reprehends Bifhops,for departing from the Apof- Riuwadmi- tolicall and moft auncicnt fimplicity , andfor adding Ceremonies mjl.Sacrp. unto Ceremonies in a worldly fplendor and fpe&abiiity , whereas
3 1. the worfhip of God ought to be pure and fimple. [c)com. in The Policy then which is moft (impleandfingle, and left luftc* loh.4.14* red with thepompe & bravery of Ceremonies , can not but be mofl (f) rfal.4?. expedient for edification, (f) The Kings daughter is moft like (x)Lik. it. ner ^C' when fhee is all glorious within, not without, and [g] the
xo»zi< ' Kingdome ofGodappearethbeft what it is , when it commcthnot (h) Fopifh with obfervation: But fuperfition ( faith [k) Camera , the mother of Ceremonies > prejudic.cap. it lavifh and prodigaU ; SpirituattWhoortdomt a* it tsyit hath this common with the. I o . bodily \ both of them mujl have their paintings , their trinkets , their invexgUments*
Seel* 1 1. Secondly , the Ceremonies are impediments to the inward and <i) Cafo. ' fpiriruall worfhip, becaufethey are flefhly andexternall.(i) In the fe- Jm.in ' conc* commandement are forbidden omncsBJtut, qui a fpirhuali Dei JLxod. cultudifcrcpant.TheKJngdomeof Godis within you, (jy laith Chrift.Now \o. U »f rrie Apoftle, i.Tm. 4. 8. lay, that bodily exercifefach as falling, 00 LukTij* watcfon2 > &c. which are requifite as hclpes and furtherances to the *i. humiliation of the foule » doe but profit a litle, then may we fay of
our unnecefTary and unprofitable Ceremonies , that they ate excee* dingly nocent and harmcfull to true and fpirituall worfhip. The A - pottle is not fpeakingof playes andpaftimes , zsBeSarmhe would have us to thinke. W ho can believe thztTimothie was fo much addi- cted to play , thatthe Apoftle had need to admonifhhim, thatfuch excrcife profiteth litle? He is fpeaking then of fuch bodily excrcifes> as in thole primitive times were ufed religioufly/as h fting> watch- ing, lying on the ground , and fuch like; and he would have Time thy, rather to exercile himfelfc to the life and power of GodlinefTe , & to fubftantiall worfhip , then to any of thelc outward things. Nei- ther doth the A pottle , condemne only the fuperftitious ufe of thofe (j\ eom. in exerciefes , as (I) Cdvine well obferveth: alioqui in totum damnarct : \uumlocum. Whereas he doth only extenuate & derogate from them , faying, that they profit litle. Ergo (faith he) ut maxime 'integer fit animus, & rzlbts finis , tamen in exttrm a&ionibus nihil! repcrit Pauiut quod magnifaciat. ValJc (m) de di- necejfariaadmonitio,nam femper prop tndct mund'sin Mam partem, uti D cum v.rf.grad. txtcrnitobfcquwvtlitcolerc ; but wnat, will fome fay ? Doewealiowc miritr. °^ P° cxternall Rites and Ceremonies in Divine worfliip ? tvzm. con- im) Saravia, tells us,' that ium \>hiayuantjlxlti,in contraria ruunt , and tra Xe^xap. ^at nc *s no ^e^*c *n tnc ^u^1 » 4™ TtK^M in extc™° ®cl eultu Ccremonidi 14 f.\\ ' a&mm^qutthmmdccoriftrVimtikmwfft quamaui
quafvfs
Chap. 4.' hinder ' edification: 1 1
pafvHcitradete&umrecipunty&c.Vfhercforefiecaurca tranfition from Idolatry and Superftition , is more cafie to Atheifmc & the propha- nation of holy things, then to the golden mediocrity, he faith, he could have wimed, that Bezahzd not generally condemned all Cere- monies without making any difference.
Anf. Neither Beza.not any other,who miflike the HnglimCeremo- nies,condcmoeth fuch Rites and circumftances in the external! wor- fhip of God, as ferveonly for decency, but thofefacred & Significant Ceremonies, which admoniih men of their duty, are not of this forr. What (hall we fay then, of fuch a conjunction &$ this, qtte tan* turn decori ferViunt , bombiefyue fui admoneant officii} Why would not Saravia write a Chronologic, I fay not Magnarum (as others) , but wi- randarum conjunBionum 3 and record , that at fuch a time he round out the conjunction and compatibility of two things, which were ever thought incompatible in former ages , namely, Rites Serving only for decency, and holy fignificant Ceremonies admonishing men of their duty in Gods worfhip ? Had there been no Moralift (trowewe) then to note, that decency and things ferving only for decency have place incivility & all morall actions, in which not with£an ding there is no Significant nor admonitory facred ilgnes of mens duty in Gods Worfhip? And thus Should thefe two things be feavered, which he hath conjoyned and confounded.
To conclude, we condemne the EngliSh controverted Ceremonies which are regarded as holy and Significant, as mod in expedient, be- caufe they derogate from the true inward and fpirituall worfhip *, for wans nature faith (n) Camero,h delighted in that which is flefhfy and outward, (n) Topify tieglefling that which u fpirituall and inward, And this is the reafon, why prtjud. Jeaft fpirituall, lively , and holy difpofitionhath followed upon the tap. 10. addition of unnecefTary Ceremonies ; and why there was never fo much zeall, life, and power of Religion inwardly , in the Church of Chrift,*as then , when fiiee was freed of Ceremonies. This much (0) a Formalist of greatnotc.is forced to aknowledge. Let usconfder (ojCjmim fa ith h e, the Primitive Church, flourifhing more in times of "the ^Apofles, then lb*d. ever it did afterwards : Who will not admire her great Jimplicity in all poynts, and efpecidly in Ceremonies f for excepting the celebration of Baptifme by wa filing of water ■ and of the holy Supper , according to the Lords inftitution, hi taking the Bread and Wine, er difiributing them after thankf^ivmg : excep- tmgalfo t]n impojitionof hands upon thofe who extraordinarily received the boly Ghott. whether it were in a gen er all catling , or a particular to a charge. in the Church, and availing for a miraculous tffeft, of healing the ficke ; J fay, thefe excepted, there will not be found any other Ceremony in thofe primitive limes , fo admirable was their Jimplicity,
Thirdly , 1 he. Ceremonies are a great hinderance toedification , SecVlLfc bccanfethey make much time and paines to be fpent about them ,
which
22 That the Ceremonies Parr. 2 J
which might be> and (if they w :re removed ) mould be fpent more (p) Htyi*. profitably for godly edifying. That which is faid of theCeremonies ubi fyra. which crept in. o the? auncient Church, agreethwell to them, [p) Ifta Ceremonianw accumulatio ,tum ipfos doBorcs turn etiam ipfos auditor *f, a flu* dio docendi tuque difccndi verbum Da abjlraxih atque impedhh necejfarias & Utiles dWinieloqmi infthutiones.
Pulpits found oftentimes with declamations for the Ceremonies, when there is need of prefling the power of Godlinefle upon the confeiences of people, and when there are many more neceflTary thingesto beurged. The PreflTealfo fends forth idle difcourfes and defences of the Ceremonies, which might be employed more pro- fitably.
A nd moreover, faithful! men whofe labours might be very pro- fitable to the Church , in the Holy Miniftery , have neither a doore of enterance, nor a doore of utterance licentiatedto them, and that becaufe they will not confent, nor yeeld themfelves to be the unhap- py inftruments of impofing this yoke of Ceremoniall bondageupon the necks of Gods people. Others who have entered, &have been both faithfulfcSc painefull 'Labourers in the Lords Vineyard , are thru ft. from their chatges,for no other quarrell.but that of Non-con- formity. O unhappy Ceremonies.' Woe unto you; you mifcheivous; lets and prejudices to the edification of the Church.1
CHAP V.
that ihe Ceremonies ate inexpedient y becaufe they areoccaftons of injury and cruelty.
Sz&. 1. fc8a}§t He Ceremonies ferve to be inftruments of cruelty againft
«$!iif L*le ^nccre^crvants ofChrift; they areufed , zsAbfolons fa*
^frlcra crifice,to be clokes of wicked m ilice,they oecafion the fvn-
ing, confyning, depriving , imprifoning , and baniihing of very
worthy and good men.
(q}G<m.49. [q) Such inftruments of cruelty, brought into the habitation; not
** of the fonnes ofl4Co£,but of tr e God of lacob, are to be accurfed by
, I£ all who love the peace of Jerusalem, or beare the bowels of Chriftiart
z.3*Zt companion withinthem , becaufe they are not of Gfirift the meek
lambe of God, who did not crie, nor lift up , nor caufe his voice to
be heard in the ftreet,who did not breake the bruifed reed,nor quench
(s)ApDC thefmoakingflaxe, but they are of AntichrilY: (s) to whom it is
*&7* givento make warre with the Sain&s.
Surely, thofe bowels of mercies, kyndnefle, raeeknefle, andfor-
bearance,
Chap. ; . are occaftom of injurie and cruelty* i 3
bearance, which (t) the Apoftle require h, as they fhould be in every ft) Col. 3, Chriftian , fo chiefly in iff qui pr<cfum > as (u) MeUnchton noteth ; in 1 2 , 1 3. *hem,towardsali, butchiefly towards thefewho are both good Ghri- (u) eom.'n ftians , and goodfubjc&s ; towards thefeinall things , but chiefly in Hum fo turn .matters of Ceremony and indinvrency. In fuch matters allwayes butchiefly when there is no contempt nor refra&ary difpofition, but only a modeft and Chriftian defire, toconferve the peace of a pure confcicnce, by forbearing to doe that which it is perfwaded is not right. Let Magiftrates remember well.
Farcere fubjeBfs <2> dehliarc fupirbos.
If there were no more , but fuch a dolefull and woeful* effecl:, as Sect II„ the cruel! dealing with the faith full minifters of Ieius Chrift ? occa- fioned by the Ceremonies •, this is too much for evincing the incon- veniency of them.
Vr. Burgffe in a Sermon preached before King lames , related a fpeachof the Emperour^«g«J]w,whocommanded,thatall theglafTes (hould be broken , that no man might incurre fuch a fright as one Pollio was put into, for breaking one of his mailers glafTes. Whereby (as (x) he expounds himfelfe } he meant to intimate unto that wife (x)pf*r. King, that it were better to take away the Ceremonies then to throw rfthemfw* out the Ministers for them. Yet it is the verdict (^joffome, that the p*g- T7- blame lyeth not upon the Ceremonies, but upon Minifters themfel- [y)S*r#tt. ves, who leave their places, and draweall this evillupon themfe ves- N»fi*tri& This is even as (j() Naball blamed Vavid for breaking away from his amco **, mafter, whenhewaschafedawayagainft his will ; Andas (4) Julian, ^7- whenhehadimpoverifhed theChriftianSjlaughcdtherato fcorne.as {z) ,<Sam» if they had impoverished themfel ves , to get tha: bleffing which ,*V JJewifc Chrift had promifed to the poore. lib % 4 \i
The Canon Law fpeakethforthe Lords Bifhops, which are perfe- cted from citty to citty. {b) Necipfun hoc peccant , quoniam non fponte (b) deer. fed coaBe hocagunt : fed till qui eos perfecuuntur: nee ipfis Epifcopts hoc impu- pun, 2 . can- tanpotest,fed wfi qui eos hoc agere cogunt. How is it rhat they are not afha-ja, 7. q, I# med.whofay that minifters leave their owne places &; callings,when c, 36. they would faine abyde in them , and with heavie hearts are thruft from them.
Neither is this all the injury which isoccafioned bytheCeremo- Seel. III. nies: they makegodly and zealous Chriftians to he mocked cxnick- 'named P«nY4»;,except they can fwallow the Camell of Conformity. (c) thpx- Ourconfcicnces beare uswitnefle, how without all reafonwe avz/lor andtht branded with the name ofthofe auncientHeretikes , [e] from who fepwlat. p. $6. opinions and maners, O ! how farrearewe ? Andas for ouriclves, (d) Hifior. notwithstanding all this , we fhrinke not to be reproched for the cf theV^al- caufe of Chrift, we know the old Waldenfes before us , [d] were alfo denf. lib a .
Dd named ^.5.
i4 That the foriiHOttief Part, u
named by their adverfaries , Catbares or Purhancs : and that without caufe hath this name been given both to them & us. But we are moil forry, that fuch as are walkinghumbly with their God , feeking ea- gerly after the meanes of grace an£ falvation , and making good conlcience of all their wayes, fhould be made odious , and that Piety? Humility, Repentance, Zealc, Confcience, &c. fhould be mocked, and all by occafion of the Ceremonies.
CHAP. vr.
That the Ceremonies are inexpedient, hecau/e they hau den andcanfirme the Fapiftst
Seel:;. Io ^^^ He Papifts makeadvantageof the Ceremonies,and thereby
ill 111 con^rme themfclves in Popery. Firft, in that they ufe them
fer^y as the bellowesto blow up the fire of contention among us,
remembringthe old rule, divide <& impera. They fetus by the eares
among our lelves, that they may be io peace , and that inteftinedifc
{c)lohn cor(j may make us forget the common adverfary. (e) Calvine wrote
Calv epifl. t0 t^e £arie 0f Summer fet , fieri non pojfe qwn PapiHce [uperhitts infolefce*
& refp. cpl, ycm^ njfi mature compofitwn ejfet diffidiumde Ceremonw\{f) Dr, White faith,
I3?-« that our (Irife about Ceremonies is kindled and nourifhed by Pa-
(i~)w*y-to- p^s# jf we were liberate from the. Ceremonies, then might we
the Church doe more againft the Papifts, and th^y fhould not infuk as they
anf. to fell, doCt
33-
•Sed. II. But tney nave yet more advantage from our Formalifts : for they
like very well the courfe of Conformity, as the way of returning to
Popery, andfome of them tell us in broad tearmes , that they hope
we arecomming fad ho me to them. Th:y perceave us receaving &c
retaining their Roman Rites and Popifh policy, which makes them
refolve to ftay where they are,promifing, that themfelves are in the
fared: hold, and looking for our returning backe to them ..This was
ere now , both forefeene and foretold by the wifer fort.
(g) epift.aa {g)fynchitx told , that he feemed to hi mfeife, to heare the MonkesSc
regm, Kg leiuites Hiving among themfel ves, Ipfa quoque Pggina Angli<e doElifllma
lib. i.Zp-jto • Q pwdetiffima, paulatim incipit ad SanBce BgrnanteEcclefue re lire Relhionem\
tar p. 1 1 1 . ycfawptrj jam SanB'iflimis O1 Sacratiffimts Clericorum vehibm : fperandum eH
fore utrcliquaetiam omnia , &c. Papifts count all to be Calvmo- Papistry
(h) of tfc 1. e. h-alfc Papifts* v\ho are not Puritans , anddayly invite them to an
C'ojfe. c. o, affociacion with them again ft the Puritans , as (h] Parker fhewethouc
fed. 1 , of a Treatife imitled, Qoncmano EccUfi.e Capholica in A-nglia contra Cat-
vino
Chap. 6*. harden the Tapifis] x$
VinoPafifta&PuYitanos. And we may perceave out of (j) Vrancifcm (i) expof a Sanaa clara , thatthey difpare of any agreement with Puritans, yet confejf. hoping thac Formalifts will agree with them. In thefe hopes they Angl.art. are ftill more and more confirmed, whiles they obferve this con- ^i.&pro* fortuity in Ceremonies to be yet prevailing and proceeding , and hkm. i. de not like to rake a (land. Whereupon they (poore Foules) delight to pr<edsft, fray ftill in Bafylon , finding us fo faft turning backe thither, as if we repented we come out from thence.
Some would here defend the Ceremonies.as being moft expedient Seel. III. to gainethe Papifts, who otherwife fhovild be the more aliened from us. O I what a fi&ion i as if fotfooth , hardening of them in Pope- ry > were to winne them, and fofteting oftheminthe fame, were to weane them from it, Woefuli proofe hath taught us, that they ate but more and more hardened, and refolutely confirmed in Popery by thefe Romane remainders among us-, neither will they, whiles they exfped that wee are turning backe to them, doe fomuch as pieet us midway: but {k) they flee from u quam lengifliw '• their over- (* ) Mar- paffing and overreaching Pharifaicail zeale , nuke* them hold faft don.com. in the leaft point of their Religion, and adhere to che whole enure fa- Math. 8. brike of the Romane boih Doclrme and Discipline. 3'
Of the gaining of the Adv rfaries , {I) Auguft'we 'peaketh better, 0) deverb. for if you demand, tindeVincanmrpagani ,undt iiluminentur, unde ad [a- dom. Intern vocentur? He makeththis aniwer , deferite omnes fohnnitates if> ferm' *• forum , deferite nugas eorum: &fi non confentiunt verhati nofine fait em pu- (vn)Conrad deatfaucitatfs fuoe. 'Nulla eft concedenda gratia adverfarm (fay the Di- Schluffel- vines of Germany, ) in mutation* Ceremoniarum , niji prim nohifcum con- °ur2>' aPuc* fentiant in fundamento, hoc eft tin vera dotlrina & ufu Sacramen$orum They Tark of the that yeeld to the Adversaries in matters of Rite , eos hoc ipfo inimpie- ^roJfe- P-1* tat ijka conformant; and the Adverfaries tefftoneifia nonparum adjuvan- PaZ- 97- tut with (n) Halduin. BeUarmhere\cdLeth (o) Caffander his reconcilia- (n) decaf. non , for this reafon among others, becaule according to the judge- eonfc* ^-4r ment of theFathers^ we Ihould not change nor innovate the fmal- caP- x *• left matters, for gratifying of Heretikes. eaf- 3*
The beft way then which we can ufe , for winning of the Papifts , (°) ^'«« is (p) to fhine as lights in the world , holding forth the word ofJJife caP- l ?• by a pure and plaine profefiion : to be blamelelTeandharmelelTe , j/1^ ** the fonnes of God without rebuke in the midft of a crooked and perverfe nation , {q) that fo the name of God and his Doctrine bee (tf »• Tim,v not blafphemed* If thus we hold faft the ptofeflion ofthetrueth, and 6' lt walke in allhoneftconverfation according to the trueth fo many as (r, :* arc ordained to eternall life fhall be converted, and (r) made to glo- 'li c * 2t rify Godintheday ofvifitation.
If it be faid , that the Apoftle obferved fome Iewifh Ceremonies Seel:. IV* for winning ofthelewes, as we read, ,4#.i8.2i. Scio.xS, & ai.26.
Dd z and
2 6 That the Ceremonies dtflurfo Pait. i }
and that it appeareth , vvce may by the fame reafoti yeeld to Tome Popifh Ceremonies, for winning of the Papifts. Anf. 1. There is not alike reafon of the weake Iewe.% who then could not have been ful- ly intruded concerning Chriftian liberty ; and obftinate Papifts who might have been , and yet may be inftru&ed, but will not. Nor 2. is the°fameto bedoneinthe bright fhining meridianlight ofthe Gofpell , which was done before the full promulgation of the fame. (^)loXah, (j*) Nor 3.Isfo mach honour to be given, and i'o great refpeft to fpift. & bee had to Popifh and Antichriftian Rites , as to the Ceremonies. rtfp. tol. which were ordained by God himfelfe. Thefe were to be furfered a 45 1. 45 a. while,thatthey might be honourably buried: to thofe we are to fay with deteftation Get youhence, Nor 4. canthe fame things be done at Anticch, which are done at lerufalem; At Antioch Peter finned by uiingk'wifh Rres 5 becaufc there the greateft part were Gentiles , who'had both heard his preaching and feene his praclife again ft the Ceremonies of the Iewes. But at lerufalem Paul had to doe with the weake Ievves , who had heard litle or no preaching again ft thofe Ceremonies, and had feen as litle pra&ife contrary unto them ; 1SJ ow Scotland muftnotbe likened to lerufalem: no not xo Antioeh \ for Scotland hath been filled both with preaching and pra&ife contra- ry to the Ceremonies of the Papifts, yea hath moreover fpewed them out openly- & folemnely, with a religious and ftrift oath never to iicke them upagaine.
CHAP. VII.
7 hat the Ce t monks are inexpedient , becaufethey diflmbe. the peace of the Church,
£*!]3^ He great evils which have befallen to many famous Chur- v3lW c^es tnr0u§n tne meanes of inteftine dilTentions , fhould SSjSJta teach us not to admit the occasions ofthe like inconvenien- ces among our felves , for as by concord minima crefcunt , f o by dif- cord maxima dilabuntur.
Now, the Ceremoniesare the bane of our Churches peace, Sc the unhappy instruments of lamentable difcord among bretheren who ihould dwell togiter in unity. I know, th a t th e refute rs of the Cere- moniesare blamed, as if they were the troublers of die peace of the Church, & the tumultuating contentious fpirits , who make fo much adoe about matters of Rite and Ceremony. But I know alfo , that none have beene more ordinarily and commonly blamed for trou- (tyrt r«t. kliiig the peace of the Church , then they who leaft defer ved to be 1 s, jV * blamed for it. So was {t ) Elijah himfelfe thought to be hethat trou- bled.
s«a. I.
Chap. 7. the Churches peace, 27
bled Ifraell , when he contended againft the corruptions of the Church in his time. I will therefore obferve foure markes where by it may be knowen,when contentions are in a Church, which fide is re- prehenfible , and alfo who are to be blamed as the troublers of our Ifraell.
In contentions raifed in the Church}we are to confider the motive, Seel:. XL themeafurc, thematter, the manner. And 1. touching the motive; They who contend in a Church reprehenfibly, are moved and indu- ced to the courfe which they followe , by fome worldly refped. Atl. 19. 25 • i.Tiw. 6. j. Now, as for thofe'in our Church, who con- tend for the Ceremonies , many of them are ledde by fuch Arguments i^4r///?cw//rf,as,wealth,preferment,c^:c.and ifconfeience be at all loo- ked to by them, yet they only throw and extort an affent and allo- wance from it, when worldly refpedts have made them topropend and incline to an anterior liking of the Ceremonies. We doe not judge them, when we fay io, but by their fruits we know them. As (u) Pope Innocent the 7. whiles he was yet a Cardinall,ufed to tepre- (u) vlatin. hend the negligence and timidity of the former Popes, who had not in vita removed the fchifme & troub'e of the Church of Rome, yet when Innoc. 7+ himfelfe was advanced to the Popedome , he followed the footfteps of his Predeceffors, governing all thinges tumultuoufly , & making the fchifme worfe:fo among our Oppo(ites,notafewhave been over- come with eafe, pleafure, riches, favour , preeminence , cxc. to like well of the Ceremonies,which never had their firft love; When they had both fpokenanddifputed againft them ; What drew thern over- itayes to contend for them , except (I fay not the feekingof (left I be thought uncharitable) but) their beeing fought by fome worldlv fcenerite ? And how could fuch a one excufe himfelre , but by ?artf his Apology, Ingentibm ardent , judicium domts follichare meum. A.nd what marvell that (x) Balahj promotion , and Sauls [y) fields and [*) Numb. vineyards.prevailcwith fuch as (z) love thisprefent world. f2f"17«
■ The Popifh oyle and Chrifme were defended by Jflebim and Stdo- (yaY/ nlth'y (a) ut ipfinimirum difcederent unBicns . How like to them have we (z) i.Tim. knowen many Formalists? The heft refpeft which (h) B.Lindfey na- ,4,I°* meth for kneeling at the Communion, is, the efhewing the Prince his vaJ Suia\ offence; But as for us , let it be told who hath ever of a Con form id ?■?•■*•• b*come aNon-conformift, for any worldly benefite which he might zl-taZ* exfpe&byhis non-confirmitv?What worldly re(pee~t hav-e we to move 3"6; us to refufe the CeremoniesrWhat wealtl ? What preferment ? What (°) '*$&• cafe ? What pleatiire ? What favour ? Doe we not expofe Our<0i^ePa^\ felves to the hazard of all thefe things? Only our confeiences fairer °f *** hrK us not to confent to fuch things as we fee to be unlawfull and hurtfull cfScctl' for the Church.
2. Let it be confidesed, which fide exceeds in contending, they Seel. IH>
Dd 3 ate.
2 8 . That the Cermonies diftttrbc Parr, z]
are in the fault, i Tim. 6.4. Now our Oppofitcs doe farre overmatch lis and overftnde us in contention. For ? 1 . They harbour a in vete- rare difhke of every courfe and cuftome which we like well off-, and they carpe ac many deeds, words, writings, opinions, ftfliions, &c in us , which they letpaffc in others of their owne minde. Whereas we (God kn owes ) ate glad to allows in them , any thing which wee allo.v in others , and arefo farre from nitimur in vttitum fenfptr cupi* mufytunegatay that mod heartily we condefcenclto apply our felvcs by all poffible meanes to obfeive them , pleafe them , and cntertaine peace with them , whoimpofe and urge upon us , aunconfcionable obfevvation of cercaine Ceremonies , and to doe as much for thera tf4)PhiUj.rfi as any ground of conference or rcafon can warrant, (a) So farre as wc have attained , wewalke by the fame rule with them ,and fo ex-» ceed not in the meafure. 2. It may be feen, that they exceed in con- tending with us, if we be compared with the Papifts : againft them they contend more rcmiflely, againft us moreintenfively. {b) Sar&via
(b) Sarav. pro'fe(Te:h, that he thin kcth worleof us.then of Papifts. He hath rea- N.fratri 6* font/) who complaineth of For mahfts their defirenotto fturreaud amico art. contend againft the Papifts , and their fierceneffe againft their owne
1T. i bretheren. Thn (faith he) U ill provided for , and can have no txcufi\ that
(c) V ark of fimenot to contend with Papi/ls fhould contend with their bmberen, and difplezfe the crjje cap. fa f9nna ef their owne mother , to pleafe th§ entrntes of (heir Pother > wdbtetfe not 6. feci, 21. the degge before the Lyon, but the Lyon forfxvow of the degge-i asd tnakf the natu- ral! chtlde to weepe .while thefonne of the bondwoman doeth triumph. 3 . That they exceed? appeareth from the effects of their contending:huit,cV dam - nage is a maine effect of contention. Calvim iPtrkjnesl&L Parewpbfetva
^upon G*l. 5. 1 5. that contentions breed huttfull 5c pernitious effects, which tend toconfumption and deltruction. Now wherein doewe injure or harme our Oppofites, in their perfons, callings, places, &:c? yet in all thefe and many other things doe ihey wrong us, by de- famation , deprivation, fpoliation , incarceration, &c. How much better were it, to remove the Babylonian baggage of Antichriftiaa Ceremonies ,whichare the mifchievous meanes, both of the ftrife and of all the evill which ariieth out of it ? Puc away the Ceremo- nies , caft out this loncu , and behold© , the Itorme will ceafe. A wife Pilot , will in a urgent ftorme , caft out even fome precious wares;
(d) ibid. fe8. that the reft may be fafe. And fhallvve then faith (J) Parker, call cut the zz. Vdots of the fhip themfelves, and all to [pars the Wares of Rome which are no law- ful! trajficque f.
Sect. IV* %. Let the mat:er be looked to, for which each fide contendeth;
(e) Serm.at Brethren faith the (c) Archb. ofSain5iandrewsy to amend id not a fault, if fo Perth. Af- it be for a weighty matter , but to be centent 19444 m a light bufinei this w fiultie. £mb, Now I wifh it may pleafe him to underftand, that when we contend
about the removall of the Ceremonies , we contend for a very waighty matter, for we prove the removall of thera, to been ecef-
fary
Chap. 7. the Churches peace. 19
fary iti refpect of their inconveniency , and unlawfuIIncfTe. They who urge the Ceremonies, contend for things which arenotnecef- fary, and we who refufethem , contend for things which are moft neccfTary, even for the Doctrine and Difcipline warranted by Gods Word,againft all corruptions of Idolatricand Superftition. That the Ceremonies can neither be purged of Superftition nor Idolatry , I have proved in the 3. part of this Dilpute.
4. If the manner cf contending ,beobferved, our O^pofites will Seel. V\ be found reproveable ; notwe: we contend by the grounds of truth and reafon :but they ufe to anfvvcr all* objections , and refolve all cjueftions , by thefentenceofSuperiours,andthe will of the Law, vve contend from Gods Word and good reafon , they from mans will and no reafon. This was clearely feeneat the nrft conclufion of the five Articles at Perth A lie mbly. (fjfart. r,
£.Lr**j$y-himfelfe relating the proceedings of the fame, (/) telsus, p, 63. that Mr. lohn CarmkheU and Mr. WtUUm Scote alledged, that if any would prefe to abolifh the order which had been long keeped in this Clurch,anddrawin things not receaved yet, they fhould beholden to prove, either that the things urged, were neceitary and expedient for our Church, or the order hitherto kept, Dot meet to be retained. This was denied, upon this ground; that is was the Prince fwho by hirniel&had power to reforme fuch things as were amilTc in the out- wartl policy of the Church) that required tohavethechange made. Well , fince they muft needs takerhe opponents part , they defired this que ft ion to be reafotied. Wbethtr knitting or fitting at the Communion were the Jitter gefture? This alfo was refufed , and the queftion was propounded thus. His Md\ejtyde fires ourgefture of fitting at the Communion to be (hanged into kneeling : why ought not the fame to be done } At lentghwhen Mr, Iohn Carmichall brought an Argumentfrom thecuftome and practife ofthe (») ibid fag] Church of Scotland, {g} it was anfwered-,that albeit the Argument held 54 good againft the motions of private *nen, yet his Majefty requiring rhs practife to be changed , matters behoved to admit a new confe- deration, andthat becaufe it was the Prince his priviledge, &c.
I muft fay , the B. was not well advifed to infert this palfage, which (if there were no more) lets the world fee, that free reafoning was. denied. For his Majefties Auctority , did both exeeme the af- iirmers from the painesofprobation , (contrary to the lawes of de- putation) and ftate the queftion, and alio anfweare Arguments.
And moreover, when the Articles were pur in voting, the Arch- bifhopin calling on the names did inculcate thefc and the like words: ; have the K mg in your minde -.remember on the King: holy to the King. This, B, L-ndfey pafleth over in deepQ faience , though it be challenged by his Antagonift. [h) Plinim provcih , tha: animali* mftfU doe fornctimes ( h j natttr, fleeoe ^becaufe ianctimes when light is h olden nccre them , yet they Hifi th.\o*
ft ^ re «>/>.«//.
30 OfScarMll. Part. *Y
{lurre nor. And may not we conclude, that the B. was fleeping, when tho both in this , and diverfe other places , fuch convincing light was ho den out before him, yet hath hefaid nothing nor ftur- red himfelfeat all for the matter ? Yet further, we findethat B.Spotf- tvoodm his Sermon a: that pretended Aflembly, aufweareth all fuch as can not veeld to :h^ Ceremonies with the p-'ace of their confeiea- ces • That without any more adoe , they may no: controule publike judgement, but mutt alwayes efrceme that to be heft and moftfeem- ly, which iecmeth (o in the eye of publike auct-ority; That even inch Rites and orders as are not rightly eftablifned, mud be obeyed fo long asthey have the force* of a constitutions That the fentence-of Supenours ought to direct us and be a fufficient ground to our con- fcience for obeying. Thisisthe beft of their reaibning, and before
(\)S*rm. on allfaile. (i) The B. otWmthefter reafoneth from bare culbme. Have
I Cor. 1 1. we not caufe to renew the complaint which {k) lob. Lafctu made in 1 6. behalfe of the Protectants in Germanie; null* cognittone cnufx per colloquium
(k) Thuan.aut amicam fuffragwrum colUiiomm hzbitu , fed prxjudicio tantum ipforum fen*
Htf. lb . 1 6 . untium dtmnsui .
/Mo6. ^
CHAP. VI He
7 hat the inexpediency of the Ceremonies] in re/peff ofths Scandall of the veafy, maybe pla/ne/y perceived , 1 2 popofitions touching Scandall are premitted,
SecL I. fej|S ^cre remaineth yet another inconveniency found in the W* t'S Ceremonies , which is Scandall ; They hinder our fpiritnall J^^tS edification, and groweth in Faith and Plerophory, Sc make th.j. us ftumblein ftead of going forvvarde. (I) The beft members of the i^=- body mould be cut off, when they orTend,much more the fuperfluous humours , fuch as the Popifh Ceremonies mull be reckoned to bee. And what if {ome wide confeiences thinke the Ceremonies no ilumbling blockes ? Nay, what if fome pretend, that they edify ? (m)PiTr» ha [m) FeruU afinis grztifpmt fttnt in pabuh , ceterii vero jumentk prtfenttnto ve- tur.Htii. neno. Itisenoughto evince the mconveniency of the Ceremonies , lio.i\.cxp. that fome are icandalized , yea many tender confeiences are maic i. to ftumble by their meanes. We learne from outMafter , (») Jut
(■»; Math. 18. the Scandall of one is to be cared for , much more the Scandall of 6' many , cfpecially if thofe rmny, be of the number of the litle ones
which believe in him. But for our clearer proceeding in this Argu- ment ; I wfll piemit thefe proportions; or which. we are to majce ufc.
J. OHM*
Chap, 8. Of Scandall. 31
l.*ZKM<ict\ov CV CJOOXOjJLfjLct ; Scandall or offence is not the Seel. II. grieving or difpleafing of my brother ; for peradventure when I grieve him ordifpleafe him , I doe edify him ;now Edification and Scandall are not compatible. But Scandall , is a word or deed pro- ceeding from me, which is or may be the occafion of another mans halting, or falling into , or fwervingfrom' the ftraight way of righ- tcoufneiTe. Scandakm ( faith {0) Hhrome) nos offendicnlum , velrumant &im- (0) com. in pxftiomm pedis poflumni dicere : quando ergo legxmm , quicunqm de minimis \flU Math.A£. feandali^iverit quemp'lam : hoc intedtgimus : quicunque ditto fitclovs occajloncm % . c. 1 5 . ruin* cuiquam dederit. Scandalum faith (p) Almandm Volmwy eft diclumvelfa- (p^ fym. clumt quo alim deterior reddttur. Ibeol lib 6,
I I. Thisoccafion of halting, {tumbling, or fwerving, which we cap. 3. Col, call Scandall , is fometimes onely given on the part of the offender, 19. fometimesonely taken on the part of the offended , fometimes both
given on the one part, and taken on the other. The fir ft fort is >Scan« dall given, and not taken; The fecond is , Scandall takjn, and not given ; The third is, Scandall both taken andgiven.
III. AH thefc three kindes of Scandall are finfull. The fuft is the finneofthe offender; for it is a fault to give my brother occafion of (tumbling, though he ftumblenot. The fecond is the finne of the offended, who ftiould not take offence where he hath no caufe. The third is a finne on both fides ; for as it is a fault to lay an occafion of falling before another 5 fo it is a fault in him to fall, though hes have occafion.
•
I V. A Scandall given or active, is not onely fuch a word or deed, 5^ jjr^ whereby we intend the fall of our Brother, but {q) alfo, fuch a word /q\ jiattin. or d eed , quod de fai rations habet y quod Jit indudlivum adpeccandum , put a cum 2.1**42. nliquis publice facit peccatum , vel quod habet fimilitudmem peccati. lob. 16.2. arft r ^arc. Put the cafe a man flay away from theChriftian Affemblies , *n& Ant.dedom. publike worfhip of God , intending to employ his ftudies all this^RL E^/# time , for the good of the Church by writing ; fuch a man doth not/^ ^,'Cap. ' onely not intend the fail of others, but by the contrary he intendeth x 0,0,44. edification ; yet doth he fcandalize them , becaufe ratio & conditio ope- ris is fcandalous and inductive to finne.
V. An active Scandall is given (and fo is faulty) many wayesj If it be in a thing Iawfull,then it makes our brother condemne our lawfull deed, yea animates him by our examp!e,Mto that which in his confidence he condunneth, both which arefinne. Ifitbein athing unlawfull, then is the Scandall given and peccant, ifeitherour bro- ther be made to fall into the outward a& of finne; or 2. If he bee made toftumble m his confeience, and to call in queftion the way of trueth; or 3. If it doe fo much as to make him halt , or weaken his plerephory or full affurance; or 4. If it hinder his growth and
E e gomg
3i Of Scandall Part. V
going forward, and make him , though neither to fall , nor to (tum- ble , nor to halt , yet to have a fmaler prog'-eiTe. Or 5. If none of thefe evils be produced in our brother, yet when either through ouc intentions and the condition of the deed togither 5 or through the condition of the deed alone, occafion is given him of finning any (A Mare, one of thefe wayes. Opwnoftrum if) faith a great Pro&or for Popifti Ant dt dom. Ceremonies, quoties Jive natura fua ,five fuperaddito tccidente alicujiu circum- denp. Eccl. ft^tu > *H induftivum proximi ad ptccatum ,/ive caufativum magni malt ,Jive hb.i. cap . turbntivum boni fpiritualu ; five impedithum fidei &c . quamvii etiam effeftut non 1 1 . » . 1 S . fejusretur, malum eft &peccatum.
Sect. 17. VI. A paflive Scandall, which is taken and not given, is not onely faulty , when it proceedethof malice , but alfo, when it proceedeth of ignorance and infirmity: and Scandalumpufillorum , may be Scandalunt acceptum , on the part of the offended faulty, as well as Scandalum Pba- riftorum. When weake ones are offended at me for the ufe of a la v- full thing , before I know of their weakenefTc , and their taking of ofFence.the Scandall is onely paflive, andfo we fee, that weake ones may take offence where nonets given, as well as the malitious.Now, their taking of offence , though it proceed of weakneffe , yet is fin- full , for their weakneffe and ignorance is a fault , and doth not ex- cufe them.
VILA Scandall may be at firft onely paflive, & yet afcerward be- come active. For example, Gedeom Ephod , and the brafen Serpent, wtf re monuments of Gods mercies, and were neither evill , nor ap- pearances of evill, fo that when people were firft fcandalizea by them , the Scandall was merely paflive , but the keeping and retai- ning ofthem, after that Scandall rofe out of chem, made :he Scan- dall to become active alfo, becaufe the refervingof them after that time , was not without appearance of evill,
Sect. V. VIII. The occafion of an Scandall which is onely paflive fhould
beremoved,ifitbe notfome neceffary thing, & we are not onely to
fhunne that which giveth Scandall, but alfo that whereupon follow-
. e:h a Scandall taken ,wha:foever it be, if it be not neceffiry. This
(f) torn, in ls fo evjdent , that Papids themfelves fubferibe to it, for (/). botn
2«». i«. q, Qatd'maWCajettn, and Dominictu Bstnnes fay, that we fhould abftaine
43. aw. 7. even ^ fpiritHxhbw non necifrmti when Scandall rifeth out ofthem.
(t) Uemmg. IX. Neither can the indirTerency or lawfullnes of the thing done,
"Emhir.lkecl nor the ordinance of Auctority commanding the ufe of it, make the
chJf-T,. cup. Scandall following upon it , to bee onely paflive , which other>vife ,
17. Magdt- i.e. in cafe the thing were neither lawful!, nor ordained by Aucto.
luyg.cent.i. rity , fhould be active. Not the former; for [t) our Divines teach,
lb. 1. cap 4. ih&l Sew dilum datum riieth fometimes , ex facie in fi adiaphoro when it
O/44.8. is done intewpeflive , contra thmtatti rcgukm. Not the latter-, for no
44-9- humane
Chap. 8. OfScwdd. 5 3
humane Audority can take away the condition ofScandall, from that which otherwife fhouldbeScandall, becaufe (») nuUtu horns po- /fi) Amef. tifi vel chiritats , vel confcientiu noflris impcmre , w/ ptriculum fcandili datiprcf /,£, 5 , ^ tare , faith a learned Cafuift. confc c.n.
X. A. ScancUll'-ii paflive and taken by the fcandalized , without q. 6. the fault of the doer , onely in this cafe , (x) cum f*8um unim etfalteri (x) Amef. ozufio piccandi , pr&ter intentionem facientis , & conditioner?* falli fo that to cte ibid q 3 . making of the doer blamelefl'e , is not onely required, that he intend
not his brothers fall, butalfo that the deed be neither evill in it felfe, nor yet done inordinately , and with apperance of e vill.
XI. TheScandallnottobecared for, is onely in neceflary things, Se3\ VI. fuch as the hearing of the Word , Prayer, &c. from which we may notabftaine, though all the world fhould be offended at us: Inthefe
I fay , and thefe onely, Scandnlum quod oritur ex rebus per fe bonis & mcrjf*- r'm , non licet evitare , &c. at rerum legit timarum fed non necejfariarum dijpareft ratio , &c. (y) faith a great Formalift. (y) Camero
XII. We ought for the Scandal! of the malitious,to abftaine from pr*lecl. in all things from which we ought toabftaine for the Scandall of the Mat. iS. weake ; for we ought not to abftaine from neceflary things for the jjefcand* Scandall of the weake , no more then for the Scandall of the mali-
tious , and from things that are not neceflary, we ought to abftaine for the Scandall of the malitious , as well as for the Scandall of the weake. So that weaknefle and malice in the offended non variant fpe- ciem fcandali , but onely gradum ejufdem faciei. Both his fault who is offended through malice is greater , then his fault who is offended through weaknefle, and likewife his fault who offends the weake in the Faith , is greater then his fault who offends thole who are mali- tious againft the Faith, becaufe as we ought to doe good to all men, fo chiefly to thofe ofthe houfhold of Faith. Neverthelefle, the kind ofScandall remainesthe fame, whether we have to doe with the malitious or the weake.
They are therefore greatly miftaken , who conclude from "Paul his not circumcifing of Titm^ Qahz.\. 5 . that he cared not for the Scan- dall of the malitious. The Argument were good if thofe falfe bre- theren had been fcandalized by his not circumcifing of Titwybut they were onely difpleafed hereby , not fcandalized. The A po (tie fa w, that they were to be fcandalized by his circumcifing ofTitw, there- fore of very purpofe he circumcifed him not ; Becaufe he forefaw flatim fore ut illi inherent in calumniam faith (z) Calvine ; Ne eocircumcifo glo- (z) com. in riarentur Evangeli6am Ubsrtatemquam Paulmpradicabat fublatam faith (a) Bui- ilium locum, linger. If they had competed him to circumcife Tttm ,filfo fratribus {.\)com- \wat(t eratculumnianii an fa adverjks faulum , faith (b) Vanm , wlio alio in- went. ibid. ferreth well from this place . that we arc taught to beware of two ex- (b) com, tb. tteames, to wit, the Scandall ofthe weake on the one part, and the
Ee 2 pervi- #
34 Of Scandall. Part. 2.
pervi'cacie of falfc brcthcren on the other part ijienim (faith he) ufu rerum mediarum videmtu , vtl illoi ojfndi , hoc eft , in fi&e fabefrflari, vel iftoi in f*lf* opimone obfirmari , omit tenda pot in* funtt quia tunc per accident punt illicit*. Whereupon I throw back the Argument, & proves from this place , that Paul cared tofhunnethe Scandall of the malicious, which fhould have followed upon his circumcifingofTiim* , as well as he cared to fhunne the offence of the weake , which fhould have followed upon his not circumcifingofTV/wo/foe. And that Paul cared for the Scandall of the malitious , is further confirmed by his not taking wages at Co- rinth ; they who would have been offended at his taking wages there, were malitious , and did but feeke occafion againft him, 2 Cor. 1 1 . v. 1 2. yet his taking wages there, not being neceffary (asappeartth from, i Cor. 1 1.9-) heabftained.
Chrift his not caring for the Scandall of the Pharifees , is alfo ob- jected to prove, that if the thing bee lawful I or indifferent , wee are M of the not to care f°r tne offence of the malitious. But (c) Party an- trofTepart.i. fwcrech well. The Scandall then not cared for , ft, when the Pharifees art p 57. ■ offended M his abftainingfrom their wakings 5 and hts preaching of true Do-
(d) Luk» 1 3. Brine : both of which were neceffary duties for him to doe. *And (d) when he 1 <>. defendeth hts healing on Sabbaths ; and his Difciples plucking cares , upon this
(e) Math* 12. yeafon . they are duties ofnecelfity , and charity, he plainely infinuateth, there
is no defence for deeds unneceffary when the malitious are fcandalued. When tf\ Marh. 17. *^e thing was indifferent , doth he not forgoe hti liberty for to plea fe them, at 27. ' (/) when he payed Tribute^ left he fhould offend themtalthough he kpew they wert
malitious.
Thus have I evinced a maine point , namely, that when Scandall is knowne to follow upon anything, if k be not neceffary , there is norefpeft whatsoever which can juftify it.
CHAP. IX.
All the defences ofthe Ceremonies,ufed to ju/lify them againft the Scandall imputed to them , are confuted.
$£&' !• 6331 R°m tnat which hath been faid ,it followcth inevitably , ^f'D^t that fince Scandall rifeth ou': ofthe controverted Ceremo- *||||yg nies and fince they are not things neceffary , they are to bee condemned and removed as moft inconvenient. But that thcincon- veniencyofthem , inrefpect ofthe Scandall which they caufe, may be particularly and plainely evinced , I come to difcuffe all the de- fences which our Op pofites ufe againft our Argument of Scandall. Thefe Formalifts who aknowledge the inconveniency of the Cere- montes-in refpeel: of Scandall , and yet conforme themfelves to the
fame
Chap. f. Of Scandal!. 3 f
fame , are brought in by (g) Hooker making their Apology on this (g)Eccl wife. Touching the- offence of the weake , we mufl adventure it, if tbeyperifb, Vol, pa^ they peri fb ($ c. our Pajlorall charge is Gods abfdute commandement , ra- 246. ther then that [hall be taken from us , &"c. The opinion of fuch, befide that it will be hateful! and accurfed to everyone whoconfidereth it , lhave (h) faid enough againft it heretofore. (h)7«/^
cap. 1. Wherefore I will here medle onely with fuch ,asgoe about to Se&. II, purge the Ceremonies from the inconveniency of Scandall. And mil, they commonly anfwer us, that the Scandall which followeth upon the Ceremonies , is paflivc and taken onely , not active and given: which anfwer I find both impertinent and falfe. It is imper- tinent , becaufe put the cafe the Scandall were onely paflive and ta- ken, yet the occafion of it fhould b- removed out or the way, when it is not a thing neceflary , according to my 8. 1 1 . and 1 2 Propor- tions; and if any of our Oppofites will den e this , let them blulTh for /•» .. ,, fhame.(*j A lefuitefhall correct them , and teach them from Math. ^ Mal(io~ 17. 27. That Chrift fhunned a Scandall , which would have been nf' **!"' m merely padive , and therefore that this is not to be taken for a fure *7??\ yUm% and perpetuall rule, Scandalum datum , non acceptum effe Vitandum. * ' ^m ik) One ofourowne Writers upon this fame place noteth , that this eom,tm: Scandall which Chrift efhewed > had been a Scandall taken onely, becaufe the exactors of the tribute money 3 ought not to have been ignorant of Chrift his immunity and dignity , yet becaufe they were ignorant of the fame, left he fhould feeme to give a ScandaU\cedere poti«s fua libertate Voluit. Jdeo non tantum dicit : tie fcandalhentur : fed m fcandalUemus eos , hoc eft) nefcandali materiam eisdemus.
Th?iranfweareisalfo falfe; 1. There is no fcandalltaken, but (if Se&. HI. it be knowen to betaken, and the thing at which it is taken be not weceiTary,) it is alfo given. The Scandall of the weake in the Apofties times,who were offended with the liberty of ea ing all forts of meats, was pafliveand taken, as (b ^wefci/tf obferveth,yetwas that Scandall (0 tm.m given and peccant , upon their part who ufed their liberty of eating Epn. 4» all forts ofmeats,&fo cared nor for the ofTence of the Weake. Think 33* theythen that our taking of offence can excufe their giving of of- fence ? Nay, fince the things whereby they offend us , are no necef- fary things, they aregreatiy to be blamed.
That trie Ceremonies are not neceflary in themfelves our Oppo- lltesaknowledge; and that they are not necefTaty in refpecl: of the Churches determination , I have proven in the firft part of my Dis- pute. Wherefore having no neceiliiy in them, they ought tobeabo- lifhed. whenfcandall is knowen toarifeout of them.
2. Giving and not graunting, that the Scandall of them who were firft offended at the Ceremonies , was only paflive, yetiheufingof
Ee 3 them
3 6 Of the fcandali Part, u
them after Scandall is knowento rife out of them , mnft be an active
Scandall, becaufc the keeping of a thing which is not necefiary , af-
(mNi Vohn. ter fcandali rii'cth out of it,is ana&ive Scandall, though the Scandall
Sjnt. tlxol. which at firft rofe out of it, had beene only pailive , as Ifhew in my
lib. 6,c, 3. feventh Proportion.
col. 19. 3. The truetb :s, that both fir ft and laft. the Scandall of the Oere-
[n)4$uin. monies is aftive and given : for an active Scandall is diftum vel faBum 2.:*. ^1.43 . vere malum, aut malt fpeciem hab ens, quo auBor al'ns peccandi occafionemprce* art. 2. let, fav \m) our Divines. An active Scandall is ever a (inne in him (o)Marc. who offendeth, quia vel ipfum opus quod fach eft pcccatum, velctiamjiha- Ant dedom.beat fpeciem peccati , &c. Say the (n) Schoolmen. A fcandali given derep. eccl. and faulty , id opus aut ex fe malum , aut apparenter, fay (0) Formaliits lib. i.e. xi. themfelves. ». 18.
Seel, IV. Now to fay the lea ft thatcanbefaid , the Ceremonies have a very- great appearance of evill, and fo the Scandall which followech them (p)Cew.i. fhall be proven to be active, (p) The Divines of Magdeburge inferre hb.z.cap.4.. from 1. Tbeff. 5.22. fpeciem malt etiam fcandala con fie ere. [q) I/miwtea- col. 450. cheththat Scandall is given Jive ex emplo malo , five fpeciem hab erne malt. (q) com. in (r) M. ^Ant. dedomim maketh the fcandali fmne, ubiquvs opere fuo alU Daniel, quo , vel de fe malo , Vel indifferent!, aut bono, fed cum fpecie apparent** 1. $. mali , proximum tnducitad peccandum, etiamfi mtentio ipfm ad hoc non (r) derep. feratur.
'EcckfJtb^. But to difcover the appearance of evili which is in the Ceremo- cap. 10. nies, let usconfiderwith(VJ Zanchim , that the appearance of evill, n . 44. from which the Apoftleexhorteth to abftaine, may be expounded (s)comm. two waves. Firft,it may be referred to the preceeding words , and fo in iThelT. meant of Prophecieand trying the Do&rineof Prophets or Prea- 5. 22. chers, for wefhould be ware in this matter3of all which hath any ap- pearance of evil!? that is, from all things, qua ab Hareticu in fuam fen* tentiam, malamque confequentiam trahi poffunt. For example faith %an- chins > Niftorius (aid that we are faved by the blood , not of the Sonne of God , but of the fonne of man. Now if any mppreiTing that negative.fhcuidfay, we are faved by the blood of the fonne of man, though ihis might receave a right explication , yet it harh an appea- rance of evill , becaufe from it Nejlorius might confirme his herefie. Appearance of evill thus expounded , will be found in the Ceremo- nies in queftion. If a Phrafe or forme of fpeaking, from which He- rerikesmay draw bad confequences,St confirme their errors, 'hough not truly, yet in fhevv, bean appearance of evill ; then much more are vifibie Ceremonies and received Cuftomes , from which Here- t»kes get occafion to confirme their hereticail errors and damnable fu perftitions , very planic and undeniable appearances of much cv'iil.
Now Papifts confirme many of their fuperftitions by the Engliih
Cere-
Chap. 9. Gf the Ceremonies. 37
Ceremonies, ft) ?arkcr giveth too many deare inftanccs , namely* (O*/'^ that by the Enghfh Cio ffc,Martiatt juftifyeth the Popifh Cr6ffc; And "#««?• 3 • SaundtrSythQ Popifh Images • That the Engliih Service booke, isdra-/^2'6- wen by Parfotis and Briftotve, to a countenancing of their Made- booke: That %wio/^dra*ethpri vat Baptifme , to aproofeof the ^UL*J? neceffity which they put in that Sacrament : That the Bjpemisls drawe w L,al- 4* the Abfolutionof the ficke, prefcribedintheCommunion-booke, l0, to an approbation of their Abfolution , Auricular Cor.feflion, and W con)er» Sacrament of Pcnnancc.To thefe Inftances I adde,that (u) the^- ®lth piifis con firme their Feaft of the aflumption of Mary , from the o:her ™m' ,c,b* Fcarts which the Church of Ewgkwd obfervech. And fo doth , diV' z' 0 {x) I. Hart. «.4o8..
s ' 410.
It will be faid, that Papifts have no ground nor reafon to con firme Seel:. V. any of their fu perditions by the Englifh Ceremonies. But I anfwere: 1. If itwereioj yet for a i much, as Papifts draw them to a confir- mation of their fuperftitions , we fhould abftaine from them as ap- pearances of evill. Eating ( at aprivat banquet ) of that which was facrificed to Idols, did confirme ane Idolater and Infidell in his religion , as (y ) Farms noteth i yet from this , the Idolater had \y)com-m no reafon to confirme himfelfe in his'Jdolatry ; but becaufe the1, °r,I°' Idolater feeing it , might draw it to a confirmation ; the Apo- 2°* file will have it for that refpe6fc foreborne. When the Amans , abufedTrin-immerfion in Baptifme , to fignify three natures of the , , three perfons, (3) Pope Gregory and [a) the fourth Councell of Toledo (z> l*' T* ordaincd.tha: in 5^4we > thrife warning fhould no longer be ufed in *?'**' ^lw Baptifme , but once only. The ^Arrians had no juft reafon to draw W c**-f ■ fuchafignification from the Ceremony ofTrin-immerfion: yet was it abolifhed when thofe Heretikes did fo abufe it. If any fay, that we arefaved by the blood of the fonneof man, the phrafeis orthodoxe, becaufe of the communication or rather communion of properties, and the Nettorians can not with good reafon by it confirme their He- rcfie, yet are we to abftaine from this forme of fpeach , in fyn- cbius his judgment, when it is draw en to the confirmation of that error.
I conclude with that which {b) P4^w llledseth out of re Harmony (b) ubifu- of Cor.feljions . Cum adiaphora rapiuntur ad confefljonem , libera ejje defimnt. pra. Mwkc rap'utntur. 2. The Ceremonies doe indeed greatly counte- nance thofe iuperftitions of Papifts : becaufe (c) Co mmttnio rhuum elf {c) BaU.de qu.ifi Jymlolum commmionn in Religione: So that Papifts get occafion caf. confe. trprri the Ceremonies , of confirming, not only thofe Popifh Rites lib. 2. cap. yhich j, e have not yet received , but alfo the whole Popifh Reli- 14. caf. 7. g'.on.cfpecially fince they fee Conforming fo fidingwith them againft N on- Conforming , ex making both their opinions and their practi- fes to be better, then wereckomhem to be.
(d)Sa*
3 5 Of the Ceremonies Parti.
(A\S fratri {&) Saravia perceaving how much ihe Popifh Sacrament of Con- & arnica firmacion, is countenanced 6c confirmed by our B.flioping, rhir kes an. 13. it bed to put the faireft facehe can , upon the Papiils judgment of
that baftard Sacrament. He would have us believe , that the Papifts
doe not extoikhc dignity of the Sacrament of Confirmation above (e) Annot. Baptifme. But he mould hare confidered that which (e) Cartwrighp en Act. 8. marketh out of thefirft Torre of the Cotincells , that in the Epiule feci. 5. which is afcribed to Euf elms & Melciades Bifhops ofl^o;»c,iris plainly
affirmed, that the Sacrament of Confirmations more to be reverenced
then the Sacrament of Baptifme.
ScSt. VI. Zfmchhts hath another expofition of the appearance of evi'.l , which doth alio agree to the Ceremonies. The appearance of evill which makech Scandall , and from which the Apoftle would have us to ab- ftaine, may be taken generally of all forts of finne, cV all evill things vvhatfoever : for fo we fhould abftaine from all that which hath any appearance of evill ; nullam prabentes occafionem proximo nofiro aliquid malidembfi fufpicandi. Heinitanceth for example, the ea ing of Ido- lothytes in Pauls cime, 1 . Cor. 10. now if the eating 'of Idolothyte Meats, was an appearance of evill, and fo fcandalous , becaufcit gave the weake occafion to fufpe&fome eviil offuthasdideat them; much mote Idolothyte Rites which havenotonly beene dedicated andconfecraced to the honour of Idolls, but alfo publikely and com- monly ufed and imployed in Idolatrous worfhip; furely whofoever ufeth fuch Idolothvtes, gives great occafion to hi> brother to fufped fome evill of him, becanfe of iuch evill favoured appearances. And thus we fee , how great appearance of evill , is mote then mani- feft in the Ceremonies , which maketh the Scandall a&ive , if there were no more. But afterwards we mall fee the Ceremonies to be evill and unlawfuli in themfelves , and fo to be in the worft kinde of active Scandall.
Seel. VII. Two things are objt&ed here by our Advcrfaries , to make it ap-
peare that the Scandall of Conformity, is not active nor fautly upon
their parr. 1. They fay, they are blamelefle, becaufe they render a
reafon of that which they doe , fo that we may know the lawfullnefTe
[£) Vark. of it. To this , fufficientanfwete hath beene made allready, by one
ef'the crojfs whole anfweres I may well produce to provoke Conform ifts thcre-
part. 2. w rn > becaufe no rep^y bach ever beene made to them. This faith
pa*. {?. if) ne ' '2f lt: ke true , then fee wean end of all the duty of bearing with the
1 Thefl y**k$ '■ °f forbearing our otvne liberty ■> power , and auclority in things indijfc-
f '. 1 4. rcm » for t^r fapportance : yea an end of all the care to prevent their of-
Ro m, 1 4. fmCi > ^ ¥P'mc> ^:£m occafion fg) ant condemnandi factum noTtrum , am illud
16 1. Cor. 9. ia. 1. ThelT. 2.7. Act. 20. 34. Math. i3, 6. (g) Cornel
I *n fm.com, Ezang.c.ji, .
imhdu*
Chap, yl of tbt Ceremonies, 39
tmitandi contra fionfcientiam, which we have (h) fo often, fo ferioujly, with {h) Aug. fo many reafons , obteslations , yea woes and thr earnings commanded torn demonb. throughout the Word What needed Paul to write fo much again ft the fcandall Mmtch I. z, of meates , and againsl the fcandall of ldolothious meats f Tim one precept c*£> 14. ?night have fufficed , let the firong give a reafon for htf eating , &c. Though Rom. 14. he hath given many reafons to them of Corinth for the lawfullnejfe of taking z > . wages : though he hath given divers reafons for the lawfullnejfe of all forts of mtats to them of Borne ; yet neither will he take wages himfelfe , nor fuffer others to eat all forts of meats , when others are offended. ^Andwhat is that which he writeth Rom. 14 Take and receave theweal^for their J Importance , and not forcontraVerfy and difputation ? (fc.
It will be (aid, that they are to be thought obftinate, who afcer a tea- ton given , are ftill fcandahzed. Bat the anfwereis in readineffe, (i) Fieri potesl ut quidam nondum fint capaces rationts reddita? , qui idcirco 0) Amef. quamVti ratio Jit illn reddita , habendi funt adhucpro pujillts. They are ra- lib. 5 . de ther to be thought obftinate in fcandahzing , who perceiving the confi.c.n. fcandall to rername notwithftanding of their reafon given , yet for ?• 6. all that, take not away the occafionof the fcandall. Bat fay (*} fome, (k)Dz.For- whoever ought to be efteemed weake> or not capable of reafon, Mi- bej/einn. niftersmuft not be fo thought of. Whercuntol anfwercwith Dido-M.z.c 20. clavius > lnfirmitatem in doBiores cadere poffe , nemmem negaturum puto > <? ntim> 2 7 . fuperiorum umporum hifforia de dimicatione inter doclores Ecclefice , ob Cere* (1) Ah.da- moniM , idipfum prohat. Parati et'iam funt coram Deo teftari fe non pojfe mxfccap.g, acquiefcerein Formalifiarum foliis ficulnets. The reafon which they give p*g> J 5 6. lis commonly , is Will and Audority ; or if at any time they give another reafon , it is fuch a one as can not cleare nor refolve ourcon- feiences. But let their reafons be fo good as any can be , fhall we be thought obitinate for being offended notwithstanding of their rea- fon ? Dare they fay that thofewho'contended fo much of old about the Celebration of Eafter, and about the Faft of the Sabbath , were not weake,but obftinate & malicious, after a reafon was given ?\Vhy confider they not , (m) that men may for their fctence be profitable mini- (jn) Park, fiers , and yet fade of that meafure of prudency whereby to judge of a parti- of the crcjfe tular ufe of indifferent things . fart . 1 .pag .
7U
2. They fay, they give no Scandall by the Ceremonies, becaufe Sed. they have no fuch intent as to drawe any into finne by them. Anf. A VIII. ieandalous and inordinat quality , or condition of an action any way indudive to finne, maketh an adive Scandall , though the doer have nointentionto draw into finne. This I made good inmy 4. Pro- portion ; and it is further confirmed by that great Scandall whereby Piter compelled the Gentiles to judaize Gal z. 14, He conflrained them faith {n) Perkins by the authority of his example , whereby hecaufed them to (n ) com. thinly that the obfervationof the Ceremoniall Law was neceffaryAz was then upon this the quality ofiusadion which made the Scandall adive, becaufe place.
F f that
an. 5 5 n. 19
fpV*
f;c/. J/y . i
Clp. T I ♦
w. 18.
4o Of the Scandal! Pair. i. \
that which he did was indu&ive to finnc, but we are not to chink that (olom i ?iny nac* an intention to drawe the Gentiles to finne. (o) Cardinail " B.trow/<tf !abourethtomakeFff«,blame]enrel&his fad free of all fault $ - quia prater ipfius fpem id acciderat , and it fell forth only exaccidmti & 'pvir rffr. mof ^,at0 > ^c /^'^ intentionem ipfius. {p) M. Ant. de domir.is confuteth e-J lib i. nini vrc\\: Eft fcandirfumW cum peccatoyquandoqux licet notiintendatPecca* turn aherius 5 /rf«f f <w»«j o/?«; d/tt ex fe malum aut apparentcr , ex quo fat, aut fcire debet , confiquuturum altmwpeccatum^autqmdcun^te malum': nam* ctiam dkitur illudvolentarium interpretative.
c ea |v I will vet defcend more particularly to confute our Oppofites *
Lv ' * • their feverall anfweares and defences, which they haveufed againft
our Argument of Scandall. And I beginne with our Lord Chancel-
( ' s rm it *our » ^s for *^e Godly amor.gfi w q) faith he , we are forty they fcould be
p t! f- &™w^ i but it is their owne fault : for if the things be in themj 'elves lawfull,
tr °Y *J what is it that fhould offend them f
' r' lAnf.i* He does not well expreffe Scandall ( whereof he is there
f peaking; by griefe, for I may be grieved3 yet not fcandalized , and icandaHzed,yetnotgrieved,accordingto my firftpropofition touch- ing Scandall. 2. To what purpofe tells he, it is their owne fault? Thin kes he that ^ Ncn there are any offended without their owne fault ? * To be offended fxim fdum ls ever a fault, aslfhewinmy 3. and 6. Proportions -, fo that if fcarM!**- a Scandal! be not removed , where it is mens owne fault that they are 're. fid etism offended , then no Scandall fhallever be removed ; becaufe all who' fUxd*!iz.*ri are Vandalized , commit a fault in being Scandalized. Nihil potefl tcfCMtUf* c ft homivi i caufd fuffxiens peccati , quod eft fpiritualis ruina , nifi propria Vo- t& auU'm- l~untai 3 & ideo dicta Vel faBa dterw homir.K poffunt effe folumcaufaimper- Urmitatts efi fl^a aliqualiter inducens a^ruinam^iiih [r] Aquinas^ giving a reafon w by faith Mai- in the definition of Scandall, he faith not , that ltgivethcaufe , but ionat.upon tnat lt giveth occafion of ruine.
Math. 18. 3* Why thin kes he, that if the things be in thcmfelves lawfull,
7< ' they ate purged of Scandall ? [s) wha? if they edify not? what if
r 'i.zt, q. ^e>' be not expedient ? are they not therefore fcandalous , becaufe
~ar\. 1. inthemfelves lawfull? this fhift is ceftroyed by my 9. Propofi-
\$ !. Cor. tion. And I pray , were'not all meats lawfull for the Gentiles in
ic.ij. the Apoftles times ? yet this could not excufe thcir^eating all forts
of meats, when the Iewes were thereby offended.
4. Whereas he demandeth,if the thinges be in thcmfelves lawful'; what is it that mould offend them ? I demand againe ; though adul- tery, murder c-cc. be in themielvesunlawfull , what is it that fhould offend us? fhould we offend or be fcandalized for any thing? nay, then we fhould finnc, for to be offended is a finne.
5 . He had faidto better purpofe; what is it that may offend them, or doth offend them , that it may be voided ? w^ereunto I anfwere,
Chap . 9 • Of the Ceremonies'. 4 1
that there is a twofold Scandall which maybe and hath bcenc «ivcn by thinges lawfull in themfelves,fas I touched in my. 5. Proportion) Viz. the giving of occafion to the weake to condemne our lawful deeds, & the animating of them to followe our example againfl: their owne confeiences : both waves we make them to finne. Th: Apoftle a. Cor. 10. 29. whereheisipeaking of a certaine kind of Idolothyt^ which are in themfelves lawfull, and onlyevill in the cafe of Scandal', - (heweth, that if the weake in a privatbanquet, fee the ftronge eating fuchmeates as have beene offered to Idolls , notwithstanding of war- ning given, then is the weake one fcandalized; becaufe would the A- , \ p< poie fay, (t) velipfe mam edet tuo excmplo, vacillante confcicnt'u , vd tacit e \ ' . .. factum tuwn damnabit. Behold what Scandall mayanie , even out of,' , thinges which are in themfelves lawful! , which alfo arifeth out of the Ceremonies , (letthem beas iawfullas can be.) 1. Weaiepro1 vokedtodiiTallow of lawfull.thinges, andtocondemnethedoers, as fupcrititiousandpopifhly affe&ed, 2. We are animated by the ex- ample of Formahfts topra&ife Conformity , which in our confeien- ces we condemne, and by confequence doe finne, becaufe he that doubteth is damned, and whatfoever is not of faith, is finne.
Let us fee next how theBifhop of Edinburgh can helpe thecaufe. Sect. X. Hewill have us not to refpeft Scandall, buicaute it is removed by the ^ Law. For («) faith he , by obedience to a lawful ordinance , no man gives (u W7?- ScandaV. <And if any take offence , both the caufe and occafion thereof vi the t0 ^z P* ?» perverfneffe only of the perfon offended. Tmullian faith well^ res bona nemi- °f tije item offendit nifi malam mentem. &7 un^ °f
Anf.i. Ifhsw in my 9. Proposition , that the ordinance of Su- Scot^^ periourscan not make that to be no fcandall which otherwise mould be Scandall. If this be not taken well from us 5 let (x) one of our ^lDr'For* Oppofices fpeake for us ; who aknowledgettyhat human p»wer can ^y e lren' notmakeusdoe that which we can not doe without giving of Scan- "*• 2- *#■ dall, and that in this cafe , the pretext of obedience toSuperiours 10'rtHm\ (hall not excufe us at the hands of the Supreme judge. l9*
2. Iwould learne of him what makes a lawfull ordinance about matters of facl or thinges to be done ? Not the will of Superiours; elfe there (hall be no unlawfull ordinances; (for every ordinance hath the will of theordainer:) NotthelawfullnefTe of the thing in it felfe which is ordained neither; for then every ordinance , which prefcri- beth a thing lawfull in it felfe, were it never fo inexpedient in vefpect of fupervenientcircumftances , ihould be lawfull. To a lawfull or- dinance then required, not only that the thing ordained be lawfull in it felfe, is alfo that it be not inexpedient. So that a thing maybe lawfullin itfelfe , yet not lawfully ordained , becaufe the ordinance commandeththedoingofit, whereas there are many.thingeshwiV.i which ought not to be done, becaufe they are not expedient, ^ I.0. 6,12/ Ff a 3. Since
4i Of the fixndatt Parr, il
3. Since it can not be a lawfi.ll ordinance which ordaineth a thing inexpedient, it can not be a lawfull obedience which isyeelded to inch an ordinance.
4. If by a lawfull ordinance he meane(as it fcem she doth) an or- dinance pre! cubing, that which is lawfull in it felfe,then his anfwere is falfe. What if an ordinance of Superiours , had ordained the Corin- thians to cate freely of all meaces which were in themfelves cleane ? Durftthc Bifhopfay, that this ordinance of Superiours had beenc of greater waight and fuperiour reafon , then the Law of Charity which is Gods Law? Had no man given fcandall by obedience to this ordinance? And would not the A poftle , for all that , have forbid- den as he did the ufing of this liberty with the offence of others ?-
5 . When any man is offended at a thing lawfull prefcribed by an ordinance, the caufe thereof is indeed in himfelfe ( yet it is not al- wayes his perverfnelTe , butoftimes weaknelTe:) buttheoccafion of it, is the thing at which he otFendeth , which occasion fhould ever be removed when it is not a thing neceflary, as I (hew already.
6. As for that lenience ofTertullian , it muft admit the exception [y) comm. of a reverend Divine. He fignifieth (faith {y) Paratts) fcandall not to in. 1 Cor. be properly committed , faveinthinges evillin themfelves, orelfe
%. 5?. indifferent : fiuingtam murium circa bonas ptMmftfctt facial ttiam com- mit 1 pojjip.
Se&. XI. In the third place we will looke what weapons ofwarreD'.(*)Fo>u [Z] lb :. bcffci produceth in his Irenicurn, falfly fo called. Andfirft , he will not c. zo.num. heare us touching Scandall,except we firft aknowledge the Ceremo- 5. & 6. nicsnot to beevill in themfelves : otherwifehe thinks we debate in vaine about Scandall,fincewehave a more convenient way toexter- minatthe Ceremonies by proving them to be eviilinthemfelves, and alio becaufewhen weareprefled with the weight of Arguments , we will ftiil runne back to this point, that nothing which in it felfc is un- lawfull, can be done without Scandall.
Anf. 1. The A rgument of Scandall is not vainly or idly debated^ for though we prove the Ceremonies to beevill in themfelves, yet fitly we ar gum entalfo from the Scandall of them, becauferhisma- kcrh yet more. 1 . adrem ; For the Scandall of a thingis more then the tinlawfullneiTeofitrevery unlawfull thing is not fcandalous, but that only which isdone to the knowledge of another* 2. adhomlnem^ For that we may eithercontcnt or convince our Oppofes, we argu- ment ex ij> forum conceflis, to this purpofe;thatfince they yceld the Ce- remonies to be in themfelves indiffercnf,thereforethey muft aknow- ledge th.it they are to beforeborne, becaufe fcandall followeth upon them, & they fhould abftaine from thinges indiffetent, in the cafe of fcandall. a. Whereas he thinkeswe will ftill rurne back to the unlawrull-
neflfe
€hap^ p. §f the Cermoniei* 43
neffe of the Ceremonies in themfelves , albeit we may juftly make
ufe of this anfwear , when they goe about to purge the Ceremonies
from Scandall by thelawrullnefle of them in themfelves, (becaufe
the Argument of Scandall doeth not prefuppofe ourconceflion of
thelawfulnefleof the Ceremonies, buttheirs^) yet he deceives him-
felfe in thinking that wecan not handle this Argument without it ,
for were they never fo lawfull in themfelves, we (4) evince the Scan- , . -
dall of them from the appearance ofevill which is in them, fo that M m f.
without refpeding the unlawfullnefle of the Ceremonies in them-J 4'5
felvesjwecan and doe make good our Argument of Scandall, fo
farre as conccrneththeCeremonies confidered by themfelves.
But when our Oppofites object , that many are fcandalized by us who refufe the Ceremonies, we here compare the Scandall of Non- conformity , if there be any fuch (for though fo me be difpleafedat it, I fee not how they are fcandalized by it,) with the Scandall of Conformity , and (hew them that the Scandall of Non -conformity is not to be cared for , becaufe it isneceflary , and that by reafon of the unlawfullnefleof the Ceremonies. I will make all this plaine by afimite.
A Paftor dealing with a Fornicator , layeth before him both his finne and the Scandall of it too. Now as touching the Scandall, the Fornicator careth not for it, becaufe he is in the opinion that Forni- cation is indifferent. Whereupon the Paftor thus proceedeth. If it were indifferent, as you fay, yet becaufe Scandallrifethoutofit, you fliould abftaine. And foamongft many Arguments againft Forni- cation , the Paftor ufeth this Argument taken from the Scandall of it, both for aggravating the finne in it felfe , and for convincing the tinner, and this Argument of Scandall, the Paftor can make good againft the Fornicator , out ofhisowne ultroneous and unre- quiredconceflion of the indifferency of Fornication (becaufe things indifferent- and in the cafe of Scandall, and when they are done wit 1 theappearance of evill , fhould be forborne) without ever m endo- wing the unlawfulnefleofit. But if in an froward ter giver fation> the Fornicator beginne to reply , that he alfo is fcandalized* and pro- voked to goe on in his Fornication obftinately , by the Paftors re- buking him for fo light a matter, and that the Paftors reproofe to him hath appearance ofevill, as much as his Fornication hath to the Paftor: Albeithere itmay be anfwered, that the Paftors reproofe is not done inordinate % neither hath any appearance of evill, except in cfo Fornicators perverfe interpretation , yet for flopping the For- nicators mouth as well more forcibly as more quickly , the Paftor rej oyndeth , that if any fcandall followe upon his reproofe , it is not to be regarded, becaufe the thing is necelTaryandt hat becaufe For- nication beeing a great finne, he may not but reprove it. So, albeit our Argument of Scandall.holdcth out againft the Cq-
Ff 3 remonies
44 Of the Scandal , ,Part.i..
remenies considered by themfeives, without making, mention ofc~ the unlawfulnefTe of them in themfeives : albeit alfo when the Scan" dall of Non-conformity (if there bee any fiich) is compared with the Scandall of Conformity , we fay truly, that this hath appearance of evill in its own condition, and that hath none, except in the falie interpretation of thofe who glory in gainfaying.
Yet for further convincing of our Oppofr.es, & darting through their molt fubtile lubterfuges , with a mortal ftroke, we (end t hern away with this finall anfaer 5 you fliouldabftainc from the Ceremo* nies whenScandall nfethout of them , becaufe you confeffe them to be in themfeives indifferent. But we doe avouch and prove them to be unlawfull, wherefore it is" neceflary for us to abltaine, though all thewotld fhouldbe offended. Seel. XII. The (h)Di. proceedeth to throw backe the Argument of Scandall lb) ibid. upon our own heads, and to charge us with fcandalizing both the num.*]. Church and common wealth, by our refufing the Ceremonies. But what ? fhould a Doctor be a Dictator ? or a Proctor , a Prater ? why then doeth he ventilate words for reafon ? That fome are difpleafed at our Non-conformity , weunderltand to our great griefei but that thereby any are fcandalized , we underftand not , and if we did , yet that which is neceflary , fuch as Non-conformity is, can be taken away by no Scandall.
(c) Kum. But (c) the D*. goeth forward , denying that there is in the Cere* 10. 1 1. it. monies lb much as any appearance of eviil , to make them Scanda*
13.14* lous. Where I obferve , that he dare not adventure to defcribe how a thing is faid to have appearance of evill, and confequently a fcan- dalous condition. The man iscautelous, and perceiveth peradven- ture , that the appearance of evill can be made to appeareno other thing, then that which doeth more then appeare in the Ceremo- nies. And this I have heretofore evinced out of %anch'm.
(d) Xum. The {d) D*.holdeth him upon kneeling in receiving the Sacramen- k ij5 1 6. tall Elements, and denieth that it is fcandalous, or any way indu- ctive to fpirituall mine. But ("if he will) he may confider, that the rudet fort who can not diftinguifh betwixt worfhipping the Bread, and worfhipping before the Bread? nor difcerne how to make Chrift the paflive object of that worfhip, and the Bread the active, and how to worfhip Chrift in the Bread, and make theworfhip relative from the Bread to Chrift ; are by his example induced to Bread- worfhip , when they perceive bowing downe before the confecrated Bread, in the very fame forme and fafhion, wherein Papifts are (een to Worfhip it , but can not conceive the nice diftinctions which he and his companions ufe to purge their kneeling in that act from Ido- latry. As for others who have more knowledge, they are alfo indu- ced to ruine , being animated by his example co doe that which their, confcknccs doc condemne.
There
Chap. <). of ttic Ceremonies. 4f
There occurrethnext an objection taken from Paul his not taking wages at Corinth , (chough he might lawfully) for fhunning the of- fence both of th> malitious and the weake: In the folution whereof if) the D*. fpendeth fo'me words. The fubftance of his anfwcr is this: (f) N##v that Paul taught itwas lawfull to take wages ,and that they fhould j-rt not be offended at it, and if we doe as he did, we muft teach that the Ceremonies are lawfull in -themfelves, yet not ufing our power for the time, left the weakebe offended , or left the malitious glory : but for all that , not denying our right and liberty , nor fuffering a yoke of bondage to be imppfed upon us by contumacious men, .And befides, that the Apoftle was commanded by no Ecclefiafticall decreet© take wages from the Corinthians ? as we are commanded by the decree of Perth to receive the five Articles : fo thatPaul might without contempt of Ecclefiafticall Auclority, abftaine from taking ofwages, butwe can not without contempt of the Church, rej eel: the Articles.
Anf. i . This importeth 5 that if the queftion were not de jure , and ifwe mifliked the Ceremonies, and were offended at them, for fome other reafon then their unlawfulneffe , for this offence they would abftaine. It maybe his reverend Fathers returne him fmall than kes for this device. For Jet fome men be brought forth, acknowledging the Ceremonies to bee in themfelves indifferent, yet offended a* them for their inexpediency, whether they beweake or malitious* the Dr. thin kes he fhould abftaine for theircaufe.
i. Howknoweshe, that they who were offended at Paul his ta- king of wages at Corinth , thought not his taking ofwages there un^ lawfull , even as we thinke the Ceremonies unlawfull ?
3.*Whyjudgeth he that we are not fcandalized through weak- nefle, but through malice and contumacy? So he giveth it forth both in this place , and (g) elfe where. Who art thou that judgeth another tg) lnn*hb* mansfervant? *-**?• *<N
But 4. If we were malitious in offending at the Ceremonies as ^'2" things unlawfull , and in urging of Non-conformity as neceflary , fhould they therefore contemne our bceing fcandalized? Thofe that would have Ttecircumcifed, were they not malitious? Did they not urge Circumcifion asneceffary? Held they it not unlawfull, not to circumcifeTkfc* ? yet did the Apoftle abftaine, becaufe they were to be fcandalized , that is, made worfe and more wicked calumnia- tors, by the circumcifing of Tttrn, as (h) lhave (hewed; fo that albeit {h)fupra wee are not tocareforthe difpleajfing ofmen , thatmalitioufly andca/>.8./tf#. contumacioufty, urge (as neceffary) abftainingfrom that which is 6. lawful! to be done3 yet muft we care for fcandalizingthem and ma- king them worfe : rather ere that be, we ought to abftaine from the ufe of our liberty.
5. If an Ecclefiafticall decr«e had commanded Pml at that time
co take
46 OftheSmdaU Part.*:
to take wages at Corinth t the Dr.thinkeshee had contemned Eccle- fiafticallAuclorityinnot taking \\ages , though fome mould be of- fended at his taking wages. What? could an Ecclefiafticall decree commandPrftfi to take wages in the cafe of Scandall? or could hee have obeyed fuch a decree m the cafe ofScanda!l?Wehave feen be- fore, that no humane Authority , can make that no Scandall , which otherwife were Scandall: fothat Paulhzd not contemned Ecclefiaf- ticall Au&ority,by not obeying their command ,in this cafe of Scan- dall which had followed by his obeying: for he had not been bound to obey , nay hee had been bound not to obey in fuch a cafe , yea further, albeit Scandall had not been to follow by his taking wages, yet he had no more contemned the Church by not obeying a com- mand to take wages , then he had done by living unmarried , if the Church had commanded him to marry. The bare Audority of the Church could neither reftraine his liberty nor ours in things indiffe- rent , when there is no more to binde but the Authority of an ordi- nance. '(i) TieUof &• Why holds he us contemners of the Church, for not receiving the Church tn^ five Articles of Perth ? we can not be called contemners for noc lib. 4. cap. obeying, but for not fubjecting our felves, wherewith we can noc 34. d* £*//". be charged. Could he not diftinguifh betwixt fubje&ion and obe- apud Parker dience? Art thou a Do&or in Ifraell, and knoweft not thefe things ? of theCrcffe Nay , art thou a Conformift, and knoweft not what thy (t) fellow part. 2. pag. Conformifts doe hold ?
Sc&. . One point more refteth , at which (j^, the Dr. holdeth him in this
XIII. Argument, namely , that for the offence oftheweake, neceflary (k) tbid. I. things are not to be omitted,fuchas is obedience to Superiours; buc 2.. cap. iq. their mindes are to be better informed.
num. 14. *Anf. 1. Obedience to Superiours can not purge that from Scan-^ (1) fupra dall which otherwife were Scandall, as (i) we have feen before. cap.2.fi&. 2. That information and giving of a reafon , can not excufe the 5.&cap.9. doing of that out of which Scandall rifeth, [m) we have alio proven feci 10. already.
<m) ibid. 3 . That the Ordinance of Superiours can not make the Ceremo-
fecl.7. nies neceflary, I have proven in the nrft part of this Difpute. This (n) Morney (w) is given for one of the ehiefe markes of the man of finne, That miflir. of which fs indifferent , he by his lawes and prohibitions maketh to be jinne , and mipinthe fhall they who profelfe to take part with Cbrift againft Antichrift , concfof. doenolefle then this? It will be replycd, that the Ceremonies are (o") A^h'm. not thought neceflary in themfelves , nor Non-conformity , unlaw- -$,%.b6tart. full in itlelfe , but ohely in refped of the Churches ordinance. Iuft S.Rbem.an* fo (0) the Papifts profeffe , that the omiflion of their Rites and ob- »*/. on fervances , is not a finne in it felfe , but oncly in refpe£t of contem- Math. i6.fe3.}MJs fmtif. Rom, lib. 4, cap. i$.& dtfacrif mjffkMb.6. s.13.
rung
Chap. ?. *f the Certmnks} 47
ning the Churches Cuftomes andCommandements. How comes it then, that they are not afhamed to pretend fuch a necefficy for the tumbling blockes of thofe offending Ceremonies among us, as Pa- pifts pretend for the like among them ?
But the EnglifhFormalifts have here fomeyvhat to fay, which ge^ we will hea're. if) Mr . Hooker tell us, that Ceremonies are fcandalous x j y either in their very nature , or elfe through the agreement of men to / n Euj ' ufe them unto evill; and that Ceremonies of this kind, are either de- j}\ ' ^ ' vifed acfirftunto evill, or elfe having had a profitable ufe, they are 7*
afterwards interpreted and wrefted to the contrary. As for the En- glifh Ceremonies , he faith, that they are neither fcandalous in their owne nature ; nor becaufe they were devifed unto evill3 nor yet be- caufe they of the Church of England abufe them unto evill.
*Anf 1. Though all this were true, yet forafmuch as they have been abufed by the Papifts unto Idolatry and fuperftition, and are monuments of Popery, the trophees of Antichrift , and the reliques of Barnes whoorifh bravery : they muft be graunted , at leaft for this refped , to be more then manifeft appearances of evill, and fo fcan- dalous,
But 2. It is falle which he faith, for kneeling in receiving the Com- munion , is in its owne nature evill and Idolatrous, becaufe reli- gious Adoration, before a mere creature, which purpofly wee fet before us in the aft of adoring , to have ftate in the worfhip , efpe- cially if it be an a&uall Image in that ad reprefentingChnft co us , (fuch as the Bread in the ad: of receiving, ) draweth us within the compafle of coadoration or relative worfhip, as fhall*be copiouily proven afterwards.
Other of the Ceremonies that are not evill in their owne nature, yet were devifed to evill , for example, the Surplice. The (q) replier (q) ca*i ^ toV-Motirtons particular defence, obferveth, that this fuperftition /£# .3. about apparellin Divine worfhip , beganne firffc among the Frenfh Bifhops , unto whom Caleft'm'w writeth thus. Difcemr-idi , <&c. We an to be difi'mguij "bed from the common people and others , by Doctrine , not by Garment , by ConVerfation ■> not by Habit h by the Puritj ofminde, not by ^At* tire : for if wee fludy to innovation, we tread underfoot the order which hath been delivered unto ui by our Fathers ,to make place to idle fttperfiitions ; where- fore we ought not Uade the mindes of the Faithful! into fuch things : for they are rather to be infiruBed thenplayedwithall: neither are wt to blinde and be- guile their eyes , but to infufe inflrnHions into their mindes. In which words Caleflinus reprehends this apparell , as a novelty which tended to fu- perftition, and made way to the mocking and deceiving of the faith- ful!,
G g Laftiy,
4S OftbeScwdd Part.*:
Laftly , whereas he faith, the Ceremonies are notabufed by them f in England I inftance the contrary in Holy-dayes. (r) Ptrkjns faith, (i)expef. »} that the pcaft 0fchrifts Nativity, fo comonly called, is notfpent in ^'T^^1' praifingthename of God, but in riffling, dyeing? carding, masking, efCbrijls mumming, and in all licentious liberty, for the moft part, as though tT* it were fome Heathen Feaft of Ceres or Bacchus. And (f) elfewhere
{\)tom. on 2leCompiajnetj10£thegrcatabufcofHoly-dayps among them.
<; fl- XV As touching the rule which is allcdged againft the Ceremonies beet, A, V . out Q£ j,auis rjocnrine , namely , that in thofe things from which we may lawfully abftaine, we fhould frame theufage of our liber- ty wiih regard to the weakneflfe of ourbretheren. Hooker anfwea- rethto it. i . That the weake bretheren among them , were not as the I ewes,, who were knowne to be generally weake, whereas faith he, the imbecillity of curs is not common to fo many, but onely here and there fome fuch a one is found. 2. He tels us,thatthelc fcandalous meats , from which the Gentiles were exhorted to ab~ ftaine for feare of offending the Icwcs , can notreprefent theCere* monies ; for their ufing of meats, was a matter of private action in. common life, where every man was free to order that which him- felfe did ; but the Ceremonies are publike conftitutions for orde- ring the Church , and wee arc not to looke that the Church is to change herpubiike la wes and ordinances, made according to that which is judged ordinarily and commonly fitted for the whole , al- though itchaunce that for lome particular men, the fame be found, inconvenient ,efpecially when there maybe other remedies alfoa^ gainft the fores of particular inconveniences. Let them bee better inftru&ed.
Jnf. 1. This is bad divinity, that would make us not regard the ft) Math. i8« fcandalizing of a few particular men ; Chrifts [t) woe ftricketh not ^ onely upon them who offend many , but even upon them who of-
fend fo much as one of his litis ones.
2. That which he faith of the few in England , and not many 9 who are fcandalized by the Ceremonies , hath been anfwered by a («) Countryman of his ownc. And as for us3 we findmoft certain- 't ^ ^* tnatnot a ^ew but many, even the greateft p;;rt of Scotland one the croft cap. wa^ or otner are fcandalized by the Ceremonies : iome.are ledde by &./«#, 10. t^em todrinke in fuperftition , and to fall into fundry grolTe abu- fes in Religion •, others are made to ufe them doubtingly and fo dammably. And how many who refufe them , are animated to ufe them againft their confeiences, and fo to bee damned ? who is noc made to {tumble ? and what way doe they not impede the Edifica- tion of the Church I
. 3. What
Chap. o." of the Ceremonies* 49
3. What if there had been a publike conftitution , commanding the Gentiles to eat all meates freely , and that this had been judged ordinarily and commonly ficteft for the whole, even to fignifie the liberty of the Church of the New Teftament ? fhould not the Gen- tiles notwithstanding of this conftitution , have abftained becaufc of the Scandall of the Icwes? How comes it then that that which the A poftle writeth agai nft the Scandal! of meates, & the reafons which. hegiveth,are found to hold ever good, whether there be aconfti- tutionor not?
4. As for his remedy againft the Scandall of particular men ,
which is to inftruft them better, it hath becne anfweared {#) befote. (x) [eft, 7.
Now if I reckon Payhody to be no body , perhaps fome body will Sect, not take it well. I will therefore examine how he handieth this Ar- XVI.- gument. Four things are anfwered [y) by him to thofe places, Row (y)ApoL 14. and 15. 1 Corm 8. and 10. Math. 18.6. which are alledged againft fart. $.et£, the ufe of things indifferent , when wee can not ufe them without j> Scandall.
Firfl , he faith , that all thofe Scriptures which are quotted as condemning the fcandalizing of others in things indifferent, fpeakc onely of fcandalizing them who are weake*
%An[. 1. bcitfo : thought he that they are all malitious, and none weake , who are offended by the Ceremonies ? He himfelfe defcri- beth the weak whom we are forbidden to fcandaiize, to be fuch as are weake in knowledge and certainty of the truth. Now there.are many who arc inthi^refpect weake , fcandalized by the Ceremo- nies, But I fay moreover, that his defcriptionis imperfect, for there are fome who know the truth, and that certainly, who arc notwith- standing to foe accounted weak, in regard of the defect of that pnu dencc which fhould guide , & that (lability which fhould accompa- ny all their actions , in the particular ufage of fuch things as they knowe certainely in their generallkinde to bee agreeable to trueth and righteoufnefte. Such Chriftians are impeded by the Ceremo- nies from going on in their Chriftian courfe,fo fad as otherwifc they would , if not alfo made to waver or flu mble* And thus are they properly fcandalized according to my fifth Proportion. Si qui* noftra culpa Vel impingn , Vcl ahducitur a re8o curfu ; vel tardatur, mm di- cimur offmdere faith (z)Ca'mne. Porro fcandalnm eft diBumVelfaftumquo (z) com. in impfdttur Evangelij curfm 5 atjw ampliatiomm 0* propaganonem , mm vhtf Mat. 1 8 . 6. nojlrai feodum ejfe oportet faith (a) Martyr. (a) com.
2. It is a fault to give offence even to the ftrong , or elfe (b) Peter * ^or. 8. was not to be blamed for givingjoffence to Chrifl. Yea it is a fault »JJ**! ™
Gg 1 to of*
j * Of \bt ScanitH Part. 1 1
to offend the very malicious by-things that are not neceflTary , as I have proven in my ia Proportion.
Sc£. Secondly faith he, all thofe Scriptures condemne onely the Scan-
XVII. dallofthc weake, which is made at that time , when we knowthej will be fcandalized,
iAnf. i. If hefpeakeof certaineand infallible knowledge, none but God knoweth whether a manfhall be fcandalizcd or not, by that which we arc to dee : He mufb meane therefore of fuch knowledge as we can have oft'.e event of our a&ions: and fo his anfwere brin- geth great damnage to his owne caufe.Formalifts knowe, that their weake bretheren have been of a long time fcandal zed by the Cere- monies, and theyheare them profeiling that they are yet fcandali- zed, and how then can they but knowe that Scandail will ftill follow upon that which they doe ?
2. Albeit they know not that their bretheren will be fcandalized by the Ceremonies, yea albeit their breihereh fhould not be fcandali- zed thereby , yet becaufe the Ceremonies ate appearances ofevill ; inductive toflnne; and occafions of mine; Scandail is given by them , whether it be taken by their bretheren or not , according to my 4 and 5 Propositions. Sec"t XVIII Thirdly faith Paybody , all thofe Scriptures condemne onely that
offence ofanother m things indifferent, which is made by him who is at liberty and not bound: theyfpeake not of ufmg or refufmg thofe things, as men are tied by thecommandement of Au3ori:y. Where he laboureth to prove , that obedienJJ to t' e Magiftracein a thing indifferent , is a better duty then the pleating of a private perfon in fuch a thing.
*Anf. i. I have proven heretofore , that the commandement of Auctoriry ,can not make the ufe of a thing indifferent to bee no Scandail, which otherwife were Scandail.
2. I have alfo proven in the firft part of this Difpute , that anEc- clefiafticall conftitution can_ not bind us nor takeaway our liberty in theuftng or not ufingofa thing indifferent in it felfe, except fome other reafon beefhe-ed us then the bare Audio rity of tbe Church. -As touching the civill Magiftra'e > his place and power , to judge and determine in things pertaining to the worfhipofGod , wefhall fee is, afterwards, and fofhall we knowe how farre his decifions and ordinances in this kinde of things 3 have force to binde us toobe* dience.
3 . He fhould have proven , that obedience to the Magiff rate in a *hing indifferent, is a better duty then aMaining from that which
-candaii-
Chap, 9 . of the Ceremonies. ft
fcandalizethmany Chriftians:he ihould not have oppo fed pleating and fcandaiizing (for perhaps a man is mod fcandalized when he is moft pleated -3 ) but edifying and fcandaiizing, according to my firft Proportion. Now will any body , except Payfody , fay, that obe- dience to theMagiftratein a thing indifferent, out of which Scan- dal! rifeth ? is a better duty the:i forbearing for the edification of many Chjiftian foules , and for fhunning to fcandalize them. This wee muft take to bee his meaning , or elfe he faith nothing to the purpofe. '
His fourth anfwere is , that all thofe Scriptures condemning fcan- ^e^* dall, muft needs cfpecially condemne that which is greateft. F«rr and XIX, his companions cemming to Antioc]) , were in danger of a double fcandali *, either of the lewes by eating w iih the Gentiles , which was theleffe, or of the Gentiles in refusing then company , as if they had not bcene bretheren.whicii was farre the greater. Now Paul bla- med Peter very much % that for the avoiding the leiTer fcandali he 2c and his companions fell into the greater.
jinf. i. He is greatly mi Irak en, whiles he thinkes that a man can be to ftraited betwixt two fcandiUs , bathe can not choofe but give ^
the one of them ; (e) For NuUa datur talis perplexity , ut necejfariwn fit g] ^^' ' ph bominifive hoc five iflud faciat , fcandalum alicui dan, "*■ f • d* (
2. That ferTtence of choofing the lead of cao evills, muft be tin- ' derftood ofevilis of pv.nifhmei t , not of evdlsof linne, as I fh:w (d) before, to th-t he is m a foule error , whiles he would have us to (d) f»p* choofe the leaft of two fcandafls, *f$* x»
3. As for theexamplewhich healfedgetb,hedeceivem hhnfclfe t°> thinke thatPmrhac5 giv*n fcandali to the Ie a es,by his earing vvi hths Gentiles. Cum Gintilmahum capiens , reBs utebatur libertate Cbrifliana, lay (e) the Magdeburgians : but when certaine lewes cm me fi orn lamtf (e) ee&t. U he wichdrevv hi-mi eire , fearing the Tewes » and fo quod antrdelibertatz lib. z,s. jow Cbrifliana edificarat , rurfta deflruebat : By eating then with the Genu-. €ci, 5 6o> les he gave no feandail, but by the contrary he did edify. And fur- ther I ia.y , that his eating with the Gentiles was a thing neceftary, and that fcr fhunning of two great fcandalls \ the one,of the Genti- les, by compe hng them tojudaz.e; theother,of the lewes, by con- firming them in judaifme,bcth which followed upon his witnd raw- wing from the Gentiles ; fo that by his eating with the Gentiles no fcandali could be given , and if any had beene taken , k was not to be caned for. Wherefore there was but one fcandali, v.hich-JPitf*r and his companions were in danger of, which alfo they did give, 6c for whsrh Paul reprehended th e m,n-a m el y, their withdrawing of them- feives from the Gentiles , & keeping company only with the lewes;
G g 3.. whereby
(F) de *u(e nb. pal*
ft Vf we JctndAll. Part. i»
^hereby both the Iewcs and the Gentiles were fcandalized , becaufe both were made to think 5 ( acleaft occafion was given to both for thinking) theobfervation of theCcremoniaillaw necciTary. That which dcceiveth Paybody , is the confounding of fcandaUtfng and di- fpleajing. Peter by eating with the Gentiles perhapes had difpleafed the lewes , buthe had thereby edifyedthem though: ThefcandaH Which he gave them was by juclaizing; Judaizabat olim Petrus ferdijjim mulationttnfakh(f) Gerfon: by this judaizing through fuch-diflimula- tffnfider 12. tlon anc* double dealing, as was his eating with the Gentiles firft , Sc then withdrawing of himfelfe , when certaine Ievves came ; for kee- ping company withrhem only, he fcandalized the lewes and confir- (g) comm. medthemin judaifme, as (g) Paratis iiotcth. How then can it be in ilium lo- faid, that he had fcandalized them by his eating with the Gentiles: for cum. here upon it (hould followe that there was a neceflity of doing evill laid upon Peter , fo that he behooved to offend the Iewcs , either by his eating with the Gentiles , or by his not eating with the Gentiles, for he could not both eat with them and not eat with them. This rs therefore plaine , that if he fcandalized the lewes by his not eating with the Gentiles , as I have fhewed , then had he not fcandalized them, but edifyed them by his eating with the Gentiles.
4. I perceive he would fay, that the fcandall of Non-conformity is a greater fcandall , then the fcandall of Conformity ; and fo he m v uyt rUm would make us gaine litle by our Argument of fcandall. {b) He is L»!/>.44.i," k°ld to°bjccl:, tvbereone ts offended with our praB'ifeof kneeling , twenties * f ' ** • J may fay ten thoufand are offended with your refufall . O Adventurous A- rithmetique.' O huge HyperbolelO defultorious Declamation.'O ro- ving RethorikeJ O prodigall Paradoxe!
Yet I reply, i. Though fundry ( yet not ten thoufand for one) are difpleafed by our refufall, who can fhew us , that any are thereby fcandalized, that is, made worfe , and induced to mine? This man is bold to fay well to it; butweharefolidly proven , that fcandall ri- feth out of kneeling, and the reft of the Ceremonies 9 let it be mea- sured to us, with the fame meafure wherewith we mette.
2. Put the cafe that ten thoufand were fcandalized by our re- fufall, will it thereupon follow,thatour refufall is a greater fcandall then their praftifing? Nay then, let it be faid that the CrofTeof Chrift is a greater fcandall , then a privat mans Fornication , becaufe both H) i.eor. i. (0 lewes and Greeks were offended at that , whereas perhaps a fmall zu Congregation only is offended at this.
3. Our refufall isneceffary, becaufe of the unlawfulnefTe of the Ceremonies which we rcfuife ,fo that we may not receive them, but
mult
Chap. 9. of the faemomtu j 3
muft refufe them, notwithstanding of any fcandall which can follow
upon our refufall. If he had ought to fay againft thisanfwere, why
ishe filenc ? he might have found it at home. Our forbearance of Con- (k) of tht
formby faith (k ) Farmer, is a neceffary duty f thtnii therein no fault of any Crojfe parte
fcandaU in us* 2. f^.79*
4. Our Oppofites fhould doe well to aiToyle our Argument of fcandall , before they propound another Argument againft us, foe fo long as they make it not evident,that the fcandall of the Ceremo- nies, which we objed, is noa&iveor faulty fcandall; aslongthey can not objed the fcandall of Non- conformity to us ; becaufe if the fcandall (which is to be avoided) be in their praftifing of the Cere- monies, it can not be in our refufing of them.
5. We know many are grieved and difpUafed with our Nonkon* formity, yet that every one who is grieved is not by and by fcanda- Jiied, the Bifhop of Wincheftet teacheth as well as wee. Many time:
[I) faith he, men are grieved with that which n for their good , and earnefily fl) Strm. fet on that which is not expedient for them. But in good earneft, what onlo. i6.jl doc they meanc, who fay they are fcandalized, or made vvorfeby our Non-conformity? for neither doe we make them conctemne cur lavvfull deed asunlawfull, nor yet doe we animate than by our example to doe that which in their confeiences they judge unlawfully They themfelvesaknovvledge, that fitting is as lavvfull as kneeling; that the not obferving of the fyveHoly-dayes is as lavvfull, as the obferving of them ^ that the not Bifhoping of chil- dren is as lavvfull as the Bifhopping of them. Doe they not aknovv- ledge the indifTerency of the thinges themfelves ? Doe they not per- mit many of their people either to kneel, or to fit at the commu- nion ? Have not many of themfelves takenthe Communion fitting in fome places? Have not our Conform iits in Scotland hi.herto com- monly omitted Bifhopping of Children , and the miniftration of the Sacraments in private places ? As for our felves , we make our mea- ning plaine, when we objetl: the fcandaU of Conformity , for many ignorant and fuperftitious per ions are by the Ceremonies confirmed (expertmloqucr) in their errofandfu perdition : fo that now they even fettle themfe'ves upon the olddregges of Popifh fuperftition & for- mality , from which they were not well purged. Others are made to pradtife the Ceremonies , with a doubting and diffalowingcon- fciencc , and to fay with Naamanjn this the Lord he raercifuU unto M , if wee em : with my owne eares have I heard fome fay fo. And even thofe who have not pra£tifed the Ceremonies , for that they can not fee tbe lawfullnefTe of them, yet are animated by the example of pra&ifing Conformifts , to doe thefe things which in their confeien- ces they condemneas unalwfull (which were to finne damnably.)
\ and
74 &f thefcandalh &c. Part. i.
and if they doc them not , then is there no {mall doubling and dif- cjuietnefie , trouble and trepidation , harboured in their conferences. And thus one wayor other , fome weakening cr deterioration com- meth to us by the means of the Ceremonies. And if any of our Oppofites dare thinke , that none of us can be fo weake as to (tum- ble or take any harme in this kinde , becaufe of the Ceremo- nies ; we take God himfelfe to witneffe who (hall make mani- feft the counfclls of the heart , that wee fpeake the trueth , and lie not. '(m) Tcnui Finally, let that be confidered , which Divines ( m ) obferve to be &r*m' tn the perpetuall condition of the Church ; namely , that as in any Rom. • other family , there are found fome great, fome fmall, fomeftrong, 1 * ' u r ■ fome weake.fome wholefome,fomefickely; fo ftill is there found &mt4v>Ut fuc^ an ineqUaiity in the houfe of God , which is
jr2 75 j^g church ; and that becaufe fome are fooner*
fome are later called 5 fome indued with moe gifts of God , and fome with fewer.
THE
The third Parte ,
^Againft the lawfulnejje of the Ceremonies*
CHAP. L That the Ceremonies are vnlawfull , hecaufe Jltper/Iitious , which u particularly injlancedin holy dayes, & minijfring the Sacraments in private places.
H E ftrongeft tower of refuge to which our Op- Seft. i. pofites make their maine recourfe, is th^ preten- ded lawfulnefle of the Ceremonies, which now we are to batter downc and demolifh, and fo make ^ it appeare how Weake they are even where they rhinke themfelves ftrongeft.
My firft argument againft the lawfulnefTc of the Ceremonies, I drawe from the fuperftition of them. I cannot marveli enough how Dr Mourtoun and Vr. Burgcs could thinke to rub the fuperftition vpon non-conformifts, whom they fet forth as fancying their abflinence from the Ceremonies to beafingularpeeceoffervice done to God, placing Religion in the notvfing ofthem, 6c teaching men to abftaine from them for con- fidence fake, a Dr. Amis hath given a fufficient anfwer, namely, (a) Frt/h that abstaining from finne is one ad of common obedience, belon- fute ag- C*' gingas well to things forbidden in the fecond table, as to thofe rem. cap. 9. forbidden in the firft , and that we doe not abftainc from thofe Cc- ^*.S>6.too. remonies, but as from other vnlawfull corruptions , even out ofthe compaffe ofworfhip. We abftaine from the Ceremonies even as * from lying, curfing, ftealing, Sec. Shall we be houlden fuperftitious for abstaining from things vnlawfull ? The fuperftition therefore is not onour fide, buton theirs.
For firft, fuperftition is theoppofitc vice to Religion, in the ex- seft. z. ceflc as our Divines defenbe it, for itexhibues moreui theworfbip ofGod then he requires in his -vorfhip. Porro fij;h b fynch'ws'in cul [b)hb. r ,4e* turn ipfum excejfu peccatur , ji quid illi quem Cfiriftus inflhuh 3 jam addas, am vit ext.cult abalw addition fequarfs: ut ft Sacramentis i Chrijto injlitHM, *Ha add'as Sa- oppof. Col.
A a a cramm- 501. joi.
2.2«f Oi art. I.
i Gf the Superflition of mini firing Purr. 3.
cramenta:Jj Sacrificvi, alia facrificia :fi Ccremonw eujtefm Sacrament i , alios add.i> Rjtu; : qui merit oomnes fuptr f.itionis nomine appeUantiir. We Jce he accounreth lu per ft it ion to be 111 che addition or Ceremonies, no: in- riiUi-icd by Chri*, zs well as m the addition of more fublrintfaH
matters. Supcrfitio, (as fome derive the word) is that which is done fttpra ftatutum-y 2nd thus are the controverted Ceremonies fuperfti- tious, as being vied in Gods woil hip ,vpon no other ground then the appointment of men. $*&• 3* 1. Superftition is that' which exhibites divine worfhip , i-rfcuinon
A . defot^va] non eo modo quo debet , faith the c Schoolmen; Now our Lc- '.' rcmonies, though they exhibite worfhip to God, yet this is done in- ordinately , and they make theworlhipto be othcrwife performed then it f hould be ; for example, though God be worf hipped by the A] a dm in id rat ion of the Sacraments in private places , yet notfo as he
TMdT rhouldbewor(hiPPed- Thc d ProfcfforscTJte;iwcon^em'neprr- ; f vare Baptiimc as inordinate, becaufe Baftifmns publki mnifierij 3 non Mm H privataexhortationiseslappendix.lt e is markedin the fourth centu- *c' ^ ' rie both out ofCounceis & Fathers, that it was not then permitted , *Jr%f" ro cot:nmunicate in private places , but ibis cuftome was thought • * '427* inordinate and vnbefeeming. If it be faid ,that the communion w.iS given to the ficke privately, in the auncient Church. I anfwer: fome- times this was permitted.but for fuch fpeciallreafons as doenotcon- ccrne us ; for as we may fee plainly by the 14 Canon of the firft counfell of Nice (as thofe Canons are collected by Rjtffnw ■ ) the 69 Canon of the Councell o£El\beris\ and the 6 Canon of the Counfell ofxAncyra, the communion was onely permitted to be given in pri- vate houics to the Pamitentes 3 who were abfenti and debarred from the Sacrament, fome for three years, fomefor fy ve, fome for feven, fome for ten, fome for thirteen, fome longer-, and who f hould hap- {', dc caf pily be overtaken with fome dangerous and deadly fickneffe, before tonfc.hb.i. the let time of abftemion were expired. As for the judgment of our cap. 12. caf. owne Divines yCafoinhtm faith / Balduine, morcm ilium quo Euchariflia 13. ad <egrotos tanquam viaticum defcrtur , improbant, eamque non niji in catibtu
(z) Cone':!, public* ufurpandam cen fmt. For this healledgeth -Bq^mi^cx Mufcu* Liodic. can. hs.lt was a better ordinance then that of Perth, which hidgnonopor- 5 8 . tet in domibw obUtiones ab Epifcoppsjivc Presbyter* fieri : but to returne.
Sict. 4. 3. The Ceremonies are proven to be fuperftitious, by thisreafon,
if there were no more they have no nccefTary nor profitable life in the Church (as ha:h been proved) which kinde of things , cannot be ufed Without fu per flit ion. It was accordingto this rule, that the hWaldenfs and Albingenjes taught , that the Exorcilmes , Brea- fhi W'fi *ftmnSs> Croffings, Sal:, Spittle, V notion, Chrifme, Sec. Vied by \ulwiihy, the Church ofR^e inB.tptifme, bein? neither ncceiTarie nor re-
tUS VI Alien - •/-•» 1 ■ • a. • r 1 r ° j J r i r
fes pm 1 9l,I"tJ in tn»adminiltration or trie fame , did occafion eiror and fu- Ub 1. cap. 6 Per^i"on?rac'lcr then edification to Salvation.
4. They
C hap . i . the Sacraments in private places* 3
4. They are yer more fuperftitious , for that they are notonely ufed in Gods worfhip vnncceffarely and vn profitably , but likewife they hinder other neceffary dudes. They , who though they fcrve the true God , jet with needleffe offices, and defraud him of duties necefjary ,
are fuperftitious in 2 Hookers ludgment. I wifh he had faid as well (i) Zakf. to him , as from him . What offices more vnncceffary , then thofe p0l. lib. 5. RomaneRitualis ? yet what more neceflary duties, then to worfhip y^## 2# God in a fpirituall and lively manner, to prefTe the power ofGod- • lineffe vpon the confeiences of ProfefTors, to maintame and keepe faithfull and well qualified Miniftcrs in the Church, to bearethe bo- wels of mercy and meeknefle, not to offend the weakemotto con- firme Papiftsin Popery ,to have ali things in Gods worfhip.difpofcd according to the word,and not according to the will of man, not to exercife Lordf hip over the confeiences of thofe whom Chrift hath made free, to abolifh the monuments of by-paft , and badges of prefent Idolatry : yet are thofe and other necefTarie duties f hut quite out offdoores by our needlefte Ceremoniall fervice.
5. The Ceremonies are not free of fuperftition, in as much as S*&» f* they give to God an externallfervicc,and grace-defacing worfhip, ... . .■ which he careth not for > and make flefhly obfervations to ftep * )a? into the roumeof Gods moft fpirituall worfhip. Augusline ^ alledg* V"™'
eth that which is faid Luc. 17. The Kjngdome ofGod is within you, a- ?j?/^*r ' / gain ft fuperftitious perfons , who exterioribus principalem curam impen- \ ' - dunt. The Ghriftian worfhip ought to be in fpirit , without the carnaU -ifl* \ Ceremonies and rites, faith I one of our Divines, yea the Kingdome of ' q'j-"/ God com meth not cum apparatuaut Pomp a mundana , it a utobfervari fy\ pofjit temptts vel locus, faith m a Papift. Carnall worfhip therefore , t A 7/ and Ceremoniall obfervations are (to fay the leaftj fuperfluous in \m' U * Keligion, and by confequence fuperftitious. Luoi7.ao»
6. Worfhip is placed in the Ceremonies, therefore they are moft $eftm 6, fuperftitious. To make good what I fay, HolineiTe andneceftityare
placed in the Ceremonies, ergo , worfhip. And' 1. Holinefle is (hE«/. toK placed in them, n Hoofccr thin kes teftivall dayes clothed with outward /.<./. 70. robes of holinefle; nay he faith 0 plainly , No doubt as Gods cxtraordi- (Q\ ifaj r ?iary prefence hath hallowed and fanclified certaine places , fo they are hps ex- (>9t iraordinary worses that have truly and worthily advanced certaine times, for which cauje they ought to be with all men that honour God, more holy then other dayes. p He callerh alfo the CrolTe an holyfign<u. q D'.Burgejfe defen- (P^ ^' £• derh, that the Ceremonies are, and may be called worfhip ofGod, not ?• onely ratione modi, as belongingto the reverend vfagc ofGods pre- y^ °f &* fenbed worfhip , but alfo ratione medij , though not medij perfj, 0cl^fulnefje^ and by it felfe, yet peraliud, by venue of fommewhat eife. Now"j ^ ^ doe not Papifts place worfhip in their Crofle and Crucifixe ? yetcar"3' doetheyplace no holinefle in it per fe , but oneiy per aliud, in refpeft W A$uin of Chrift Crucified thereby reptefenred, and they tell vs, r that crea- 3." 4« 2 5 •
A a t tur*™'*'
CJ
4 Of the Superfiition Parr. 3 .
t nra infenfibili non debetur honor Vel rcverentia>mfi ratione rationale nature- and that they give no religious refpect vnto the tree whereonChnlt was crucified, the nailes, garments, fpeare, manger, 6fc. but onely quantum ad r.uioncmcontaElas munbrorum Chrisli. S ait h Dr. Burgeffu any lciTe of the Ceremonies ? Nay he placeih every-way as much holi- ( •'""■ ubi jk- neffe, and worfhip in them , in the forequotted place. And / elf- pi-acat.ij. where he tcacheth , that after a fort the Ceremonies are worfhip in p. 42'. themfelvcs, even fuch a worfhip as was that of the freewill offerings
(t) ibid. p. vnderthe Law, rand fuch a worfhip ai was the building and vfe of 4I§ Altars here and there , ( before God had chofen out the (landing
place for his Altar ) though to the fame end for which the Lords indiruted Alrar ferved. Thus we fee, thatrhey offer the Ceremo- nies,as worfhip to Godtyet put the cafe they did not, the jpSchooIe Cw) Jeuin. fann • tn3t a thing belongeth to the worfhip of God , V el quo ad off e- 2.25.95. renditm,)>dquo ad affumendum. Where-vpon it followeth, that fuper- m. 2. ftition is not oneiy to be laved to their charge, who offer to God
for worfhip, that which he hath not commanded , but theirs aUb who afTume in Gods worfhip, thehelpe of any thing as facred or holy, which hi mfelfe hath not ordained. 2. They place as great ane- ceflity in the Ceremonies , as Papifts place in theirs , whereby it f hall alfo appeare, how fuperftitiouily they place worfhip in them, for quacunque obfervatio quafi neccjfaria commendatur , centlnuo cenfetur ad (x) &e vera cultum Dei pertincre, faith xCafoinc y The Rfamifts thinke, thatmeates eccl reform, of themfelvcs, or of their owne nature, doe not defile , but fofarreas paa ,267. by accident they make a man tofinn<Lj : ai the difobedience of Gods comwande- fv)annot on mmt ' *r of our Superiours , who forbid fome meates for certaine times and Matth.ij. caufes , is a jinnee. And they addejhat neither fie fli nor ftfli of it felfe doth Seel. 5 . defile, but thebreach of the Churches pracept defileth. z Jiquinai defendeth (z) 3. q* that trin-immerfion is not de necejfitate baptifmi , onely he thinkes 66. m. 6. it a finneto baptifeotherwife, becaufethis rite is Inftitutedand vted by the Church. Doe not formalifts place the fame necetfity inthe Ceremonies, while-as they fay they vrge them not as neceflary in themfelves , but onely as necelTary in refpe&of the determination of the Church, and the ordinance of thofe, who are fet overvsPNay Papifrs place not fo great ncceflity in many ordinances of their Church, as Formalifts place in the Ceremonies. If the caufe be doubt- 'A 2 1 ci P1^ 4 Aquinas tends a man to feek a difpenfation from the Stipe- 147 art 1 r!olir- &m ficaufafit eYidens , per feipfum licitt poteH homo flatuti obfer* \>antuynprxterirLj. What form ah ft dare yeeld vs fuch liberty , as by cur felves , and without feeking a difpenfation from Superiours , to neglect, the obfervation of their ftatutcs, when wee fee evident caufc for fo doing? they thinke that wee have no power at cur owne hand to ludge , that we have an evident caufe of not obeying thofe who (b) £.<£.€£. are fet over vs , yet thus much is allowed by this Papift, who alfo mt 10. &elfcwherc acknowledged! that there is nothing ncceftary in hap-
tifme ,
Cap. i. Of the Ceremonies. $
rifme, but the forme.the minuter, &. the wafhing of water, and that all theofher Ceremonies which the Church of Rome vfethin baptif- m c , are onely for folemnny. € Bettarm'meiaith, that the neglecting (c) defter, and not obferving the Ceremonies of the Church, with them is not Miff* lib. 6. a mortall (inne, except it proceed excontemptu. And d mat he who cap.i^. entering into a Church doth not afperge him feife with holy water, (d) de?ont. fin net h not,if fo be he doe nchracontemptum. Nov/ to be free of con- Rom.lb.q., tempt, will notfansfie ourformaiifts, except wee obey and doe that cap. i3. fame very thing which we are commanded to doe. e Cornell hs Ian fe- [t)Conc. nvts com men ring vpon thefe words • In Vaine dye they worjhip me, tea - Evang. cap. ching for doElrincs the commandements of men , faith that the commande- 6o. mems of men there, forbidden & condemned, are thofe which com- mand nothing divine, but things merely humane. And therefore he pleadcth for the conftitutions of theChurch about feafts, choyce of meats, fcftivities, &c. and for obedience to the fame vpon no other ground then this, because pirn qui fque facile \ndet $ua?n habeant ex fcri- ptum origmem O* quomodo eps confonant, eo quodfadantt ad carnfs caftigatio - nem & temperantiam, aut adfidelittm unioncm & <edificatwnem. I knowe it tobefalte which this Paptft aftirmeth : yet in that he thus pleadeth for thofe conftitutions of the Church, from fcripture and reafon, forfaking the ground of humane Auc*totity,heis a great deale more modeftand leftefuperftitious, then thofe our oppdfites,who avouch the Ceremonies as neceiTaiy , and will have vs bound to the praflifc of them, vpon no other ground, then the bare will and authority of Superiours, who have injoyned them , as hath been fhewed in the fir ft parte of this Difpute. Yea fome of them place a certaine and conftant neceffity in the Ceremonies themfelves, even befide and without the Churches conftitution (which is more then Papifts have faid of their Ceremonies.) f Dr. Forfojfc call eth the Articles of Pen/;, W Iren^- paucanecejfaria,&c. a few things ncceifary for Gods glory, and the F,ffM'.$j promovingofpietiein our Church, for order, peace, unity, and cha- 6 &caP*7- rity,and particularly heteacheth, that a miniftermay not lawfully $'£■ omit to adminifter the facraments in privat places, and without the prcfence of4 the congregation, to fuch as through ficknelTe can not cometothepublicke affemblies ; which hecalieth en necejfaria mini- ftrare. To fay the trueth, the miniftration of the Sacraments in pri- vat places.importeth a neceffity in the matter it felf,for which caufe, the g Divines ofGtneVa rc(o\ved that in Ecclefw public ebijlitutts, bap- , . tifme might not beadminiftratin private places, but only publikely )s'*f in the congregation of the faithfull, panim ne facramenta^c. partly fay ft™ e^r they .left the Sacraments being feparat from the preaching of the word, fhoitld l,Pa£- leagaine transformed in certaine magicall ceremonies, ds in Popery it was $ .' partly that that groffe fup erf ition of tneabf olute neceffity of external Bap tifme, may be rooted out ofthemindes of men. Sure , the defenders of privat bap- (h) eccL?ol. tifme place too great neceffity in that Sacrament. i&m>kff plainly ith.j.f 6o.
A a a i ' infi-
6* Of the Superflitiott Part. 3.
inflnuateth the abfolute neceffity of outward baptifme , at leaft in v/ifh or defire, wlich is thediftinclion of the Schoolmen, and fol- lowed by the moderne Papifts , to cloake their fuperftition. But whatsoever fhew it hath, it was rightly impugned in the Coun- (0 Hifl. of cell of i Trent by Marinarus ■> who alledged againft it that the An- theCowjc.cf gc\\ faid to Cornelius, his prayers were acceptable to God , before Trsnt.hb.z. ever he knewe of the facrament of baptifme, fo that having no knowledge of it, he could not be faid to haue received it, no not in ' vow or wifh : and that many holy Martyrs were converted in the heat ofperfecution,by feeing the conftancy of others, andprefencly taken and put to death, of whom one can not fay, but by divina- tion, that they knewe the Sacraments and made a vow. Seel. 7. 7- I wil! now apply this Argument taken from fuperftition, par- (k\ Confjf, ticulary toholydayes. Superftitiofum ejfe doc emus faith l^Beza,arbitrari cap. s. art. unum aliquem diem alt ero fanlliorem. Now I Will fhew that formalifts 41. obferve holy dayes, as mifticall and holyer then other dayes: how -
(!) Free, in bcit I B. Lindfey thinks good to diiTemble and denie it. Times faith he, Tsrih. af- ai'c appointed by our Church for morning and evening prayers in great townes, fimb.pm.x b°u>'es for preaching on tuefday , thurfday, &c. houres for weekly exercifes of pa?. \ 8 . prophecying , which are holy in refpeB of the vfe ivhereunto they are appointed; and fuck are the fyve day es, which we esleeme not to be holy for any miftick^ji- gnification, which they have , either by Divine, or Ecclejiafficall injlitution, or for any worjliip which js appropriated vnto them , that may not be performed at tin other time, but for the facred vfewhenVnto they are appointed to be em* ployed as circumfianccs onely , and not as miseries. iAnfw. this is but falfly (m) Alt. pretended , for as m Didoclavim obferveth aliud esldeputare, aliud de* Damafo. dicare , aliud fantlificare. deHgnation or deputation is when a man cxp.io.p. appoints a thing for fuchan ufe, ftill reierving power and right to 878. put it to an other vie , if he pleale, fo the Church appointeth times
and houres for preaching vpon the weeke dayes, yet refcrving power to employ thofe timesother wife, when fhee fhalithinke fir. Dedi- cation is when a man fo devotes a thing to fomc pious or civill vfe, that he denudes himfelfe of all right and title, which thereafter he might claime vnto it:as when a man dedicates afomme of money for the building of an Exchange , a Iudgment-hall, &c. oraparccllof ground for a Church, a Churchyarde,a Glebe, a Schoole, a Ho.fpi- lalt; he canclaime no longer right to the dedicated thing. Sanctifi- cationis the fetting apart of a thingefora holy or religious vie , in fuch (orr, that thereafter it may be put to no other vfe, Prov. 20. 25. Now , whereas times fet apart for ordinary and weekly preaching, are onelv dcfigncd by the Church. for this end and purpofe,, fothac they are not holy , but onely for the prefent they are applied to an holy vfe; neither is the worfhip appointed as convenient or befee- ming for thofe times, but the times a^e appointed as convenient for the worfhip ; fcftiyaLI dayes are holy both by dedication and conse- cration
Cap. i. OfFcftivalldajes. 7
eracion of them. And this much the n B. himfelfe forbeareth not to (n) uVi[n* fay,onely helabourcthto plaifter over his Superitition with the vn- prnpzg.19, tepcred mortcr of ihisquidditativcdiftinclion - 0 that fomc thinges [o)ib'hipn. are holy by confecration of them to holy mifticall vies. as water 2g. inbaptifme, &c. but other things are made holy by confecration of them , to holy political! vfes. This way (faith he ) the Church hath power to make a thing holy, as tp-brrrkiandconfecratc places to be Temples, howies to beHofpita/lis,to give rent , lands" 3 money, and goods to the miniftery, and to the poore, to appoint Vefhells, and veftures,andlnftruments for the publike wcrfhip , as Table, Tablecothes, &c. Anf. i.The B. (I fee) takcthvpon him to coyne new diftin&ions at his owne pleafure, yet they will not (I truit) pafTe current among the Iudicious: to make things holy by confe- cration of them to holy ufes for policie, is an vncouth Speculation, and I dare fay, theBifhop himfelfe comprehended it not. Gods designation of a thing to any vfe whkh ferves for his owne glory, is called the fanctification of that thing or the making of it holy • and (o the word is taken Ifa, 1 3. ■j.&Ier. 1. 5. ^G.SanBba noteth in his commentaries vpon thefe places, and Calvine commenting vpon the fame places expoundeth them folikewife. But the Chur- ches appointing or defigning of a thing to an holy vie, can not be called the making of it holy. It muft.be confecrated at the command of God, and by vertue of the Word and Prayenthus are breade and (p) ThoL wine confecrated in the holy (upper. ResSacr<e faith p Fennmrt , fum lib.6.cap.-$. qua Dei Verboin pradiBum ufum fanEiificatce £T dicata funt^. q Poland (q) Sjnt. 1 peaking of the Sacramental] elements, faith , fanftificath reiterrettte lib. 6. c. 5 1. ell aEliomimttri, qua deftirtatrem terrenam ad fan&umufum, ex mandato pug. 433 . Veii&c. The r ProfefTors of LfZ^ra call onely fuch things perfons, (x)Syn.p4r, times, and places holy .as are confecrated & dedicated to God and IheoL Dijp. hisworihip, and thai divinaprcefcriptionc. If our ordinary meate and zi.lhtf.j* drinke can not bee fan&inced to vs, fo that we may lawfully and with a good confeience vfethofe common things, but by /the word (f) * Tip* of God and praier;how then fhall any thing be made holy for Gods 4'5' worf hip, but by the fame meanes ? and I prayy which is the Word, and which be the Prayers , that make holy thofe things, which the Bifhop avouchcth for things confecrated and made holy by the Church, namely, the ground wherevpon the Church is built , the- (tones and timber of an hofpitall, the rents, lands, moneys or goods, given to the Miniftery , and the poore , the vefhels , vefturcs , ta- bles, napkines, bafens, &c. appointed for the publike worf hip?
2. Times, places, and things .which the Church defigneth for $t&t 8, the worfhipofGod if they be made holy by confecration of them to holy Politicall ufes, then either they are made holy , by the holy ufes to, which they are to be applied , or elfe by the Churches dedi- cating of them to thofe vfes. They can not be called holy by vertue
of
8 Of the holineffe of times, places > and things, Part. >.
(t)frefnfuto of their application to holy ufes, for then (as t Ames argueth) the *a?>5- ?*£- a-ireiS ^acred, becaufe it is applied to the Miniftcr his fpeech whiles }$. he is preaching , then is the light facred which is applied to his eye
in reading, then are his fpedtacles facred which are uled by him rea- ding his text , &c. But neither yet are they holy , by venue of the Churches dedicating of them to thofe u(es for which fhe appoin- ted them : for the Church hath no fuch power as by her dedication (u) G«w. to make them holy, u P. Martyr condemneth the dedication or in i Reg. 8. confecration (for thofe words he vfeth promifcuoufly, whereby the de tempi Js- Papifts hallowe Churches , andhedeclarethagainft it the ludgment die, of our Divines to be this , licere imo jurepietatis requiri, ut in prima cu-
jafquerei ufurpatione , gratis Deo agamus, ejufque bonitatem celebremm , (S'c. Cotlati boni religiofum ac fan&um ufumpofcamus. This heoppolethtothe Popil'h dedication of Tern pies 6c Bels, as appeareth by thefe words quanto fanitts retliufquedecernimus. He implieth therefore that thefe things are onely confecrated , as every other thing is confecrated to vs. Of ihis kind ofconfecrationhehath given examples. InlibroNe- hernia dedicatio manium civitatts commemoratur, qua nil aliud fuit nifi quod murisurbis inflauraWj populus una cum Levitts <& Sacerdotibus, nee nonprin* cipibus^ eo fe contulit , ibiquegratias Deo egerunt de manibus readiftcatn , & ptjiamchitatk u fur am poflularunt ? qua itemratisneprius quam fumamus ci- bum , nos etiam ilium confecramus. as the walls of Lrulalem then , and as our ordinary meace ate confecrated, fo are Churches confecrated, and no otherwifecan they be faid to be dedicated,except one would vfe the word dedication, in that (enCe wherein it is taken, Deut. 20. 5. Where Calvine turnes the word dedicaVit. Arias Montana ? initiavit .Tre~ mellius, capit uti. Of this fort of dedication Gafpar Santiius wnceth thus, Alia dedicatio est , non folum inter prophanos ,fed etiam inter Habreos ufitata y qua nihil habet Sacrum 9fed tantum eft aufpicatio aut initium operts , ad quod deflinatur locus aut res,cujm tuncprimum libatur uftts. Sic Nero Clau~ di',6 dedicaffe dicitur domum fuam cumprimum illam habitare coepit. Ita Sue- tonius inNeront. SicPompejas dedicavit theatrum fuum, cum primum illud pnblias ludis <$ communibus ufibus aperuit • de quo Cicero lib. 2. Epiji. 1. Any other fort of dedica-.ing Churches , we holde to be fuperfti- (y) Hi/I. cftious. PeterValdo, of whom ihcJValdmfes were named , is v repor- the raldevf. ted to have taught ,that the dedication of Temples was but an in- hb.i.cap.i. vention of the Divell. And though Churches be dedicated by prea- ching and praying , and by no fu per (lit ion of fptinkling them with holy water, orvfmgfuch magicall rites , yet even thefe dedications (z) Cent. 4. faith ^ the Magdeburgians , ex juda'ifmo nata Vtdenturfine ullo Dei prace- c?p.6. col. pto. Tnereis indeed no warrant for fuch dedication of Churches, as 408. is thought to make them holy. Bellarmine would warrant it by Mofes
/a) Leorig. his confecrating of rhe Tabernacle , the Altar, and the Vef hells of tempi, hb. 4. the fame, but a Hofpinian a nfwereth him, Mofis fatlum expreffum ha* cap, 2. buit Dei mandatum : de confer 'andts aut em templis Cbmiianorum , nullum
ufpiam
Chap, r.' TheT)edicAtiont>fCht4nhesl }
ufpiam in verbo Dei pr<ecepttm extat 3 ipfo quoque Beliarrmno tefie. Where- vpon heconcludeth,thatrhisCeremonie of confecrating or dedi- catingthe Churches of Chriftfa'ns.is not to be ufed after the Exam- ple ot'Mofes , who in building and dedicating of the Tabernacle, did follow nothing without Gods exprefle commandement. What I have laid againft the dedication of Churches , holds good alfo againfi: the dedication of Altars; The Table wherevpon the Hle- n.ents of the body and blood of Chrift are fet, is not to bee called holy : neither can they be commended who devifed Altars in the Church, to be the feat of the Lords body and blood , as if any Ta- ble , though not fo coniecrated , could net as well ferve the turne. And what though Altars were ufed in the auncient Church? yet this cuftome a ludaiat 5 in Ecclefiam Cbrifli permanavit ac poflea fifperflitigni mattriamprabuityfay b th t Magdtburgians . Altars lavour or nothing (b) cent. 4. but Iudadme , and the borrowing of Altars from the lewes, hath eaP' 6- ^°'* rcade Chriftians both to follow their Priefthood , and their facrifT- 4°9« ces. Hcecenbn tria^fcilket Sacerdos, Alt are, & Sacrificium , fiint correla* tiva , ut ubi unum esl> catera duoadeffe neceffe Jir, faith c Cornelius a La- Cc) cotnroaa fide. " J MaUl'»-- I
3. If fome times, places, and things , be made holy by the Chur- Seel. 9. ches dedication or confecration of them to holy uies , then it fol- lowed that other times , places, and things , which are not fo dedi- cated and confecrated by the Church , howbeit they be applied to the fame holy uf s, yet are more prophane, andleite apt to Divine worfhip, then thofe which are dedicated by the Church. I need not infift to ftrengthen the inference of this conclufion from the prin- ciples of our Oppofites ; for the moft learned among them , will net refufeto fubfertbe to ic. d Hooker teacheih us, that the fervice of W EccH- God, in pi ices not fandtified as Churchesare , hath not in it Celfc ^* ^- 1m (marke inn felfe) fuch perfection of grace and comlinefTe^s when (• 1(^* thedignitie of the place which it wilheth for, doth concurre ; and that the very Majefty and holineiTe of the place where God is vvor- fhipped , bettereih even our holiefland beft actions. How much more found! v doe we hold with e T.]{ainoldes , that unto usChri- (c) confer. ftians, no land x f range, no ground unholy • every coafi is Jewry : every towne with I.Hart. Jerufalem : and every boufe Sion: and every fan b full company, yea every faith- cap.S.dtvif. fullbody ,aTemple to ferve Godinf Thecontrarie opinion-/ Hofpmian \.$ag±<) 1 . rejedeth as favouring ludaiime , alligat enim religtonem ad etna loca. { f ) ubi fit* Whereas the prefence of Chnft among two or three gathered toge- pm. therin his name , maketh any place a Church , even as the prefence of a King with his attendants maketh any place a Court. As of pla- ces , fo of times our oppofites thinks moil fu per ft. tioufly. For of holy dayes g Hooker fairh thus, No doubt as Gods exiraordinarie pre- (c]Ecel Pol. fence bath hallowed and fanBified certaine places , fo they are his extraordinary lb, 5 [69. tvorkesp that have truly and worthily advanced certatne times\ for which caufe
Bbb tUy
(h) annot on i Tim
4- 5-
1 1 J de cult,
Smnfi.tMp.
lO.
Seel. IO.
i o Of the Svperfti. ion. Parr. $ .
thev ought to be with all mm , that honour God , wjore /;o/v ffow or/;er <fayrx. What is this but Popith iupcrftjtion ? tor juft Co the hRhemisis th-.nke that the times , and places of Chrifts Nativity , Paflion, Bu- riail.Refurre&ion, and Alcenfion,were made holy .: & juft fo i BtU tannine holdeth,that Chrift didconfecrate the dayes of his Nativity, Paflion, and Refurre&ion , eo quod na fcens confecrarh prce [cp e ytnor'uns cmam-i refurgms ftpulcbmm. Hooker hath bene of opinion, that the holy dayes were lo advanced above other dayes by Gods great and extraordinary workes done upon them , that they f hould have beneholvcr then other dayes , even albeit the Church had not ap- pointed them te be keeped holy. Yet B. Lindfey would have us be- lieve , that they thinke them holy , onely becaufe of the Churches confecrarion of them to holy Poltticall ufes. But that now at laft , I may make it appcare to ali that have common fenfe , how falfely (though frequently) it is given forth by the Bifhop,that holy dayes are kept by them onely for order and policie , and that they are not fo fuperftitious , as to appropriate the worfhip to ihofe dayes , or toobferve them for miitery and asholicrihen otherdave^.
Firft, I require the B. to f hew us a difference betwixt the kee- ping of hoiy dayes by formalifts,& their keeping of the Lords day : for upon holy dayes they injoyne a celtation from w orke, and a de- dicating of the day to Divine worfhip, even as upon the Lords day. (k)ubi fu- The /^Bifhopalledgeth five refpe&s of difference, butthcy are not prapag. 11. true. Firft , he faith, that the Lords day is commanded to be obfer- ved of neceflitv , for confeience of the Divine ordinance , as a day fan&ified and bleffed by God himfelfe. Anfw. 1. fo have we heard fromHocj^tT, that holy dayes are fan&ifiedby Gods extraordinary workes, but becaufe the B> dare not fay fo much, therefore I fay. 2. This difference can not {hew us , that they obferve holy dayes onely for order and policy, and that they place no worl h»p in the obferving of them, as in the obfervingof the Lords day, (which is the point that we require) for worfhip is placed in the obferving of humane, as well as of Divine ordinances . otherwife worfhip hath never bene placed in the keeping of Pharisaical! 3nd Topil h tradi- tions. This way is wor! hip piaced in the keeping of holy dayes , when for confeience of an humane ordinance, they arc both kern as holy, and thought neceffary to be fo kep:. 3. The B. contradið (\)z.p.tothc himfelfe , for / elfwhere hedefendeth, that the Church ha:h power to change the Lords day. Secondly, he givethus this difference, that the Lords day is obferved, as the Sabbath of lehovah, ?nd as a day whereon God himfelfe did reft after the creation. Ar.f. 1. Th.s is filfe of the Lords day , for after the creation, God rened vpon ihe fevemb day, not upon the firft. z. Dr Qouname faith m , that fefti- vall da yes a I fo are to be confecrated as Sabbaths to the Lord.Third- iy, the B. tells us, that the Lords day is obferved in memory of the
Lords
ra/i. tftbu
Church of Seal.
5.
Chap. i. Of the Feftivall dayes. i i
Lords Refurre&ion. Anf. i . He f hall never make this good , for, we obferve the Lords day in memory of the whole vvorkc of Re- demption. 2. If it were fo, this could make no difference , for juft fo Chnftmafte is obferved in memory of the Lords Nativity, Good-fnday, in memory of his Pa(Tion,&:c. Hisfourch & fifth re- fpe&s of difference , are cenaine mifteries in the Lords day, But we f hall fee by and by , how his fellow Formal ifts who are more inge- nuous then himfelfe, f hew us mifteries in the Feftivall dayes alio. Laftly, albeit the B. have told us that there is no worl hip appropria- ted unto the Feftivalldayes , which may not be performed at any other time, yet thiscan not with him make a difference betwixt them and the Lords day: for in his Epiftle which I have quotted, he de- clareth his judgment to be the fame of the Lords day, andteacheth us, that the worfhip performed on it , is not io appropriated to that time , but lawfully the fame may be performed at any other con- venient time., as the Church f hall thmke ft. Now as the worfhip performed on the Lords day, is appropriated (in his judgment)to that time , fo long as the Church altcreth it not, and no longer, juft as much thinks he, of the appropriating to Feftivall dayes, thewor- f hip performed on the fame.
2. If the holy dayes be obferved by For malifts only for order and Stfli i 1. policy, then they muft fay the Church hath power to change them. But this power they take from the Church, by faying that they are dedicated and eonfecrated to thofe holy ufes , to which they are a pp 1 ied . Semel Deo dkatum non eft ad ufm humanos ulterim trans ferendwn , faith one of the n Popes. And by the dedication of Churches , the (n) 'Bonifac. founders furrender that right, which othcrwife they might have in 8. dereg.ju* them, faith one of the o Formalifts themfelves. If then the Church ™- reg* 5 r» hath dedicated holv dayes to the worfhip of God , then hath f hee [o)Hook. denuded her felfof all power to change them , or put them to ano- ecc^ tol.Ub, ther ufe; which were otherwife, if holy dayes were appointed to be 5>/ lz' kept , onely for ordc r and policy. Yea further , times and places which are applied to the worl nip of God , ascircumftances onely for outward order and policy, may be by a private Chriftian applied to an civil 1 ufe , for in lb doing hebreaketh not the ordinance of the Church: for example, Materiall Churches are appointed to be the receptacles of Chnftian afTemblies, and that only for fuch com- mon commodity and decency, which harh place as well in civill as in holy meetings, and not for any holinefle conceived, to be in them, more then in other houfes.Now if I be ftanding in a Church- yard when itraineth , may net I go into the Church that I maybe defended from the injury ofthe weathenlf I muft meet w th certain men , for putting order to fome of my wordly affaires, and it fall out that wee cannot conveniently meet in any parte but in the Church, may wee not there keepe our tryft ? A material! Church
Bbb 2 the.1.
xi Cf the Superftitiott. Part. 3.
then, may (erve foracivi!! ufe, the femeway that it ferveth to a ho- )v life. And lo for times appointed for ordinary preaching upon weeke dayes in great townes, may not I apply ihcfe times to a civill nfe , when 1 can not conveniently apply them to the vfe for which ihe Church appointeth them ? I truft our Prelates fhall fay, I may, becaufethey vac to beotherwife em ployed the in Divine wcrlbsp, during the tunes of weekly preaching. Now if holy dayes were commanded to be kept only for order and policy , they might be applied to another ufe, as wel as thoie ordinary times of weekly meetings in great townes : whereas we are required of nccefTity 10 keep them holy. Sec?, 11. 3- lfthe holy dayes be kept only for order and policie , why doe
(p)Serm on they efteeme of fome of them above others ? doth not/? B.jin'dretves Mat. 6. 16. call the feaft of Ea{ter,thehigheit and grenteft of our religion? And [q)ubi[upra doth not q B.Lindfey himfeife with Cbryffiome call the feftivall of fag.zs. Chnfts Nativity, metropolian omnium feforum ? By this reafon doih (r) dtcult. rBellarm'me prove, that the fearts of Christians arc Celebrated , non (ami. folum rations ordinti & politi* 3 fed ctiammiflerij 5 becaufeotherwife they
cap. I o. * hould be al! equail in celebrity , whereas Leo calls Eafter fejlum ft- forum , and Nazianzene, cdebritatem ccUbrhatum, SeZ.i*. 4* If the holy dayes be kept only for order and policy , then the ( ()Zanch. ian&ification, of them fhou'.d be placed, / inipfo atluati cxtemicuU in.A..pr£c. tmexercitio. But Hooker hath told us before, that theyare made holy, _p. 682. and worthily advanced above other dayes, by Gods extraordinary (t) Tartus workes wrought udoii them. Where upon it followeth , thatastDf/tf comm.in diem feptimum fanStificaVit vacatione fantla , & ordinatione ad ufum fan- Gen. 2. * , &llm i fo bath he made feftivall dayes no leiTe holy in ihcmfelves, and that as the Sabbath was holy from the beginning, becaufeof Gods rcftmg upon it , and his ordaining of it for a holy ufe, how- beit it had never beene applied by men to the exercifes of Gods worfhip: even fo feftivall dayes are holy, being advanced truly and worthily, by the extraordinary workes of God , and for this caule commended 10 all men that honour God, to be holier with them then other dayes , albeit it fhould happen that by us they were never applied to an holy ufe. If B. Lindfey thinke that all this (u ; vbifu- toucheth not him, he may bepleafed to remember, that u he him- prapag 2,0. felf hath confefTed , that the very prefence of the feftivity , p.:tsa man in minde of the millery , howbeit he have not occafion to be prefent in the holy affembly. What order or policy is here, when a man being quiet in his Parlour or Cabinet, is ma.ieto remember of fuch a miitery on ftich a day ? What hath externall order and poli- cy to doe with the internal! thoughts of a mans heart , to put in or- der the fame r Sec}, 14. 5. By their fruits fhall we knowe them; lookc whether they give fo much liberty to others , and take fo much to themielves , vpon
their
Cap. i . Of Feftivdl day a. 1 $
their holy da yes, for (laying from the publike worfhip, and atten- ding wordly bufinefTe , as ihey doe at the diets of weekly and ordi- nary preaching : yet they wold make the fimpie beleeve, that their holy dayesareonely appointed to be kept, as thofe ordinary times iet apart for Divine fervice on the weeke-dayes. Nay, moreover Jet it bee obferved , whetheror not they keep the Feflivall dayes more carefully, and vrge the keeping of them more eameftly, then the Lords owne day. Thofe Prelates that will not abafe them (elves to preach upon ordinary Sabbaths, think the high holy dayes worthy of their Sermons. They have beene alio often feene to travel! upon the Lords day, whereas they hold it religion totravell vpon a holy day. And whereas they can digeft the common prophana- tion of the Lords day, and not challenge it, they can not away with the not observing of their feftivities.
6. By their words fhall we ludge them. Saith not x R.Vmdfey, SeH. 15. that the five anniverfary dayes are confecrate to the commemo- (x) ubi fu<- ration of our Saviour his benefites beeing feparate from all other prapag. 19. ordinary wcrkes, and fo made facred and holy dayes? Will he fay this much of ordinary times appointed for weekly preaching? I trow not. y Dr. Douname holdeth, that we are commanded in the fourth (y) enpne. commandement, te keep the feafts of Chnfts Nativity, Pafliot^Re- 4. furre&ion, Attention, and Penteccft, and that thefe feaits are to be confederated as Sabbaths to the Lord. B. Andrewes , a man of the greateft note among ft our oppolites , affoordeth us here plenty of testimonies forproofe of the point in hand, namely, that the anni- verfary Feflivall dayes are kept for millery and as holier then other dayes. Serm. on Pfal. $u 101 i.he faith of Chriftmaffe, that mercy andrrueth ,righteoufnetTe and peace, of all the dayes of the yeare, meet.* moH kindly on this day. Serm. on Pfal. z. 7. he faith or the fame day, that of ail other hodie's, we Jhould not let flip the hod'ie of this day, whereon at tin law is mosl kjndly preached , fo it will ace most kindly praBifed of all others. Serm. on Hebr i2.2.heiauh of Good- fry day, let us now tunic tohim^andbefeech him by the fight of 'this day. Serm. on 1 Cor. 5.7.8. he faith of the keeping of the Chnftian Pafleover vponEifter, thac then it is befl fonts to doe it, It is mosl kindly to doe it, mo ft liketopleafi^ Ckrifl, and toprofper with us. And indeed if at any time we wi'l doe it, quando Pafchanifiin Pafcha, tyc. fo that without any more adoc, the fea fori pleadeth forthu effectually y&c. Serm. on Coll. 3. 1 . he Ian hy that there jsno day in the year efo fit fir a Chnftian to rife with Christ, and feeke the things above, as Haff tr day. Serm. on loh 2. 19. he faith, that theaB of receiving Chrtfis body is at no tymefo proper ,fo in fea fen, as this Very day. Serm. o a 1 Cor. 11. 16. he toils us out of Leo, Thins a peculiar that Eafter day hath, that on it all the whole Church obtaineth remiffion of their fames. *erm . 0:1 AB. 1 » 1, 2. 3. hefaithof the Feaft of Pentecoft, that of all dayeswe frail not goe away from the holy Ghosl empty on this day ■ it is dies douorkm : bis givmg
1 4 Of the Sfiperjfition Pa rt . 3 .
das. Serm . on Ephef 4. \ o. he faiih . this ts the holy Ghosts day , and nop fir th.it orighialy fo it was : but for that it h to be intended, ever he will doe his owne ckhfe wcrke upon hi owne chief e Feasi,and opus did, the dayes worke upon thedavitfdf. Sermon, on Pfd. 68. i 8. he huh, th<i: loVe will be best and foontk wrought, by the Sacrament of love, vpon Pentecost, the Feast of /ovo. Sam. on Zdct 10, 54. 35. he iaith , that the receiving of the holy \\)SeeScw?. Ghoft in a more ample meafure is opusdiei, theproperofthts day. Serm. cnG* -4-4 on la. 1. 16. 1 7. hecallesthe gift or the holy Ghoft, the gift of the Smm. on day of Pentecoft, and tells us rha: the holy Ghoft the mo ft perfect L uk. 2. 10. gjfc 0f aH this day wetland any day may be, but chiefly this day will be giVeny 1 1 . Serm.on t0 any tjm wiUdifire. Serm. on Lttk 4. 1 3. he (anh of the Cupe Feaft, Lament, that becaufe of thebenefite that fell on this time, the time it felfe it fellon, is 1 . 1 2 .Serm an^ can not yt \jUt acceppable , even eo nomine, that at fuch a time fitch a be* on lo. 20. nefite happened tow. ,.uch more of this tturfe I might produce out 19 Serm. on Gf a this Prelates holy dayes lermons, which I fuperfede as more lob. 19. 23 redious then neceiTaty; Neither yet will I ft ..y here to confute the Serm.on lo. errors of thofe and iuih like 'entences of his ; for my purpole is 20. 17. onely to prove againft B Lindfey , that ihe Feftivali dayes, wherea- S:rm on bout we di(pute, arc not observed as circumftancesof worfhip, for Heb. 13. order and policy ; but thai asthechicfe parts of Gods worf hip are 10. 21. placed in the celebration and keeping of the fame, fo are they kept Serm on and celebrate moft fuperftinoufly, as having certaine facrcd and Math. 6. mi.hcall fignificationes , and as holier in ihemfelves then other 16 Serm.on dayes, becaule they were fancr.ified aboue other dayes by the extra- Act. 2. 1 6. ordinary workes and great benefices of God, which happened vpon Serm. on them : So that the worf hip performed on them, is even appro- I0.5.6. priated to them*, all which is more then evident from thofe tefti- &c- monies which I have in this place colie&ed.
Sect. 16. ^PjC} finally, the b Auihor of the nullity of Perth affemblv proveth \VjPag -6y. this point forcibly : Dorh not Hooker fay, that the dayes of publike memo* rials foould be chathed with the out ward robes of holineffe. Tuey alledge for the warrant of anniverfarij feslivities, the ^undents, who call them Sacred and myfticalldavcs. If they were inftituted onely for order and policy , that the people ?night affemble to religious exercifes, wherefore is there but one day ap- pointed betwixt the Paffxonandthe Rtfurretlion r forth dayes betwixt the %e- furreElion and Afcenfion ? ten betwixt the ^Afcenjhn and Pentecoft f where- fore followe we the courfe of the Moone , as the lewes did ; in our moveable leaks ? KSfc Wherefore is there not a certain day of the moneth kept for Eajler, as well as for the Nativity f tfc. Tn.n which is here alleciged ouc of Hooker and the Auncients , B Lindfey palTeth quite over , and nei- ther inferts nor anfweres it. As touching thofe demands which tie him as fo many gordian knots, becaule he can not vnloo!e them , he {c)ttbifuprM goeth about to break them, c telling us, that they order thefe things p^.23. lo for vnity with the Catholikc Church. This is even as fome na- turall Philofophers, who take upon them to give a realon and
caufe
Chap. 2. Of Feftivdl diyeu i;
caufefor all rhinos in nature, when they can ftnde no other, they flee to Sympathia Pbifeca. When it is asked, wherefore the loadftone doth actracl yron rather then other metrall ? they anfwere, that the caufe thereof is fympathia phijica inter magnet em><? ftrrum. With fuch kind of etimology doih the B. here ferve us, yet pcradventure hee might have given us another caufe. If fo, my retra&anon is , that if he be excufed one way , hee muft be accufed an other way , and if he be blameiefle of Ignorance, he is blameworthy for dillimula- tion. The true caufes why thofe things are fo ordered , we may find in B. Andrews his Sermons , which I have madeufeof in handling this argument. For example, d the reafon why there is butone day /^\ Serm betwixt the Padion and the Refurreclion, is, becaufe that lonaswas o«Mae.ii but one day in the Wha'es belly, and Chrift but one day in the bo- , *# fome of the earth, for in theirgoing thither, he fets out Good-fry- day: in their being there Eafter eve: in their com ming thence Eafter / day. As for the to daves betwi*t Eafter and Peritecoft, che iairh, f e) £m^- on fifth is the number of the Jubilee \ which number agreetb wet I with this feaft, " 4° the Feast of Pentecofi. What the one in yeares, the other in dayes. So l°' l9' that this is the lubilee as it were of they tare , or the yearly memory of the yeare -of lubilee : that, the Pentecofi of yeares: this, the lubilee of dayes. In the end of the fame Sermon he celis us the reafon , why there are ten dayes appoynted betwixt the Afcenfion, and Pentecofl:. The feast of lubilee faith he> beganne ever after the high Pries! had offered his Sacrifice , and had heene in the Sanfia SanBorum , as this lubilee of Chris! alfo tootle place from bfs entering into the holy places, made without hands 3 after bis propitiatory facrifice , offered up for the quick and the dead, and for all yet unborne, atEaJler. lAndit was the tenth day9 that : and this now is the tenth day fwce. He hath told us alio /, why there is not a certaine day of the (fyserm. on moneth appointed for Eafter , as there is for the Nativity , namely, Math. 6. becaufe the fad of Lent muft end with that high feaflr, according to 16. the Prophecy o£%acbary. Wherefore I conclude, aliquid mijleriialunt, and fo aliquid monslri too.
CHAP. II.
That the Ceremonies are unJawfuU ^becaufe they are monuments of by-p aft idolatry , vbhh not being necejfary to be retained, fhould be utterly abolifhed, becaufe of their idolatrous abufe : all which is particularly made good of ^neeting.
m^m Have proven the Ceremonies to befuperftitious;nowI will - « j^)|^5 prove them to be Idolatrous. Thefe are different arguments, *SzS& for every Idolatry is {uperftition, but every fuperitition is
not
1 6 Of the ahUfting of Part. $ t
(p,'v Synop. not Idolatry , as is rightly by g fome diftingutfhed. As for the pur.TheoL I iolatry of the controverted Ceremcnics , 1 will prove that they Aifp 19- are hrrce 1 dolatrous ;r. reduStive .becaufe they are monuments of by~ tbef. 30. pad Idolatry*. 2 participative ,becmieth?y are badges of prefent Ido- Jacry, 3. farwttf//fer,becatilethey ate Idols them felves.Firft then, they are Idolatrous, becaufe having beene notorioufly abufed toldo- latry heretofore , they arethe dcteftableand accurfed monuments, which give no fm all honour to the memory of that by- pa ft Idolatry, (hi Man- which ihould lie buried in hell. /; Dz. Burgeffe reckons for Idola- try, trous , all Ceremonies devifedand uled , in and to the honouring /xtf-38. ofanldoll, whether properly or by interpretation fuch. Of which fort faith he, were all the Ceremonies of thePagans > and not a few of the Papifts. If an oppofite wtimng againftus be forced to aknowledge this mu'.h , one may eafily conjecture , what inforcing reafon wee have to double out our point. The Argument in hand I frame thus:
All things and riles , which have hum nolrioujly abufed to idolatry^ if they he not fu.h ^oa either Cjod or nature hath made to be of a necejfary ufe , fhouJd b> utterly abo'ifhed and purged away from Divine wo>f kip , in fuch fort thair* they may not be accounted nor ufed by usy a* facred things ^ or rites pertaining to the fam<LJ .
But theCroJJi 3 Surplice^ Reeling in the acl of receiving tbe^ Commuion, &c. are t hings and rites , &c. and are not fuch at either god or nature 3 &c.
Eygo, tkeyfiouldbeutterhe abdifhed 3 (frc.
SccI. 2. As for the propofitibn I > hall firft explaine it , and then prove it;
I fay, all things andrites, for they are alike rorbidden as I i hall (hew. I fay, which have heme notorioufly abufed to idolatry, becaufe if the abufe be not knowne we are blamelciTe For retaining the things and rites which have beene abu led. I fay, if they be not fuch as either God or nature hath made tobe ofancceffaryufe , becauieif they be of a necetTary ufe, either through Gods iniucunoii , as the Sacraments, or through na- tures law , as the opening of our mouths to Ppeake (for when lam to preach cr pray publikly, nature makes it necelTary , that I open my mouth to fpcake audibly and articulatlv,) then the abufecan not ta k e away the ufe. 1 fay, they may not be ufed by us , as facred things and rites pertaining to Divine worfhip , becauie without the campatfeof worinit), they may be uied to a natu rail. or civil 1 purpofe. If I could get no other me,1! to eate, then the confecrated hofte which Papids Idolatiizcmthc circutngeftation of it ? I might lawfully cat
it,
Chap. 2^ thingi abttftd to TdoUtrj. 1 J
ir, and if I could get no other cloaths top:;t on , then the holy gar- . mencs wherein a Prieft hath faid MalTe , I might lawfully weare them. Things abufed to Idolatry , are only then unlawfull , when they are uled no otherwife then relig-.oufly , and as things facred.
The propofition thus explained , is confirmed by thefe five Si^ ,* proofes , i. Godsowne praecepr, If*. ;o.n. Ye fhall defile at fo the cohering of thy graven images of filver , and the ornament of thy molten ima - ges of gold : thou [halt casl them away at a menJlroM cloath , thou fhall fay unto it , get thee hence. The covering of the Idoil here fpokcii or, iGafparSanElus rightly underftandeth to be thit , quo aut induebantur (j) c&mm.m fimulacra Gentilicorhu . autbraEtedsquihus lignea? imagines bit eguntur , aut mUm locum. quo homines Idolx facrificaturi amiciebantur . So true the ieait appur:e- nincesof ldolls are to be avoided. When the Apoftle J^L/dV would (k; lad. 23. have us to heace the garment fpottedwith the fief h, his meaning is, detefiandam effe Vel fuperficiem ipfam mall five peccati , quam tunica ap- pcllatione fubinnuere videtur, as our o wiie I BgHoke hath obferved. if (\)comm. m the very covering of an Idoil be forbidden , what fhall be thought ThciT. of other things which are no: only fpotted, but irrecoverably psllu- j, 22. ted with idolls? many fuch orxe'epts were given to Ifraell, zsExod. 34. 13 Yee fhall dtfhroy their altars , breake their images , andcutdowne their groves. Deut. 7. 2s%2<t. Thegrauen images of their Gods fhall ye burnt with fire : thou fhalt not defire the filver and gold that is on them , nor take it unto thee , lesl thou be fnared therein : for it is an abomination to the. Lordthy God, Rcade to thj fame purpoie Numb. 33. 52. Veut. 7. 5% and 1 2. 2. 3. Secondly , God hath not only by his precepts com- manded us to abolif h all the reliques of Idolatrie , but by his pro- mifesalfo mauifefted unto us, how acceptable fervice this f hould be to him. There is a command Num. 33. 52. that the Ifraelires fhould deftroy the Canaanites , eVertantque res omnes idololatricas ipfo* rum: cuimandato faith m Junius , fubjicitur fua promiffio* namely , that fm) anal.in the Lord wold give them the promifed land , andthey fhould dif- iUumlocum. pofTeiTc the inhabitants thereof, Fir/if}, yeaihere is a promifeof remiflion and reconcil ation to this worke. Ifa. 27. 9. By this fhaH the iniquity of Jacob be purged , and this is all the fruit to take away his finne : when he ms>ke\h all the fiones of the *Mtar as chalke ftoties > that are beaten afund^r, the groves and images fhall not ftandup.
Thirdly, the Churches of Pergamos anaTheatyra are reproved for §eg^ * fuffermg the ufe of Idolothyts , Apoc. 2. 14. 20. Where the eating ofthingsfacrificedro Idolls is condemned as Idolatry and fpirituali adultery, as n Perkins noteth. Paybody therefore is greatly mifta- (n) expcr ken, when he thinkes, that meates iacr-ificcd to Idolls , beeingthe u.on p^ good Creatures of God, were allowed by the Lord , out of the cafe vc] 2< x* offcandall , notwithstanding of Idolatrous pollution, for Jpoc. 2, theeating of things faenficed to Idolls , is reproved as Idolatry, and 1. Cor. 10. 20. the eating of fuch thinges, is condemned asafellow-
Ccc fhip
J 8 Of the aboHfh'mg of Parr. 3.
fni p with Di veils. Now Idolatry and fell owfhip with divclls, I fup- poie arcuhlawfull, though noYcandall mould followe upon them. And whereas he thinkes'meates facnficedto Idolls , tobe lawfull enough out of the cafe of fcandall, for this rea ion, becaufethey are the good Creatures of God , he fhould have confidcred better the (o) Ittpffe. Apoftles mind concerning fuch Idolothyts. Which 0 Zanchim fetteth 2 . p. 5 3 4 . downe thus. Verum eft , per fe hcec nihil fum , fed refpetlu eorumquibits immclantur all quid funt : quia per hcec. iUj quibm im?nolantur,nos conjocia- mur.Qui ifti? D<emones. r'or our better underftandingof this matter, we mult dilhnguifh two forts of Idolothyts, both which we finde 1 Cor. 10. Oftbeonesthe Apoftle fpeakes from the 14. Verft of that Chiprer,:othe 23. Of the other, from the 23. verfezo the end; This is Be^a his diftin&ion in his Annotations on that Chapter. Of the firft tort, he delivers the A poftles minde thus-that as Chnftians have their holy banquets , which are badges of their communion both with Chrift and among themfelves, and as the Ifraelites by their fa- crificesdid feale their copula'ion in the fame religion , ioalfo Ido- laters cum fun hdolti ant potim d<emonibw, folemmbm ilth epulps copulantur. (p2 r cor. So that this fort of p Idolothyts were eaten in Temples, and publike *. -.0. folemne banquets, which were dedicated to the honour of idolls.
{q)annot.on q Cartwright fheweth, that the Apoftle is comparing the Table of the a Cor. Lord, with the Table of Idolaters : whereupon it followcth, that as 10. 21. weeufe the Lords Table religicufly , fo that Table of Idolaters of which the Apoftle fpeaketh , had (tare in the idolatrous worf hip, h ke th at fea ft Num .25.3. quod in honorem falforum Deorum celebrabatur$ (r)com. in faith rCalVme. This fir ft fort of ldolaihyts , f Parens calls the facri- illum locum, ftcesof Idolls, and from fuch he faith , the Apoftle diiTuadeth by {i)anal. in this argument , Participare epulis Idolcrum , esi Uqlolatria. Of the fe- 1 Cor. 10. cond lore of Idolothyts , rhe Apoiilc begins to fpeakc V*rf 23. The Corinthians moved a queftion , whether they might lawfully eat (t) ibid. things faenficed to Idolls; In privates conViVw, faith t Parent, The A - poftle refolves them that domi in privato cenvi&tt they might eate (i\)annot. them, except it were in the cafe of ' IcandaU , thus uBeza. The firft ibid. fort of Idolothyts ate meant of Apoc 2. as Be^a there noteth , and of
(x)dsbono this fort mufl we underftand X Augufline 10 meane, whiles he faith, tonjugalt , that it were better mori fame , quam Idolothytn vefct. Thefe fortes are tap. 16. /imply & in themfelves unlawfull. And if meates faaificed to Idols be 10 unlawfull , then much more fuch things and rites as have not only beene facrificed anddeftinated to the honour of Idolls , (for this is but one kinde of Idolatrous abufe, ) but alfo of a long time, publikly andfolemnely employed in the worfhipping ofIdolls,and deeply defiled with Idolatry, much more I lay , are they unlawfull tobe applied to Gods moft pure and holy worfhip, and therein ufed by us publikelyand folemnely, fo that the world may fee uscon- forming, and joyning our felves unto Idolaters.
Fourthly
Chap. 2. things abtifed to Idolatry. 19
Fourthly, I fortify mv proposition by approver) examples: and sett. j. firft, wefind that Jacob, Genef. 35.4. did not only abohlhout of his houfe,the Idolls, but their eare-rngs alfo, becaufe they were fuper- Jlhionis injignia, is Qalvine-3 res ad idololatriam pertinent es , as Junius; monil'nt UoIps confecrata , as Parens czileih them ; ail waiting upon that place. We have alfo the exam pie of E/r/W?, 1 .Kjngs 18.30. he would by no meanes offer upon Baals Altar , but would needs repaire the Lords Altar, though this mould hold the people the longer in exfpe&a- tion. This he did in P. Martyrs Judgment , becaufe he thought it a great indignity , to offer iacrifice to the Lord, upon the Altar of Baal. Whereupon,^) M^r^reprchendeth thofe who inadmini- {y)€0Jm*m firing thetrue Supper ofthe Lotd >uti)>elint Fajtijlktiveftibus®' injlru- *«awto?» mentis. Further we have the example of Jehu, who is commanded for the destroying of Z^Z out of IfraeMl, with his image, hisboufe* and his very veftments. Read, 2. Kings , 10. from the 22. Verfeio the 28. And what example more conhderable , thenthat of Heze- kiab , whonot only abolifcd fuch monuments of Idolatry , as at their fir ft inftitution were but mens inventions , but brake downe alfo the Brazen ferper.t (though originally fetupat Godsownecom- mand , ) when once he faw it abuied to Idolatry? 2 Kjngs 18. 4. This deed ofHe^ekiab , Pope % Steven doth greatly praife, and pro- (%) apud feffeth that it is let before us for our imitation , that when our pre- tvolpbium deceffors have wrought fome things, which might have beene with- com. in out fault in their time, and afterward they are converted into error 2 Reg. .and fuperftition 5 they may be quickly deftroyed by us who come 18.4. after them, a Farettus faith, that Princes & Magistrates mould learne (a )lo.Cah. by this example of He^ekjab , what they fhould doe with thole epifi &re$. /ignificant rites of mens uevifing which have turned to fuperftition. pig 79. .Yea, the£ B. of Wincefler aknowledgeth, thar whatsoever is taken up (b)ferm- on at the injunction of men, when it is drawne to fuperftition , com- Phil. 2. 10 meth under the compaffe ofthe Brazen ferpent , and is tobeabo- lifhed. And he excepteth nothing from this example, but only- things of Gods owne prefcribing, Moreover, we have the exam- ple of good Jofiab y 2 JQngs 23. for he did not only deilroy thehou- fes and the high-places ot'Baal,verf. 19. but his veffels alfo, verf.4.. and his grove, Vtr/ 6. 14. and his Altars,Vw/. 12. yea the horfesand char- rets, which had beenegiven to the Sun, Verf. 11. The example alio of penitent Manajfeb , who not only ovmhrewe the ftrangeGods, but their Altars too, 2 Chron. 33. 15. And ofMofes the man of God, who. was not content to execute vengeance on the Idolatrous Ifrae- lites , except he fhould alfo utterly deftroy the monument ofiheir Idolatry, Exod.^z. 27.10. Laftly ", we have the example of Daniel, who would not defile hirofelf with the portion of the Kings meate, Dan. 1.8, becaufe faith c Junius , it was converted in ufumidolo!a~ (c) com. in tricum) for atthe banquets ofthe Babylonians an4 other Gentiles, erant locum ilium
Ccc z pramejpi
2 0 Of tbzaboHf bingo f part. *;
frame fjafive pramijfa , qua dijs pramhtebantur They ufed toconfe- crare their meate and unnketo Molls \ and toinvocate the names of their Idollsnpon the fame, fo that their meate and dnnkef.il un- der the prohibition of Idoloihyts. This is the reafon , which is (d)G San- glven by the mod part of the Interpreters , for Daniels fearing to &L*com ' Po{Iurch>mie!f, with the kings meate , and wine : and it hath a!(b .^., ' the approbation of d n Papift. Se8 6 ^%« our propofinon is backed w'nh a twofold reafon, for
things which have beene notonoufly abufed to Idolatry , fhould be abolif hed , i . quia monent , 2, quia movent : fir ft then , they are moni- tory,Sc preferve the memory of Idoils^nonumemum in good^hinssjs both montmentum & munimentum, but monumentum in evill things Viiich asldolatry.jis only mommentumwhich monet mentemto remember upon fuch things as ought not to be once named amog Sain&s, but fhould lye buried in the eternall darknefTe of (ilent oblivion. Thofc re- (e) com. in I*ques therefore of Idolati y,quibus quaji monumentvs pojlerhas admoneatur 1 R?cr. (as tWdpniM rightly faith Jare 10 be qinte defaced and deltioyed,be- 2,# 6 catife th^y ferveto honour the memory ofcurfed I dolls. Godjf would
(fj Exod. not have , fo much as the name of an Idoll , to be remembered a- 23.13- mong his people, but commanded to deftroy their names , as well
jJcSV* as themfelves. Whereby we are admonifhed,asgGi/viw<? faith, how Mcornin deteftable Idolatry is before God , cu]m memoriam vult penitus deleri> l(a 27.9, m fbflibac ullum ejus Vefiigi urn appareat, h ye* he require th , eorum om- (h) Calv'. mum memoriam deieri j qua femeldicata funtidolis. If I Mordecay would com, in ' noc gwe his countenance , nor doe any reverence to a living monu- Exod. mentof that nation , whole name God had ordained k to be b!o:ted 2, ^ out from under heaven; much lcfte fhould we give connivence, and (i) Efther. farre lelTe countenance , but lead of all reverence tothedeadand 3.2- dumbe monuments of thofe Idolls which God hath devoted to ut-
(k) Deut. ter deftruc'tion , with all their naughty appurtenances y fo that he will not have their names to be once mentioned or remembered againe. But fecoundly , movent too : fu.h Idolorhyous remainders move us to turne back to Idolatry. For ufu compmum habemus , fuper- fihhnes etiam poflquam explofa ejfent , fi quardicla fuijfmt earum monu- mema , cum memoriam fui ipfarum apud homines , turn id tandem ut revoca- (\)ubi fupra Yintnr obtinuijfc , faith I Wolfhm. Who here upon thinks it behovefull, to deftroy funditits fuch vefiigies of fuperftition , for this caufe, if there were no more ; ut & afpirantibus ad revocandam idohlatriam [pes frangatur,& res novas molientibus anfa paritcr ac materia pracipiatur, God would have Ifraell to overthrow all idolotrous monuments , left thereby they fhould be fnared , Deut./.i^. and 11. 30. Andifihe (mjExod. m law command to cover a pit, left an oxeor an afte fhould fall ai.33. therein: f ball we fufrerapit to be open, wherein the pretiousfoufes
, of men and women, which all the world can not ranlbne, are likely
ai8CUt% to fall? Did God command » to make a battlement for the roofe
of
C h ap . 2 , thing f aiufed to JdoUtrj 2. 1
ofa Uouic , and that for the iafcty of mens bodies ? Andfhall wc» not only not put up a battlement, or object Come barre for the fafety of mens fouies , but al(b leave the way flipty and full of fnares ? Reade wenotthatthe Lord, who knewe what was in man,cVfdW how propenfc he was to Idolatry , did not only remove out of h:s peo- ples way , all fuch ih'ngs as might any way allure or induce them to Idolatry , ( even to the cut.ing of the names of ih: Idcils out of the land, X^eckar. 13.-2. ) but alio hedge up their w.iy with thornes, that they might net find ther paths, nor overtake their Idol-Gods, when they i houldfeekc after them, Hof. 2.6. 7 ? And (hall we by the very contrary courfe , not only not hedge up the way of Ido- latry with thornes , which may (top and ftay fuch as have an incli- nation aiming forward , butaifo lay before them , the inciting and entifingoccaiions , which adde to their owne propenfion , fuch delectation as fpurreth forward with a (wife facility I
Thus having both explained and confirmed the propofition Seft. 7. of our prefent argument, I will make me next for the confutation of the anfweres , which our oppofites devife to elude it. And fir ft, they cell us , that it is needlelTe toabolifh utterly, things and Rites which the Papifts have abufed to-Idolatry and fuperftition > and that it is enough to purge them from theabufe^and toreitorethem apain to their right ufe. Hence b Saravia* will not have pium cruris (b) Nfi-Atrp ufum to be abolifhedc/wz abufa , but holds it enough that the abuie & arnica and fuperftition be ca ken away, c D* Forbeffe hisanfwere is , that not art. 17, only things inftituted by God, are not to betaken away for the ah, fe (c) Inn, of them, but further , neque res media ab bominibus prudenter introduEics, lty, i.eap. propter feqnentem abujum fempertollendce fum. Ahiifi funt Paj>ifi<eTem~ 7> . ^ pin, ty Oratories, Q> Catbedrti, & facris Vajis, W Campanis, <sf BenediBione matrimoniali : nee tamen rest/las, cenfuerunt prudent es reformatores akjkien- ddi. ^Anf.i. d Calvine aniWering that which Cajfander aWcdgcd out ^\ refp.a£ of an Italian writer > abufu. nontollibonumufitm • he admits it only to ^,-wW be true y in things which are inltitute by God himfelf : not fo m^.41. 4. things ordained by men: for the very ufe ofhach things, or rites, as have noneceflary ufe in Gods worfhip , and which men havede- vifed, only at their owne pleafure,, is taken away by Idolatrous abu;e. Parstutiorhtrz, is to put them wholly away , and there is by a great deale more danger in retaining ; then in removing them. 2. The proofs which I have produced for the propofition , about Which now we debate , doe not only inferre that thing? and Rites, which have beene notorioutly abufed to Idolatry , fhould beabo- hdied, in cafe they be not reftoredto a right ufe , but (imply and absolutely that in any wife they are to be abolifhed. e God com- (i*)i£.3o.2*,. manded to fay to the coverings, andthe ornaments of idoils g?f yo«- hena. It isnot enough they be purged from the abufe , but Jimplici- Wrt they themfelves mult pack them , and be gone~ Ho*v didircoi
Ccc 3 with,
«i Of the abolif hingof Part. 3.
with the eare rin^s of the Idolls 5 Elijah with Baals Altar; Jtfmy/uh his veftmentSj lojiab wirh his houfes •, Manaffeb with his A Itars 3 Moft wish the golden Calf* • lofua w*th the Temple* of Canaan ; Hczikjah with the Brdz.cn Scrpenc? did they retain e the things themfelves, arid only purge them from theabufe ? belike if iheleour Oppofites had beene their counfcllers , they had adviied them to be contented wuh fuch a moderation : yet we lee they were better counfelled, when they destroyed utterly the things themfelves: whereby we know . that they were of the fame mind with us , and thought that things abufed to Idolatry , if they have no necefTary ufe, arefarre better away then aplace. Did Dankl refufe Bels meate , becaufeic was not reftored to the right life ? Nay, if that had beene all, it might have beene quickly helped , and the meate fanctified by the word of God and prayer. Finally , were the Churches of Perga- mosandTbeatyra , reprooved , becaule they did not reftore things la- enhced to ld'olls , to their right ufe ? or , were they not rather re- prooved for having any thing at all a doe with the things them- lelves ? 8e8. 8. 3. As for that which Dr. Forkjpobjecteth to us, we anfwere, that
Temples , places of Prayer, Chaues, Vefhells, and Bells, are of a necefTary ufe , by the Light and guidance ofna.ureit feife, and Ma- trimomall benediction is necefTary by Gods institution , Gm. 1.28. So that all thofe exam pies doe except themfelves from the argu- (f)ubifnpm mentinhand. But / the Dr intendeth to bring thofe things with- in the category of things ind.fferent, and tothis pu'pofe healled- geth, that it is indifferent to ufe this, or that place, fora Temple, or a place of prayer : alfo to ufe thefe Vefhells, and Bells , or others; And of Matnmomallbenedictaon to be performed by a Paftor, he faith, there is nothing commanded in fcripture. Anf.Though it be indifferent to choofe this place , or that place , &c. alfo to ufe thefe Vefhells, or other Vefhells, Sec. yet the Dr[Itruft ) will notdenie that Temples, houfes of prayer, Vefhels, and Bells are of a necef- fary ufe , (which exeemcththem from the touch of our prefent ar- gument : ) whereas beiide , that it is not necefTary to kneele in the communion in this place, more then in that place, neither to keep thefeaftsof Chrifts Nativity, Paflion, &c. upon thefe dayes more then upon other dayes , Seethe things themfelves are not necefTary in their kinde , anditis not necefTary to keep any feftuall day , nor to kneel atall in the aft of receiving the communion. There is alfo another reflect which hindereth Temples, Vefhells , &c. from comming within the coropafie of this our argument : but neither doth it agree to the controverted Ceremonies. Temples, houfes of Prayer, Vefhells for the miniftration of the Sacraments, and Bells, are not ufedbyus in Divine worfhip, as things Sacred; or as holier then other houfes, Vefhells, and Bells j But we ufe them only for
natural!
lg]fip
Chap, i . tbfagt abufedto Jdo'a vy. ij
naturall neceflity , partly for ihac common decency, which hath no Jeffe place in the <>ct;ons of Civil! , thenof facred a(Temblies: yea in fome cafes , they may be applied to Civill ufes , as g hath wen faid. Whereas the controvcrtedCeremonies arerelpcct.d & ufed , K^yjTfa as facred Rites, and as holier then any circumftance, which is alike ***' ,Ji" ' common to civill and facred actions , neither are they u fed at ali, IX' out of the cafe of Worfhip. We fee now a double ref ject, wherefore our argument inferreth not the neceiuiy of aboiifhing and de- stroying fuch Temples > Vcfhells and Bells , as have been abufed to Idolatry, viz. becaufe it can neither be {aid, that they are not things necefTary, nor yet that they are things facred.
NeverthelefTe (to add this by the wayjhowbeit forthofe reafon-. Seel. 9. the retaining and ufing of Temples which have been polluted with Idolls , be not in itfeife unlawfull, yet the retaining of every fuch Temple is not ever necefTary, but fometimes it is expedient for fur- ther extirpation of fuperftition.to demohfhand deftroy fome fuch (h) Com.'m Temples, as have been horribly abufed tojdolatry, as /; Calvine a\Co Deur. 12. and 2 Xgncr.vM doe plainly insinuate. Whereby I means to defend 2. ftbough not as in it felfe neceflfary , yet as expedient^ro tunc , that (\)j-a^.,pr£ct which the Reformatcrs of the Church of Scotland did in calling cd. 709. downe fome of thofe Churches , which had been confecrate to Po- pifh Idolls , and of a long rime polluted with Idolatrous worfhip. As on the one part the Reformators (not without great probability) feared, that fo long^asthefe Churches were not made even with the grenne1, the memory of that fuperftition, whereunto they had been employed and accuftomed , fhould have been in them preferved , and with fome fort of refpect , recognized : fo on the other pane they faw it expedient to demolifh them.for Strengthening the hands of fuch as adhered to the Reformation , for putting Pa pi ft s out of all hope of the reentry of Popery, and for hedging uprhe way with thornes , that the I jolauoufly minded , might not find their pathes. And fince the pulling downe of thofe Churches wanted neither this pious intent, nor happy event, I muft fay, that the bitter invectives given forth againftit, by fome who cany a favourable eye to the pompous bravery of the Romifh whoore , and have deformed to much of that which was by them reformed , are to be detefted by all fuch , as wifh theeternall exile of Idolatrous monuments , out of the Lords land: yet let thefe MomttsAxkQ fpirits underftand , that (^Ma<rdeK their cenfonus verdicts doe aHo reflexe upon thote auncient Chri- cent.±.capt ftians k of whom we read, that with iheir owne hands they deftroy- |« c*£ ed theTemplcs of Idolls. And upon Chryfoftomt , who ftirred up jc-g. fomeMonkes, and fent them imo Pbanicia9 togirhcr with workmen, j $-,9. and fuftained them on the expences and charges of certaine eodiy m Qent s ^ women, that they might deftroy the Temples of Idolls, asthe I Mag- cap.ji.GL Mwgians have marked out of'fbeodoret : Likewife upon them of j -* ^
the !
24 Of the ifohfljino of Part. *.'
. the Religion in France , of whom Thuanus recordeth , that tcmpla con-
j J!**!?* fra&kac disjecln ftatuis <sf altaribus , expilaverant. Laftly.upon m for- *' "^' rune Divines, who teach , that not onely Idola, butldolia alio, and'
* P'*19 omnia IdololatrUinflritmenta fhouid be abohlhcd. Moreover 9 What Tc! ' !,ynt' was it elfc , but reafons light which made Cambyfa to feare , that the J aeoUio. 10 foperftition ot Egypt could not be well rooted out , if the Temples 4AP- 65 • wherein it was icated were not taken away ; Co th at off en fits fupersii- tionibns ALgyp;L>rum , Apis Cceterorumque Deorum ades dirui y.ibet : ad^Am- monts quoque nobilijimum templum expugnandum , exercitum mhth , laith (r>)fyit.Hift.n lufijnus. And is not the danger ot retaining Idolatrous Churches, Ub, i . thus pointed at bv P. Martyr. Curavit O'cjehu (faith 0 he) tootle care to
(o) Ccm. in have the Temples of Baall overthroume, lesl they fcould returne any more te 2 Reg. 10. their wonted ufe Wlnrefore it appears ,that many doe not rightly > who having 27. imbraced the Go f pell of the Sonne of God, yet not with fanding kjepflill the hi-
Jlruments of Popery. ^Andthey have farrebetier looked to piety, who have taken care, to have Popifh Images . flatues^ and ornaments , utterly cut off , for as we read in the EccUjiaftical! Hiftories . ConJUmtme the great 3 after he had given bit name to Chrift , by an edicl provid.d and took\e order , that the Temples of the ldolls might be clofed and (hut up. Bu- facaufe they did fii'J rcmaine , I«- lian the Apofiate did eafily open and unloc'^ them, and thereafter did projlttute the ldolls of old fuperftition to be worflrppcd in them: which The odepts the besl and commended Prince, animadverting , commanded to pull themdowne> lesl they fhouid againe any morcberepored. But becaule I luppofe nc lo- ber (pint will denie that fomctimes andm ibme cafes, t may be ex- pedients rafe and pull downe fome Temples polluted with ldolls, whereothcr Temples may be had to ferve lufEciently the aflemblies of L hnftian congregations , (which is all I nlcad for : ) Therefore I leave thispurpole, and rcturneto D Forbejfe. &8. 10. As touching matrimonial! benedi&ion , italfo is exeemed out of
the compaffeofour prelent argument, becaufe through Divine in- ftitution,it hatha neceffaty uie, as we have faid. And though the Dr. to make it appeate,that a Paftors performing of the fame is a thing indifferent, allcdgeth,that in Scripture there is noti ing com- manded thereanent. Yetplaine it is from Scripture it felfe, that 0) Num.6. Matrimoniall benediction ought to be given by a Paftor,for p God hath commanded his Miniiters , to bleife his people, which by juft Analogy belongethtothe Mmifters of the Gofpell; neither is there any ground for making herein a difference , betwixt them and the Miniftersofthe Law, but we muft conceive the commandement, to tie both alike to the bleiling of Gods People. Vnto which Mini- fteriall duty of bleiling , becaule no fuch limits can be fet , as may exclude Matrimoniall bleffing: therefore they are bound to the pcr- (y, Hcbr.$-7. formance of italfo .And if fur :her weconfider ^ that the duty of bleiTing was performed by the Minifter of the Lord, even before the law ofMofesj we are yet more confirmed 3 to thinke that the
bleiTing
Chap. I* tUngsabttfcdtoJdoUtYy* If
bleffing of the people, was not commanded in theLawas a thing peculiar and proper to the Leviticall Priefthood , but as a Mo- rail & perpctuall duty , belonging to the Lords Minifters for ever. Wherefore notwithstanding of any abufe of Matrimoniall benedi- ction among Papifts, yet forafmuch as it hath a neceffary ufe in the Church, and may not (as the controverted Ceremonies may) be wel fpared; It is manifeft,that itcommeth not under the refpecl and account of thofe things, whereof our Argument fpeaketh.
Laftly, whereas the Dr. would beare his Reader in hand, that in the &?#. n. Iudgment of wife Reformators, even fuch things as have been brought in ufe by men only, without Gods inftitution, arc not to be ever taken away , for the abufe which followech upon them: let v. Reformatory fpeafce for themfelves. Nos quoqut prifcos rim , quibus (r) Calv. hdijferenter uti licchquia Verbo Dei confentanei funt non reijeimm, modo ne Ref ad /er- fuperfitio WpraVus abufus eos abolere cogat . This was the judgment of fyel.p.^i 3* the wifeft Reform ators; that Rites which were both auncient, and lawfull, & agreeable to Gods Word , were notwithstanding of ne- ccility to be abolifhed , becaufe of their fuperftkion and wicked abufe.
Secondly, ourOppofites anfwer us, that befide the purging of things and Rites abufed by Idolaters , from their Idolatrous pollu- tion, and the reftoring ofthem to a right uie,preaching and teaching againft the fuperftition, andabufe which hath followed upon them, is another means to avoid that harme, which we feare to enfuc upon the retaining ofthem. %Anf. 1. This is upon as good ground pretended for the keeping of images in Churches. *At inquiunt jla- tim docemm bat imagines non effe adorandas. QuafiVero faith jT^anchius, ([) de tma- non idem dim fecerit diligentln Dew. per Mo fen & Prophetas, quam nosfa- ^m qqi *q2^ cia?nus. Curighur etiam Volebat tolli imagines omnes ? quia nonfatn esiVer- ho doc ere non ejfe faciendum malum : fedtollenda etiam funt maioYum ojfen* dicula ,irritamenta, caufa, occafiones. It is not enough with the Scribes and Phanfes to teach out oiMofes Chaire , what the people fhould doe, but all occafions, yea appearances ofevill, are to be taken out of their fight. Efficacm enim & phts movent, quce inoculos quamquce in aures incidunt. Potuerat ty Hezekjai popidum monere , ne Serpcntem adora~ rcnt , fed maluit conj ringer -e <& penitus £ confpeElu auferre, & rettius fecit (t)Tfo.Nao* fauh t one well to this purpofe. 2. Experience hath taught, to how gcorgm in little pnrpofe fuch admonitions doe ferve. u Calvine writing to the 1 I0.5.2U Lord Protector of England, of fome Popifh Ceremonies which did [u) loh. ftillremainein that Church, after the Reformation of the fame, de- Calv. Episl+ fireth, that they may be abo'imed , becaufe of their former abufe , &re(p. pags in time of Popery. Quid enim (faith h.) illce Ceremoni.t aiiud fuerunt , 86. quamtotidem lenocinia qu^e miferas animas ad malum perducerent, (?c. But becaufe he faw, th.it iome might anfwer, that which our Formaliits anfwer now to us , and fay, it were enough to warne and teach men
Ddd at
%6 Of the abolijh'wg of Part. 3 ♦
that they abufe not thefe Ceremonies, and thatthe abolifhing of the Ceremonies themfelves were not necefTary. Therefore imme- diately he fubjoyneth thefe words, lam fide. camione agitur , monibun- tur homines fcilicet 5 ne ad W<t6 nunc impingant, &c. Qui* tamm non Vidtt ob- durari ipfos nibilomimu%nihilut infalici ilia camione obtincri poffit . W here - upon he concludes , that if luch Ceremonies were iuffered to re- maine, tl is fhould be a meane tonourifh a greater hardnefTe and obfirmation in evill , and a vaile drawne,(o that the fincere do&rinc (x)lb'd which ispropoundeo\fhouldnotbe admitted as it ought to be. #In- Col H6. anot^cr^P^^e to Cranmr Archbiihop of Canterbury, he comp\&incth9 that externali fu perditions were focorreded in the Church ofEw- gland,ut refidui maneant mnumeri furculi, quiafjidue potlulent. And what good then was done by their admonitions, whereby they did in fome fort fnedde the reviving twigs of old fuperftition, fince for- afmuch as they were not wholly eradicat , they did flillfhoot forth againe. If a man fhould digge a pitt by the way fide, for fome com- modity of his owne, and then admonifh the travellers to take heed to themfelves , if they goe that way in the darkneffe of the night, who would hold him excufable ? How then (hall they be excufed , who digge a mod dangerous pit,whichis like to mine many foules, and yet will have us to thinke that they are blamcleiTe, for that they warne men to beware of it ? 6&.I t. Thirdly , we are told , that if thefe anfwers which our Oppofites
give, get no place, then fhall we ufe nothing at all which hath been abufed by Idolaters, and by confequence, neither Baptifme nor the (v ) tomm *-orc*s Supper. But let y %anchw anfwer for us, that thefe things are in Col i ty t^em^e^ves necefTary , to that it is enough they be purged from 17 * ' the abufe. And z elfewhere herefolveth, that things which are by [t)de ima- themfelves both good and necefTary , may not for any abufe bee V c i put away. Si Vero res fint adiaphora fua natura & per legem Dei ^ eoque ' * tales qua citra jaBuram falutis omit tipojfunt , etiamji ad bonos ufus inttio * * fuerunt infiitutae : Jitamen pofiea Vtdeamw illai in abufus pernitiofos ej]e con* Verfas: pietas in Dewn, & charita* ergaproximum, pofiulant ut toUantur, <^c9 He addes for proofe of that wi ich he iaith, the example of He^eklab in breaking downe that Brazen Serpent, which example doth in- deed moll: pregnantly enforce the abolifhing of all things or rites, notourioufly abufed to Idolatry , when they are not of any necef- lary ufe, but it warrantethnotthe abolifhing of any thing which hath a necefTary ufe , becaufe the Brazen Serpent is not contained fi) com. in™ the number of thofc things ,quibuscarere non poJJumw> faith a WoU i Reg, iZ.phw, anfwering to the fame obje&ion , which prefently I have in . < hand. Now that the Ceremonies have not in themfelves, nor by the Law of God any necefTary ufe, and that without hazarde of SaU vation, they may be omitted, is aknowledged by Formalifts them- felves, wherefore I need not (lay to prove ic.
Befldc
Chap* 2. things abttfed to Idolatry • kf
Befidc thefe anfweres which are common in our adversaries Se3. 14. mouthes, lb me of them have other particular fubterfugies , which now I am to fearch. Wemuftconfider faith r B. Lindfcy , the Ceremony (b) Proc. in it felf (dedicated to, and polluted with Idolatry}, (whether it be of hu- pertk aJfemb mane, or Divine infiitution ; If it be of humane infiitution , it may be removed, partt 2, Cc. but if the Ceremony be of Divine infiitution , fuch as kneeling is ; for the ^ j z 0o fame ucommendedby Cod unto us in his word j then we ought to confider whe~ therthe abufe of that Ceremony , hath proceeded from the nature of the aHion wherein it wot ufed : for if it be fo , it ought to be abolifl)ed , (?c but if the abufe proceed not from the nature of the aHion , but from the opinion of the agent i then the opinionbeinpremoVedithe religious Ceremony may be ufed with- out any prophanation of Idolatry. For example , the abufe of Reeling in ele* vation , <&c. proceeded not only from the opinion of the agent , but from the nature of the action, which is idolatrous and fuperfiitious , &c. and therefore both the aHion , and gefture ought to be abolifiwd. But the Sacrament of the Supper* being an aHion infiituted by God , and kneeling beting of the owne nature an holy and religious Ceremony , it can never receive contagion of ido- latry from ity but only from the opinion of the agent : then remove the opinion^ both the aHion it fdfe may be rightly ufed, and kneelingtherein , &c. *Anfi u iinc&he graunteth tnat a Ceremony dedicated to , and polluted With Idolatry -, may ( heanfwercth not the argument which there he propounded!, except he fay mufi ) beabolifhed, if it be of hu- mane Inftitution: he mull grauntrrom this ground , if there were nomore, that the CrolTe, Surplice , kneeling at the communion, &c. having been io notoriously abufed to Idolatry , muft be abo- lifhed , becaule they have no inftitution except from men only. Bur, 2. Why faith he, that kneeling is a Ceremony of Divine infti- tution ? Which he ptonouoceth not of kneeling ,as it isa&uatedby fomeindividuallcale , or clothed with certaine particular circum- stances , (for he maketh this kneeling whereof he fpeaketh , to be found in two moft different actions , the one Idolatrous , rhe other holy,) but ofkneelinginthe generall ,perfe, and pracife ab omnibus circumjlantijs. Let him now tell, where kneeling thus confidered is commended unto us in Gods word. He would poflibly alledge that place. PpJ.95,6. Ocome, let us worjliip andbowe downe : let us kneel before the Lord our maker . Which is cited in the Canon of Perth about kneeling. But I anlwer; whether one expound that place with fCaU (c)com.fo V'm-i in tnis lence ut fcilicet antearcam foederis populus feproJlernat,quia ilium locum fermo de legali cultu habetur : Whereupon itlhould follow , that it commendeih kneeling, only to the Iewes in that particular cafe: or whether it betaken more generally, to commend kneeling, (though not as necefla. y , yet as laudable and befeeming , ) in the (olemne a£ts of Gods im media vworfnip, fuch as that, praiie and thankfgi- ving, whereofthc beginning of the Pfalme fpeaketh , whether 1 lay it be taken m this, or that lence, yet itcommendethnoc kneeling,
D dd z exeepc
18 Of thiabolifhing of Part.5:
cxecpt in a cerraire kinde of worfhip only. And as for kneeling in the gene rail nature ofic, it is not of Divine initiuuion , but m it iclf indifferent, even as fitting, ftanding . &c. all which geftures are then only made good, or evill, when fa *Su txcrcito uhey are actuated and individualized by particular circumitances. 3. If lobe, the Cere- mony be abufed to Idolatry, it 1" kills not how , for as I have Shew- ed before, rhc reafonsajfc] proofs which i have produced for the proportion of our prefect Argument, hold good againft the retai- ning of any :h.:ng which hath beene knowneto be~abufed to Ido- latry , and only luch things ashave a necelTary ufe are to be excep- ted* 4. The nature of an action , wherein a Ceremony is ufed , can not be the caufe of tl~e abufe of tint Ceremony , neither can the abufeof a Ceremony proceed from the nature of the a&ion where- dA\ A * ' m 'r is u*~ec*' as one e^e<^ ^rom tne cau(c » for d**tril poteft efa hom'mi 1 } fv"*' caufa fufficiens peccati , except only pt*pm Voluntas. 5 . The abule of *'2 |* kneeimg in the Idolatrous adion of elevation, proceedeth not from 43«**.Ii thcnatureoftheadion, but from the opinion of the agent , or ra- ther from his will, (for frbtdpbtm aEitonum humamrum , is not opi- nion, but will chofing thatwhichopinionconceicethtobechofen, or voluntas prazeunte luce bitdlethu.) H is the will of the agent only, which boih makech the action of elevation to be Idolatrous , and likewife kneeling in this aciion to receive the contagion of Idolatry. For the elevation of the bread materialiter, is not Idolatrous, (m ore then the lifting up of the bread among us by Elders or Deacons, when in taking it off the table? or letting it on, they lift it above the heads of the communicants ; ) but formaliteronly , as it is elevated with a will and intention to place it in ftate of worfhip. Sa likewife kneeling to the bread, materialher, is not Idolatry , (elfe a man were a Idolater, who fhould be againft his will thruftdowne, and hoi- den by violence kneeling on his knees , when the bread is eleva- ted , ) but formalher, as it proceedeth from avvilland intentionin men, to give to the bread elevated, a (tare in that worfhip, and our of that refpect to kneel before it. 6. What can he gaine by this device, that the abufe of kneeling in the Lords Supper proceeded not from the nature of the a&ion, but from the will of the agent? Can he hereupon inferre, that kneeling in that action is to be retai- ned , notwithstanding of anycontagion of Idolatry , which it hath receaved ? Nay then , let him fay , that Ht^tkjabdid not rightly , in breaking downe the Brazen Serpent , which was fet up at Gods command, and the abufe whereof proceeded not from the thingic felf , which had a mod law full , profitable, and holy ufe , but only from the perverfe opinion and will of them who abufed it to Ido- latry. £<£.IJ. But the comparing of kneeling to the Brazen Serpent, is very
unfavory to the B, And wherefore? ThtBraQnScrpmt faith he, in
tht
Chapt. '1 . things afafed to Idolatry. i $
the time it wai abotifhed , had no ufe : that ccafed with the V ertuc of the eyre, that the Ifradites received by looking upon it - the ati of kncdw.g continueth Allwife in a neceffary ufe , for the better expreffing of our thankfulmffao God. Anf.i. Both kneeling, ana all the rcit or the Pop fla .Ceremonies, may well be compared to the Brazen Serpent. And Divines doe commonly alledge this example, as mod pregnant , to piove that things or rites polluted wit 1 1 dolls, and abufed to Idolatry, may not be retained , if they have no neceflary ufe , and I have cited before the B. ofWincbefter, aknowlcdging that this argument holdeth good againft all things whicharetaken up, not at Gods prescription , but at mens injunction, e I. Rabwldes argumenteth , from Hczckja b bis /^ - breaking downeof t: e Brazen Serpent , to the plucking downe of [ ) ^J*** the figne of the Croffe. 2. Why faith he , that the Brafen Serpent in v™tn ' the time it was aboiifhed had no ule ? tv:e ufe of it ceafed not with .. ., '**' ' t ecure, but it was .(till kept for a moft pious and profitable ufe, J \\ even to bea monument of that mercy , which the Ifraelites received ^' * in the wilderneffe , and it ferved for the better expreffing of their thankefulneiTe to God , which the B. here callech a neceffary ufe. 3. Wnen he faith that kneeling continueth alwayes in a neceffary ufe, we muft under ftand him to fpeake of kneeling in the ad of re- ceiving the Communion, elfe rerunnes at randone , for it is not kneeling in the general!, but kneeling in this particular cafe which is compared to the Brazen Serpen:. Now to fay, that this gefture In this-aQion isneeeiTary.for our better expreffing ofour than kefulr neffetoGod, importeth that the Church of Scotland > and many fa- mous Churches in Europe , for fo many y cares , have omitted that which was neceffaiy , for the better expreffing of their thankful- neffe to God, and that they have not vvellenough cxpreffed it. And moreover, if kneeling be neceffary in the Lords Supper, for our better expreffing ofour thankfulneffeto God , then is it alfo necef- fary at our owne common tables. Though we be bound to be more thank full at the Lords Table , and mat becaule we receive a benefit of infinit more worth. Yet we are bound to be tarn gratis as Yveilthankfull , at our owne tables, albeit not tanta gratitudine* If then the fame kind of tlankfulneffe be required of us at our owne Tables, ( for hit entio & rcmiffio graduum fecundum ?nagis & 'minus ', nonva* riant fpeciem raf) tr at which is neceffary for expreliing ofour thank- fulneife, at t e Lords Table , mufrbe neceffary alfo for the expref- fing of it , at our owne. When I fee the B. fitting at his Table , I (ball tell him , that he ornitreth that gefture which is neceffary , for the expreffing of his thankfulneffeto God. 4. Did not the Apoftles receiving this Sacrament from Chrift himfelf, vvellenough expreffe their thankfulneffeto God? yet they kneeled nor,, but fate, as is evi- dent, and fhall be afterwards procven againft them who contra- dict every thing which croffeth them. 5, "God vvilTnever take a
Ddd 3 Ceremony*
30 Of the abol'tf bingo f Fart. 3.
Ceremony of mens deviling, for a better exprefling ofour thankful- neffe, then a gefture which is commended to us by the example of hisovvneSonne and hisApoftles, together with the Celebration of this Sacrament in all points according to his inflitution. 6. How fhall we know where we have the B and his fellovves ? it feemes they know not where they havethemfelvs : forfomecimes rhey tell us, that iris indifferent to take the Communion fitting, or (landing, or palling, or kneeling,yet here the B.rells,that kneeling is necelTary. 7. I fee the B. perceiveth, that noanfwerecan take knte'ing atthc Communion, out of the compafTeof the Brazen Serpent, except to fay, ithath a necefTary ufe , this is the dead life , which yet helpeth not, as I have fhewed. All things then which are not necefTary, (whereof kneeling is one , J being notonoufly abufed to Idolatry, fall under the Brazen Serpent. Seel 16. Paybodya\[o will here talke with us , therefore we will talke with (i)a'pol him too. He / faith, that God did not abfolutely condemne things part.z' abufed to Idolatry, and tells us of three conditions on which it cap 'a*' feci was ^aw^u^ to fpare Idolatrous appurtenances: 1. If there were a It 16 17. necdfullufeof them in Gods worfhip: 2. In cafe they were foalte- 1 red and difpofed , as that they tended not to the honour of the Idoll, andhis damnable worfhip. 3. Ifihey were without certaine danger, ofinfnaring people into Idolatry. Anf. 1 . Either he requires all thefe conditiones,in every Idolothyte and Idolatrous appurtenance which may be retained , or elfe he thinkes, that any one of them fufficeth : If he require all thefe, the laft two are fuperfluous ; for that which hath a needfull ufe in Gods worfhip, can neither tend to thehonour ofthetdoll, nor yet can have in it any danger of infnaring people into Idolatry: If he thinke any one of thofe conditions enough, then let us goe through them. Trie hrft I admit, but it will not helpe hiscaufe, for while the world ftandeth , rhey fhall never prove that kneeling in the acl: of receiving the Communion , 6c the other con- troverted Ceremonies , have either a needfull , or a profitable, or a lawfull ufe in Gods worfhip. As for his fecound condition , it is all (o) fupra onewlth that whichg I have already confuted: namely, that things ftk 9. abufed to Idolatry may be kept , if they be purged from their abufe, and reftored to the right ufe. But he alledgcth for it a paffage of Parker, of the Cvotfe, cap. 1. feB. 7. fag. jo. Where he fheweth out of Augujiine , that an IHoiothyte may not bekepr for privat ufe, ex- cept 1. Omm honor Idoli 3 cum afcrtljima deftruBione fuhvenatur. 2 That not only his honour be defpoy led, but a!fo all fhew [hereof How doth this place (now would I know,) make any thing for Pay. hody? Doe they keere kneelingfor privat ufe? Doe rheydeiti y mod openly all honour ofthe ldoll , to which kneeing wasdedica- ted? Hath their kneeling not fo much as any fhew of the breaden- Godshonour? who will lay fo ? andifany will fay it, who will be- lieve
Chap. 2. Of the Ceremonies. 31
Jieveit?who knoweth not that kneeling is kept fora publikc, and not for a private uie,and that the breaden Idoll receivcth very great (hew of honour from it? He was fcarce ofwarrants,when he rud no better, then Parker could arToorde him. His third condition refts, and touching it I af ke, what if thofe Idolatrous appurtenan- ces , be not without apparent danger of infnarmg people into Ido- latry ? are we not commanded to abftaine from all appearance of evill ? Willhecorred the Apoftle ,and teach us , that we need not care for apparent , but for certain dangers ? What -more apparent danger of infnaring people into Idolatry , then unneceiTaneCere- monies,whichhave been dedicated to, and polluted with Idolls,and whichbeing retainedrdoe both admonifh us to. remember upon old ,, * . Idolatry , and move us to recurneto the fame, as I have b before rJ !? made evident ? jeiU &*
Now as for the aflumption of ourprefent Argument, it can not Se8. 17. be but evident, to any who will not harden their mindes againft the light of the truth, that the Ceremonies in queftion, have been moft notorioufly abufed to Idolatry and fuperftition , and wit'nali, that they have nonecelTary ufe to make us retaine them. 1 fay, they have been notorioufly abufed to Idolatry. i.Becaufe they have been dedicated and confecratedto the fervice of Idolls. 2. Eecaufe they have been deeply polluted, and commonly employed in Ido- ,., .„ . latrous worfhip, For both thefe reafons doth t Zgnchws condemne1 f!\ ^L'Jv the Surplice , andfuch like Popifh Ceremonies , left in Englandy be- vairh caufe the Whoore of Row* hath abufed, and doth yet abufe them , ^^ ' *d allkiendos homines ad [cor tandum. Sunt mm pomp<ezft<eomnes > & Cere* l *$**' 1 1 Za momoe Papiftic<e, nihil aliud quam fuel Meretrieijyadhoc excogitati9 ut bo~ mines ad Jpmtualem fcortationem aUic'untur. O golden fentence, and worthy to be engraven with a pen ofYron,and the point of a Dia- mond ! For moll: needfull it is to confider, that thofe Ceremonies, are the very meretricious bravery, and inveagling trinkets,where- with the Romifti Whoore doth faird and paint her felf, whiles (he propineth to the world the cup of her fornications. This makes (fc) j^ \ %anchius, tocall thofe Ceremonies ,the Reliques & Symboles of a™, m^ Popifh Idolatrv and Superftition. When QueeneMzry fee up Po- pery inEngland, and reftored all of it, which King Henry had over- thrown®, iheconfidered, that Popery could not ftand well favou- ,,* c,., redly3 without the Ceremonies. Whereupon / (lie ordained, ut dies *■' ; f, omnes fefticelehrentUr>fuperiorx atatn Ceremoni^re^ituantur.pueriaduU ' !*
tiores ante baptifati, abEpifcopis confirmentur. So that not in remote re- 5'P«4 • gions.but in his Majeftiesdominions.not in a time paft memory, but about fourfcore yeares agoe, not by peoples praclife onely , but by the lawes and edicts of the Supreme Magiftrate 3 the Ceremonies havebeene abufed, to the reinducing and upholding of Popery and Idolatry. Both farre and neere then , both long finceand lately , k
is
3 1 Of the Idolatrous abafe Parr. 3 J
is more then notorious , how groffely and grievoufly the Ceremo- nies lave been polluted with Idolatry and Supervision. Seft. 18. * can notchoofe but marvell much,how m Paybody was not afha-
(m) Apol. mC(^ co deny, that kneeling bath been abufed by the Papifts. Blufti part, x.cap. ° PaPe* ♦ which art blotted with (ucha notable lie 1 What will not . ' defperate impudency date toaverre? But n B. Lindfey feemeth al-
(nj ?roc in *° to ^old » l^ac kneeling hath been abufed by the Papifts, oncIy Ttnh. af-. *n r^e elevation and circumgeftation of the Hofte , but not in the femb.part.t. participation; and thatHoworwx, did not command kneel, ng in the fc.n8.iia p3'''ricip3tion ; but oneiy in the elevation and circum gelation., (o ' Ibid, ^n(' l' Sa*iem rnendacemoportet ejfe memorem. Saitlrnot ther 0 B. hi ni- ps* 2.2," fctfc clfewhere of the Papifts , In the Sacrament they kneel to the figne, whereby he would prove a difconformity between their kneeling and ours : for we kneel , faith he , by the Sacrament to the thing figni* fid. Now if the Papifts in the Sacrament kneel to the (ignc, cnen ruey have Idolatrouily abufed kneeling , even in the participation, for the B„ dare not fay .that in the elevation, or circumgeftation, there is either Sacrament or (Ignc. z Why doe our Divines con- trovert with the Papifts, de adoratione Euchariflia , if Papifts adore it not in the participation ? for the Hoite carried about in, a box , is not the Sacrament of the Euchanft. 3. In the participation, Papifts think that the Bread is already tranfubftantiatc into the body of Chrift, by v.Mtue of the words of confecration. Now if in the participation they kneel to that which thev falfely conceit to be the body of Chnft , (but is indeed corruptible bread) with an inten- (p) Ration, tion to give uLatria or Divine worfhip: then in the participation S&.5. tit. de neyabufe it to Idolatry. B it t'latis true, ergo, 4. p Durandihewcih, prima &hb. that though in the holy-dayes of Eafter and Pentecoft , and the fe- 6. r.t. dt ftivities of the biefled Virgin , and in the Lords d yes , they kneel ittfanft* not in the Church , but oncly ftand (becaufe of the joy ofrhe fe- pafchs. ftivity>)'and at the moftdoe but bow or incline their heads at
prayer ; yet mprefentia corporis pr fangutnis Chrifii , in pretence of the bread and wine , vvh'ch trn-y thinketo be the body and biood of Chrift , they ceafe not to kneel. And row will the R. make their participatioi free cf this Idolatrous kneeling? The q Rhemiftt fficvv vT'Th* us « thac when they are eating and drinking the boay and blood of ©*/■# y"/ °urLord, thev adore the Sacramenr,and humblin? them ft Ives they °r 3- & fay to ittDonJine non] fum dignw , Dmpropitm ejro mihi peccator'i. 5. As 0,1 f 7 «' ^or l^r' which Honorlus the ; decreed, r Dr White cz\\eih ir,the ado- 1 i . Jccl . i « . rat;on 0f the Sacrament. Which if it be fo, then we muft fay, that 1 -u Uu ns decreed adoration in the participation itfelf; becaufe extraufum /v ' Sacramenti, the bread can not becalled a Sacrament. Honorins com - anfiverto nianded, that the Prieftfhou'd frequently teach his people, to bow fi"' 5 lm downe devoutly , when the hofte is elevated in the celebration of the Made , and that they fhould doe the fame , when it is caried to
the
Chap# z; Of the Ceremonies. 3 3
the flcke. All this was ordained , in reference to the participation. Adufum Via inflituta funt , faith / G&ww/W/tf, (peaking of this decree, / (\exam auando. fcilicet panti confecratur, (fquando adinfirmos defer tur , ut exhi- CQm trit ^ teaturty fumatur. So that that which was fpecialiy refpe&ed 'int^ Euchnr.ean decree, was adoring in the participation. 6# ' ' g6*
Laftly, here we have to doe with Dr. Burgeffe, who will have us to thinke , t that adoration in receiving the Sacrament , hath not /t\ 0r t^e been Idolatroufly intended to the Sacrament in the Church of Rome, iawrHQt 0f neither by decree nor cuftorne : not by decree ; bccaufe albeit Hono- j,neeitn<T cap^ rius appointed adoration to be ufedinthe elevation and circumge- 2 1 . * .ti 5 ftarion , yet not in the acl: of receiving. And albeit the Romane Rjtuall doe appoint , that Cleargie men comming to receive the Sa- crament , doe it kneeling, yet u this was done in veneration of (\x)lbid.p> the Altar, or of that which ftandeth thereupon, and not for adora- 69. tion oftheHofte put into their mouths. Not bycuftome: for he will not have it faid , that kneeling in the time of receiving , was ever in the Church of Rome ■> any rite of or for adoration of the Sa- crament, becaufe albeit the people kneel in the act of receiving , yetl^wi*, faith he, that they ever intended adoration of the /pedes, at that moment of time when they tookf it in their mouths, hut then turned them* felves to Cod. &c. Anf. 1. As for the decree ofHonorius, I have all- ready anfwered with Chemnitius, that it had reference fpecialiy to the receiving. 2. When Cleargie men are appointed in the Ro- mane Ritual! , to receive the Sacrament at the Altar kneeling , this was not for veneration of the Altar , to which they did reverence at all times when they approched to it , but this was required particu- larly in their receiving of the Sacrament, for adoration ofit.Nei- ther is there mention made of the Altar, as conferring any thing to their kneeling in receiving the Sacrament, for the Sacrament was not ufed the more reverently, becaufe it flood upon the Altar , but by the contrary , for the Sacraments fake reverence was done to the Altar, which was efteemed the Seat of the body of Chriit. Ic appeareth therefore, that the Altar is mentioned , not as concerning the kneeling of the Cleargie men in their communicating, but (im- ply as concerning their communicating, becaufe none butthey were wont to communicate at the Altar, accordingto that received X Canon. SoM autemMiniftrps Altaris liceat ingredi ad Altare-><3 ibidem (x) ConeiU communicare. The one of the Doctors owneconjedures , is, that they lAociiun. kneeled for reverenceof that which flood upon the Altar. ButI can. 19. Set would know what that was, which Handing upon the Altar, made alfo Cone. them to kneele in the participation ; if it was not the Hofte it felf ? Toitt, 4. Now whereas he denies, as touching cuftome, th*£-people didever can. 17. intend the adoration of the fpecies : I anfwer. 1. How knowes he what people in the Romane Church did intend in their mindes? 2. What warrant hath he for this, that theydidnotinthepartici-
E e e pation
j 4 Of the Idolatrotu ahfe Part. 5 ,
pation adore thcHofte, which was then put into their mouths? 3. Though this which he faith, were true, he gaineth nothing by it; for put the cafe they did not intend the adoration of the fpecies,dare he fay , that they intended not the adoration of that which was un- der the fpecies? I irow not. Now that which was under the fpecies , though in their conceit it was Chrifts body, yet it was indeed Bread. So that in the very participation, they were worfhipping the Bread. But, 4. What needeth any more ? he maketh himfelf a lyar , and (v) ubi fu- *aick 1 P*amly > that afrer tranfubftantiation was embraced , and p'rapae. 7i when all the fubftanceof the vifibleCrearure was held to be gone, ^ ' they did intend the adoration of the vifible things , as if there had
been nownofubftance of any creature left therein. Whereby hede- ftroyeth all which he hath faid, of their not intending the adoration ofthe fpecies. Stft, 20. Laft of all , for the other part of my afTurnption, that the Cere-
monies have no necefTary ufe in Gods Worfhip , I need no other proof, then the common by-word of Formalins, which faith, they (z) ubi fu- are things indifferent. Yet the % B. ofEdimbrugh, & a Paybody,h2ive prapag.i 18 turned their tongues bravely , and chofed rather to fay any thing (a) ubi fit- againft us , then nothing. They fpare not to anfwer , that kneeling t,ra. hatha ne:eiTary ufe. They are molt certainly fpeaking of kneeling
in the ad of receiving the Communion ;for they, and their Oppofites in thofe places, are difputing of no other kneeling, but this onely. Now we may eafily perceive, they are in a evill taking,when they; are driven to fuch an unadvifedand defperate anfwer. For. i. If kneeling in the ad of receiving the Lords Supper be necefTary, why have themfeives two , written fo much for the indifferency of it ? O defukorious levity, that knows not where to hold it felf ! 2. If it be necefTary , what makes it to be fo ? what law? what example ? what reafon ? 3 . If it be necefTary, not onely many reformed Chur- ches, and many auncient too; but Chrift himfelf and his Apoftles , have in this Sacrament omitted fomething'that was necefTary. 4. If it beneceflary, why doe many of their owne Difciples take the Communion, fitting in places where fitting is ufed? what need I to fay more ? In the firft part of this difpute , I have proven that the Ceremonies are not neeefTary.in refped ofthe Churches ordinance, howbeit if it were anfwered in this place , that they are in this re- fped necefTary , it helpeth not , fince the Argument proceedeth a- gainft all things notorioufly abufed to Idolatry, which neither God nor nature hath made necefTary. Andfor any neceffity of the Ce- remonies in themfeives , either our Oppofites muft repudiat , what hath unadviiedly fallen from their penneshereanent, or elfeforfake their beaten ground of indifferency , and fay plainly, that the Ce- remonies are urged by them , to b j obferved with an opinion of ne- ceflity , as worfhip of God, and as things in thcmfelvs necefTary.
Looke
Chap. $ • Of the CeyemnUf. $ $
Looke to yourfelvs, 6 Formalifts, for you fland here upon fuch flippcry places, that you can not hold both your feet.
CHAP. III.
That the Ceremonies au unlawfully hecaufe they forte m with Idolaters, being the badges of pre fent Idolatry among tk^, Fapifls.
T followeth according to the order, which I have propo- ^ i | fed , ro (hew next, that the Ceremonies are Idolatrous ,£dr- fjj ticipativs. By communicating with Idolaters in their Rites and Ceremonies, we our fclves become guilty of Idolatry. Even as a Abazwis an Idolater , eoipfo , that he tooke the Paterne of an [^ \^np Altar from Idolaters. Forafmuch then, as kneeling before the con- fecrated Bread, the Signe of the CrofTe, Surplice , Feftivall dayes, Bifhopping , bowing totthe Altar , adminifiration of the Sacraments in privat places, cVc. Are the wares oiRgme, the baggage of Baby - fow,thetrinketsof the Whoore, the badges of Popery, the enfignes of Chnfts enemies , and the very Trophees of Amichrift : we can not conforme,communicat, and fymbolize with the Idolatrous Pa- pi (Is , in the ufc of the fame, without making our felves Idolaters by participation. Shall the Chaft Spoufe of Chrifttake upon her the ornaments of the Whoore ? Shall the Ifraell of God fymbolize with her, who is fpiritually called Sodome and "Egypt ? Shall the Lords redeemed people weare the enfignes of their captivity? Shall the Sain&s be feen with the marke of the beaft ? Shall the Chriftian Church be like the Antichriftian, the Holy like the Prophane, Reli- gion like Superftition , the Temple of God like the Synagogue of Sathan ? OurOppofites are fo farre from beingmoved with thefe things, that both in Pulpiis ,and privat places , they u(e to plead for the Ceremonies by this very Argument , that we mould not runne fo farre away from Papifts,but come as near them ,as we can. Bun for proof of that which we fay, nam ely , that it is not lawfuil to fym- bolize with Idolaters , (and by confequence with Papif s) or to bee like them in their Rites or Ceremonies , we have more to alledge , then they can anfwer.
For, i. We have Scripture for us. Lev. rg. 3. ^After the doings of^tZ. the land of Egypt , wherein ye dwelt . fhall ye not doe : and after the doings of the land of Canaan . whether I bring jou , j 'hall ye riot doe , neither f hall ye walke in their ordinances. Deut.i z.30. Tal^e heed to thy felf,that thou bee not fnared by following them , ($c Saying , how did thefe Nations ferVe their Cods : eyen fo will I doe HJywife, ihoH fhalt not doe fo unto the Lord thy
E e e 2 Cod ,
5 6 Of fymholizjngmth Idolatert Part. $•
God , Zxod 1 3 24' T/W /Mf »of doe after their worses. Yea, they were ftraiily forbidden , to round che comers of their Heads, or to make
^ any cuttings inthe fiefh f or the dead, or to print any marke upon
them , or to make baldenefle upon their Heads , or between their eyes, for afmuch as God had chofen them to bz a holy and a pecu- liar people, and it behoved them not to be framed nor faflr'oned like the Nations , Leyit, 19.27. 28-. and 21.5. and Dm. 14. 1. And : elfe was meant by thefelawes .which forbade them to fuffer their cartel to gender with a diverfe kinde , to fow their field with diverfe feed, to weare a garment of diverfe forts, as of Woollen and LtDcen , to plovv with an oxe and an affe togither , Ltiit. 19. 19. Datt. 22.9.10.11? This was to hold that people in fimplicity and purity, nehtneinde accerfat ritus alienos faith Calvine upon the fe places. Befides, find we not , that they were fharply reprooved, when thev made themfelves like other Nations? 2 Chron. 13.9. Ye have made ycu Priefts after the manner of the Nations of other lands, 2 Kings. 17.15. Thc\ followed vanity and became vab\e> and went after the Heathen, that were round about them , concerning whom the Lord had charged them, that they fhould not doe like them.Thc Gofpell commendeththe fame to us which ti e Law did to them.2C0r6.14. 15. 1 6,17. Be not ye unequally yo\edwhh> unbeleeVers: for , what fellowfI:ip hath right eoufneffe with unright eoufneffe > and what communion hath light with darkneffef and what concord hath Chrijl tvith Belial? and what agreement hath the Temple of God with Idolls ? &c. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye fparate, faith the Lord , and touch not the uncleane thing, B^VeJ. 1 4.9. If any man worfhip the beasl y and his image , and receive his marke in his forehead , or in his hand , the fame fhall drinks °f the wine of the wrath of God. And the Apoftle Iude v. 12. will have us to hate the very garment'-, fported with theflefh , im- porting, that as under the Law men were made uncleane, not onely by leprofie , but by the garments , vefhels , and houfes of leprous men: Co doe we contract the contagion of Idolatry , by communi- cating with the unclean things of Idolaters. StM •> Before we goe further , we will fee what our Oppofites have faid
(b\EaL t0 thofe Scriptures which we aliedge, bHooksr faith, that the reafon tol hi i vvky God forbade his people Ifraell the ufe of luch rites & cuftomes, *f 6 ' as were among the Egyptians, and the Canaanhes t was notbecaufeir, *' * behoved his people to De framed of let purpofe, to an utter diflimili-
tude withthofe Nations, but his meaning was to barre IfraeIj,from fimilitude with thofe Nations, in fuch things as were repugnant to his ordinances and lawes. *Anf i.Letitbefo: he hath faid enough ngainft himfelf. For we have the fame reafon to make us abfeame from al! the Rites &. Cuftomes of Idolaters, that we may be barred from fimilitude wah them in fuch things , as are flatly repugnant- to Gods word, becaufe diffimilitude in Ceremonies , »sa barre to (top £miiirude in fubftan.ee, and on the contra./, fimiluuue in Ceremo- nies.
Chap. $ . *nd Here tikes in their %eiti> &c. 5 7
nies opencth a way to (Imilitude in greater fubftance. 2. His anfwec is but a bagging of that which is in question , for as much as we al« ledac thofe lawes and prohibitions, to prove that all the Rites and Cultomes of thofe Nations , were repugnant to the Ordinances and Lawes of God, and that Ifrael was (imply forbidden to ufe them. 3. Yet this was not a framing of Ifrael of fetpurpofetoan utter dif. fimilitudewith thofe Nations , for Ifrael ufed food & raimeut3fow- ing and reaping, fitting, (landing, lying, walking, talking, trading, lawes, governement, &TC: not withstanding that the Egyptians., and Canaanitcs ufed io. They were only forbidden to be like thofe Na- tions in fuch unnecelTary Rites andCuftomes , as had neither infti- tutionfrom God nor nature, but were the inventions and devices of men only. In things and rites of this kind alone , it is, that we plead for difiimilitude with the Idolatrous Papifts. For the Ceremonies in controver(y arc not only proven to be under the compafTe of fuch, but are befides made by the Papiftsjbadgcs and markes of their religion , as we fhall fee afterwards.
To that place , 2 Cor. 6. c Payhody anfwereth , that nothing elfe is StS. 4, there meant, then that we muft beware & feparate our (elves from [c)apoL the comunion of their finnes, and Idolatries. *Anf. 1. When the/"*r/- 5- Apoftlethere forbiddeth the Corinthians^ to be unequally yoked with m/-4- f»S- unbeleevers, or to have any communion or fellowfhip with Idola- ters, and requireth them fo to come out from among them, that they rouchnoneof their uncleane things: Why may we not underftand his meaning to be , that not only they fhould not partake vvith Pa- gans in their Idolatries , but that they fhould not marry vvith them, norftequent their*feafts,nor goeto the theatre to behold their playes* nor goe to Law before their Iudges , nor ule any of their Rites ? for with fuch Idolaters we ought not to have any fellowfhip , as £%an- (<j) \n priSm cJwtf refolves, but only infofarreas necefllty compelleth, and Cha- i.pag.^A-i, rity requireth. 2. All the Rites and Cuftomes of Idolaters , which have neither inftitution from God nor nature, are to be reckoned among thofe finnes, wherein we may not partake with them , for they are theimprofitable workes of darknefle , all which e Calvin (c) combs judgethto be in that place generally forbidden , before the Apo- ittHmlotw&> ftledefcend particularly, to forbid partaking with them in their Idolatry. As for the prohibition of divers mixtures, f Payhody faitl^, (0 &H the lewes were taught thereby to make no mixture of true and faife f#K*. worfhip. Anf 1. Accordingto his Tenets, it folio weth upon this an- fvvcre , that no mixture is to be made betwixtholy , and Idolatrous Ceremonies, for he calleth kneeling, a bodily worfhip ? and a worfhip ge/lure more then once or twice. And we have feene before, how Dr. Bur-gefft calleth the Ceremonies , worfhip of God. 2, If mixtureof true and falfe worfhip be not lawfull, then for as muchasthe Cere- monies of Gods ordinance,namely?theS.Kramentsof the New Tef-
£ e e 3 lament ,
3 S Of the fjmbolizjng with JAoUters pait. 3 .
tamcnt , are true worfhip. Andthe Ceremonies of Popery, namely CrolTe , Kneeling , Hoiy-dayes , &c. are falfe worfhip , therefore there ought to be no mixture of them together. 3. If thelcwes were taught to make no mixture of tiusand falfe worfhip , then by the fe'f fame inftru&ion , if there had beene no more , they were taught alio to fhunne all fuch occafions as might any way produce lucha mixture, and by confequence all fymbohzing with Idolaters in their Rites and Ceremonies. Sell. $. As touching thefe Lawcs which forbade the Ifraelites to make-
round the corners of their heads, or ro marre the Corners of their beards,orto make any cuttings inthcr fl^fh>or to make any baldc- (v)Eccl pol. ne^ betweene their eyes , g Hooker anfwereih , that the cutting lib,A,r 6. round ofthe corners of the head , and the tearingof the tufts of the beard, howbeit they were in ihemielves indifferent', yctihey are not, indifferent being ufedasitgnes of immoderat andhope'efTe lamen- t.uion for the dead;in "which fence it i-,:hat :helaw f^ibidderh them* (h) ubi fit- To the fame purpole faith h Paybody , that the Lord did not forbid pr4 his people, to marre and ab.ilcther heads and beards for he dead,
becaulV the Heathen did fo, but becalife the pra&ife doth not agree to the Faith and Hope of aChnftian , if .he Heathen had never ufed (i) com.m *r- *Anf. /. How much furerand founder is i Calxines Judgment , non Levit. 19. diud fuijfe Dei concilium, quam ut interpejito obfiaculo populum fuum a pro* 27. 28. phaniit Gent ibm diriment] for albeit ine cutting of tne hairebe a things" in it felf indifferent, vet becaufe the Gentiles did ufe it fuperititiouf- ly , therefore faith Calvin , albeit it was per fe medium, Dcwtamenno- luit populo fiio Viberum effe j ut tanquam pueri difcerentex parvis rudiments, ft non aliterDeo fore gratos , nifi extern <J praputiam ejfent prorfus difjl. miles 3 ac longiffime abefftnt ab eorumexempUs , prafenim Vero ritw omne: fugerent^quibus tefiata fueritreligio. So that from this law, it doth molt ma ni felt ly appeare , that we may not be like Idolaters, no not in things which are in themfelves indifferent , whenwe know that they doe ufe them fuperftitioufly. 2. What warrant is there for thisglofle, that the Lawforbiddeth the cutting round of the comers ofthe head, and the marring ofthe corners ofthe beard , to be ufed as (ignes of immoderat and hopeleiTc lamentation for the dead, and that in no other fence, they areforbidden? Albeit the cutting of the flefhmay be expounded, to proceed from immoderat grief, and to be a (igne ofhopeleile Lamentation, yet this can not be faid of roun- dingthe haire, marring the beard, and making of baldencfle: which might have beene ufed in moderat and hopefull lamentation ,as wcl as our putting on of mourning anparre! for the dead. The law faith nothing of the immoderat uje of thefe things , but (Imply forbid- dethtoroind the head, or marre the beard for the dead ; and that becaufet is was o.ie of theRites,wh;ch the Idolatrous and fuperfti- tious Gentiles did ufe, concerning whom the Lord commmanded'
his
C hap. 5 . md Heretics in their Rites, &c* 3 9
bis people, that they fhould not doe like them, becaufe he had cho- fen them to be a holy and peculiar people, above all people upon the earth. So that the thingwhich was fordidden , if the Gentiles had notufedit, fhould have beenc otherwife lawfull enough to Gods people, as we have ^ecn^ out ofCalvhes commentary. - J ^
Secondly , we have reafon for that which we fay , for by parta- ,,> '
ncr \xnrh I Hnl jff>rc in rh.flir R ifps aurl f.Prpmnniae «?*> ii-p ma^prrt * ' ' *'
quafi fyrnbolum communions in religione, faith I Balduine. They did eate of c.e lewifhfacrifices were partakers of the Altar , 1 Cor: **' "*" 10. 18. that is , faith m Parens , focios Judaic* religionis <S? cultus fe proft- y'"?' tebantur. For the Iewes by their lacrificcs mutuam inuna eademquen- \™)com.m ligionecopulationem fanciunt, faith n Be%a. Wnereupon 0 Dr. Futk no- J m m teth , that the Apoftle in that place , doth compare our Sacraments :,nJ anm» with the Altars, Hoftes, Sacrifices or immolations of the lewes, and tl I , Gentiles , in that point which if common to all Ceremonies , to declare them ^y f: e that ufe them , to be pertakers of that religion , whereof they be Ceremonies. i^>em *?n% If then p JJidore thought it unlawfull for Chnftians to take olea- on l' . °r' fure in the fables of Heathen Poets, becaufe non folum thura offer endo \°'J' \ Damonibus immolatur,fed etiam eorum difta libentim capiendo, mucli more £?' afH have we reafon to think , that by taking part in the Ceremonies of Gratl*n- Idolaters , we doe but offer to JDivells , and joync our felys to the *P Par*-1* ferviceof Idolls. ty-17.
Thirdly.as by Scripture, and reafon, fo by Antiquity we ftrcngthen c* [*" our Argument. Of old, Christians didfo'fhunneto be like the Pa- Se">7» gans, that in the dayes of Tertuhan, it was thought thatChriftians might not weare a Garland becaufe thereby they had beene made conforme to the Pagans. Hence q Tertullian juftifteth the Souldier, (q) de G>- who refufed to weare a Garland as the Pagans did. r Dr. Mortone rona milith himfelf alledgeth another cafe outof 'Tertulliany which makech to this {v) panic. purpofe , namely, that Chriftian Profelytes did diftinguifh them- ibf. cap.i. felvsfrom Roman Pagans, by catting away their gownes and wea- feci. 1. ring of cloakes. Bur tnefe things we are not to urge , becaufe we plead not for diflimilitude with the Papifts , in civill fafhions , but in Sacred and Religious Ceremonies. For this point then at which we hold us , wealledge/ that which is ma ked in the third Centurie (f) Magd. outofOWgw, namely , that it was held unlawfull for Chriftians , to cent 3. cap, obferve the feafts and Solemnities , either or the Ievves , or of t e 6.Csl 147. Gentiles. NayweHnd t a whole CounceU determining thus. Non (t) Condi, opportet a Judais vel Hctreticps ^feriatica qu<z mittunlur accipere , nee cum eis Laodicm. dies agere firiatos . The Counceii of Nice alio condemned thole who can. 37. keptHafter upon the fourteenth day of the mo'icth. That which made them pronounce fo , ('as is cieare from u Confiantines Epiftle to (u) apud the Churches,) was, becaufe they held it unbeieeming for Chnftians Theoi.Ub 1.
to have cap. 10.
4° O/ th* fjmbol'tZAttg^ith Idolaters Part. $.A
Jrf'r * to ' ave an^ ^"S common with the Iewes in their rites and obfer- *f .3 vances. x jiuguflin condemneth fafting upon thcSabbath day, as
a ' ' Scandalous, oecaufe the Manic bees ukd to , and fading upon thac €f \V\ day nad beene a conformity with them. And wherefore did Gre- k7 "^ *f £0,7 ac'v^e^M^H'> to abolifh the Ceremony of ttin-immerfion ? JqT'r e'J~ &wj words ar plaine. Quia nunc hucufque ab HcertticK infans inBaptif- i.i * ' mate ten*0 mergebatur , fiendum apud Vos effe non cenfeo. Why doth •*•• 3 i. zEpipfjan'UiS m cne encj 0f his bookes cowfr-4 hcerefes , reheatfe ail the (a, one. Ceremonies of the Church , as markes whereby the Church isdif- **• cerned from ail other feds ? If the Church did fymbolize in Cere-
<an»Z7 .
r . J , monies with other feds, he could not have done io. And Moreover one. ou, fin£ we nQL -n tne a Qanons 0f tne auncient Councels , that Chri-
4"ca J5 ftianswere forbidden to decke their houfes with greene boughes o. one, ancj ^ay, ieaves> to 0bferve the Calends of Ianuary, to keep the roc. 2. £r^ ja^f 0f every moneth, Sec. Becaufe the Pagans ufed lb to C[u\l)'j doe? Laft of all, read we not , in b the fourth century of the Ec- V ) Maii. cicfiaftjcan hiftory , that the frame of Christians in that age , en . 4. cap. ^^ fuch, that nee cum bareticis commune quicquam habere Voluerunt .<* aS*« ^ne would think that nothing could be anfweredtoany of thefe
' °* things, by fuch as pretend no lefle , then that they have devoted themfelves to bend all their wifhes & labours for procuring the imi* (c)eccltol. nation of venerable antiquity. Yet c Hooker can coy ne a conjedure, lib. 4./ jr. to fruftrate all which we alleadge. In things ( faith he) of their owne „ nature indifferent , if either Councells , or particular men , have at „ any time with found Iudgment mifliked conformity betweene the „ ChnrchofGodand Infidells, the caufe thereof hach not beene arTc- „ dation, of diflimilirude3but fome fpecial accident which the Church a, not beeingalwayes fubjed unto , hath not ftill caufe to doe the like. „ For example f faith he) in the dangerous dayes of triall, wherein there „ was no way for the trueth of Iefus Chrift to triumph over infidelity, „ but through theconftancy of his Sainds, whom yet a naturalldefire » to favc themfelves from the flame, might peradveture caufe to joyne ?> with the Pagans in externall Cuitomes, toofarre ufing the fame as a a cloak to conceale themfelves in , and a mift to darken the eyes of » Infidels withall ; for remedy hereof, it might be , thofe lawes were a provided. c/4«/. 1. This anfwer is altogither doubtfull, and conjedu- rall, made up of If, and peradventure , audit might be. Neither is any thing found which can make fuch a conjedure probable, i. The true reafon , why Chriftians were forbidden to ufe the Rites andCu- ftomes of Pagans , was neither a bare arfedation of diffimilitude, nor yet any fpeciall accident which the Church is not alwayes fub- jed unto ; but becaufe it was held unlawmll , to fymbolize with I- dolaters in the ufe of fuch rites, as they placed any religion in. For in the Fathers & Councells, which we have cited to this purpofe, there is no other reaion mentioned ? why it behoved Chriftians to ab-
ftaine
Chap; f, dnd Heretics in their Rites , &c. 41
flaine from thofc forbidden cuftomes > but only becaufe the Pagans and Infidels ufed fo. 3. And what if Hookers divination (hall have place? doth it not agree to us, foas itfhould make us unlike the Pa- pifts? yes (lire, and more properly. For put the cafe, thatthofeaun- cient Chriftians hadjioc avoided conformity with Pagans , in thofc Kites and Cuftomes, which we readeto havebecne forbidden them, yet for all that, there had beene remaining betwixt them and the Pa- gans, by a great deale more difference , then will remaine betwixt us and the Papifts, if weavoide not conformity with them in thecon- troverted Ceremonies: for the Pagans had not theWord, Sacraments, &c. which the Papifts doerctaine, fo that we may farremore eafily ufethe Ceremonies, as a mift to darken the eyes of the Papifts, then they could have ufed thofe forbidden Rites, as a mift to darken the eyes of Pagans . Much more then , Proteftants fhould not be permit, ted to coforme themfelves unto Papifts, in Rites & Ceremonies, left in the dangerous dayes of triall ( which fome Reformed Churches in Europe doe pre fen tiy feel e, and which feemeto be fafter approaching to our felves, then the moft part arc aware of, )they joyne themfelves to Papifts in thefcexternall things, too farre ufing the fame as a cloake to conceale themfelves in,§cc. 4. We find thatthe reafon,why the fourthCounccll of Toledo, d forbade the Ceremony of thrifc dip - (d)C*». y. ping in water to be u(cd inbaptifme, was, left Chriftians fhould feemeto afTent to Heretikes win divide the Trinity. Andthereafon x Why the fame Councell e forbade Cleargie men to conforme them- (c;G»».40« feives unto the cuftome of Heretikes, in the fheavingof the haite of their head, is mentioned to have beene, the removing ofconformity with the Cuftome of Heretikes, from the Churches ofSpaine, as beeing a great difhonour unto the fame. And we have heard be- fore , that Augufline condemneth conformity with the Manichees , in
the grave Wrirerlayechoui the reaion or thtsprolnbition, thus, It would ^, J, ^
appeare that this Councell had a defire to abolifh the Bites and Cuftomes of the ' ,
Manichean Heretikes , who were accufiomed to fajlupon the Lords day. La ft - * C ' ]y, we have fecne from Conflantines Epiiile to the Churches, that diflimilitude with the Ieweswas one (though not the only one)rea- fon , wl y it was not thought befeeming to keep Eafter upon the fourteenth day of the moneth. Who then can thinke that any fuch fpeciall-accident , as Hooker imagineth , wasthereafon why the Rites and Cuftomes of Pagans were forbidden to Chriftians ? Were not the Cuftomes of the Pagans to be held unbefeeming for Chriftians, as well as the Cuftomes of the Iewes ? Nay, if Conformity vv.th He- retikes ( whom g Hooker aknowledgeth to be a part of the vifible (g) eecl.poL Church,) in their Cuftomes and Ceremonies, "was condemned as a lib. 3./, 1, fcandall, a dishonour to the Church, and an auenting unto their He-
F f f refies ;
42. Of the fyntloliniit£\?ith 1 do Uteri Chap. $,
rc(ics-, might he not have much mete thought, that conformi:y witlit- e Cuilomes of lagans was forbidden as a greater icand.li, and difhor.ojr totheC urvh, and as an a&nxiag to the Pa garni me and ldolatiy of thole thai, were witi out ? SeB. 9. But to proceed. In tl e fourth place , the Canon Law it fe!f fpea-
[Y.)decr. kehforrhe Argument, wi'-ich we have in hand, b Non licet iniquas fart z.cau- obferViit'iones agere Caleudarum, & oths Weare Gentilibw . nequelauro, nut fa.i6.qsujit viridltate arbcrum , ewgen domos: omnii enim bcec obfervatio Paganifmi est, 7 . c. 1 3 . A nd a ga 1 n e , i Jmthtwa. Jit qui r'v.um Paganorum <? Calcndarum obfervat, (1 ■ :b.c. 14. A nd after , l^ dies ALgyptiaci ($ l&muri) Calends noyi funt obfewandee, (Jut C.17. Fiftly , ourafTertion will finde place in the Schoolc too , which {I'Aqwn. I . h0ldcth } / ^1 ]ewes wtre forbidden to weare a garment of diverfe 2 . q. 102. f0ltS) as 0f Linnen and Woollen togither, and t' at their women *rfi'f-m were forbidden to weare mens clothes , or truir men Womens
/ ylu r c*otl es ' becau^e ^e Gentiles ufed (a, in the worfhipping of their T 1 Gods. In like maner, m that the Pnefts were forbidden to round their * im' heads, or marre their beard?, or makemcillon in their flefh, becauie 3.Re^i8» n ine Idolatrous Priefts did ib. A ndo that the prohibition which for- (o)ibidrefp, bade the commixtion of beaftsof diverfe kynds among the Iew^s, ad£»»t hatha figurative fence, in t! at we arc forbidden to make People of
{p)Rhem. one kynd of Religion, to have any conjunction with thofeof ano- mnot.on ther kynd.
2 Cor. 6. Sixtly, p Papifts themfelvesteach,that it is generally forbidden to 14. communicat with Infidells and Herctikes , butefpecially inanyaft
(q) Rhm. of Religion. Yea q they think , that Chriftian men are bound to ab- tn 1 Tim. horre the very phrafes and words of Heretikes, which they ufc. Yea 6. feci 4. r they condemn the very Heathenifh names of thedayesofthe wee- {r)R£em. ke , imnoied after the names of the planets, Sonday , Moneday , 67 c. on Apoc. /"Thev noldit altogither a great and damnable finne , to dealewith 1. 10. Heretikes in matter of Religion , or any way to communicate with (C)Rbim. them in fpirituall things, t Bedarmtnc is plaine , who will have Ca- <w2.l0.10 tholikcstobe difcerned from Heretikes, and other fedts of all forts, (1) dee fitl. evenbv Ceremonies becaufe as Heretikes have hated the Ceremo- fser. hb. 2. nies of the Church, (o the Church hath ever abitained from the ob- cap. 3 1 . fervances of Heretikes.
St&. 10. Seaventhly , our owne Writers dee fufneiently confirme us in
this Argument. Tfe bringing of Heathenifh , orlewifh Rites in-
(u) lAagd, to the Church , is altogither condemned by u them , yea x though
Cent.+.c.t the Cuftomes 6V Rites of the Heachen, be received into the Church
ccl. 4.06. f°r gaining them, and drawing them to the true Religion , yet is it
(x) Hofpin. condemned , as proceeding ex KcCAsfyhicL feu praVa Ethnkorwn hnita-
deorig. tip!, tione. y I Rginoldes rejeð the Popifh Ceremonies , partly becaufc
/. i.cAp.j. they ar lewilh,and partly becaufe they are Heathnifh. The fame Ar-
j>*g • 1 15- gument ,
. ^v ) Confer, with. L Hart, divif. 4.^.8.
Chap. 5 . and Heretikes in their Rites , &c. 4 3
gument, zTh. B«#ufethagainftihem. In te fecound command, (*) AntHb. as 4 Zgnchhii expoundeth it, we are forbidden to borrow anything Pap & tx ritibus idololatrarum Gentium. Fidelibus faith b Calvin fas non eft uUo Chnfl art 9. fymbolo oftendere fibi cum fuperflitiofis ejfc confmfum. To conclude then, (a) tn *• iince not onely idolatry ;s tor bidden , but alio as c ?arvM noceth , Pr*c co^ every fort of communicating with th" occafions, appearances , or S^3« inftruments ofche fame, and iincc as d our Divines have declared, (b)com. tn the Papifts are in many refpects grofle Idolateis, let us choofe to P*« 16. 4. havethe commendation, which e was given to thy auncienr Bri (-) com m tons , for being enemies to the Romane Cuftomes , rather then as i.Cor. / Pope Pius the <. wis forced to fay offymc, that it did more Gen- 10-14. tili%are> quam Chriftiani^are-^o they who would gladly wifh,they could (&)#**?£ ■ give a better commendation to our Church , be forced to fay , that p**rior»Tbeol. k doth not onely more ^Anglizare,quamScoti^ani but alfo more Ro- Mp 19. manure , quam E\>angdhare. fc) vfher °f
thereltg prof, bytheattoc. Irifk.cap.4. (f) apudHofp. diorig. ima»- p*£> 10°- But our Argument is made by a great deal mote ftrongnf yet fur- Se#. \ f\ ther we confider , that by the controverted Ceremonies , we are not onely made like the Idolatrous Papifts, in fuch Rites of mans devifing as they place fome Religion in, but we are made likewife to take upon us rhofe fignes and fymbols, whic . Papifts account to be fpeciall badges of Popery , and which alfo in the account of many of our owne reverend Pivines, areto be fo thought of. In the oath ordained by Pius the 4.. to be taken of Bifhops at their crea- tion, as g Onuphrim writie.h, they are appointed to fweare , ^Apofto- {g)devit. Vicas & Ecclefiaflicat traditionts , reliquafqm ejufdem Ecclefi* obfervationes pu- 4» C conftitutiones firmiffime admitto (? ampleHor. Andafer. B^ceptos quo- que er approbatos Ecdefice Catholic* ritm , m fupra dtBorum Sacramentorum fokmni admtnislrationt , recipio & admitto. We fee Bifho ps are not crea- ted by this ordinance, except they not only believe vvih the Church of fyme, but alfo receive her Ceremonies, by which as by the badges or her Faith & Religion > cognizant e may be had , tha they a-, e in- deed her Children.
hey mean thofe of he Reformed Re igiun j by .he Signe of the CrofTe ,'abftmeiue from flefh on Fryday , &c. A nd ho v doe our owne Divines underftand the Markeof the Be i ft; Ipoken of Bjvel. 13. 16. 17? \ lunius comprehendcth confirmation under this marke : I^Carttvrigbt a.io referrerh the Signe of theCrofle ^Zhcu^ to the markeof the Beait. / Farms approved! ihe^B-fhop ot Sarif
(i) ctnnot. tn ilium locu (<)amot.ib.
bury his expofiion, and p!ace:h the common ma/ke of the Beaft in \\\com hi the oblervation of Antichrift htsfcftivaU daves, and he reft of his Ceremonies whrchare not commanded by God.lt ieemes this much hathbeens plaine to hfeph Hafti fo rhat he could not deny it. For
Fff a vshereas
44 That by the Ceremonies Parr. 5 ,
whereas xhcBroivmfts alle ]ge;that not only after their feparation, but before they feparated alio, they were, and are verily rc/fuaded , that the Ceremonies are btttihe badges and iiveries of that man or finne rr) £#.48 whereof the Pope is the head, and the Prelates the fhoulders : he m
this m Apology againft them , faith nothingtothis point.
Se8. 12. As for any other of out Oppofites^ who have made ftuh a-:fwers
as they could , to the Argument in hand •, I hope the ftrcnothand
force of the fame hath beendemoftrated to be fucb, that their poore
lliifts are too weake for gainftanding it. Some of them (as I touched
before) are not afhamed to profeiTe,that we fhould come as nsare
to the Papifts as we can , and therefore fhould conforme our fel ves to
them in their Ceremonies, (onely purging away the fuperftition)
becaufe if we doe otherwife, we exafpeiate the Papiits, and alienate
(ri) Ihnch. them themorefrom our Religion and Reformation. Jinf. i.nloh.
I-elig.PapiJl. Bafttvlc^ propounding the fame objection, Si quisobijdat nosh fos per*
in prtfar. t'mact Certmoniarum Papalium contemptu, PapifrJ offend'uulum pofeijje, quo
(0) Rom.' minus fe noflrii Ecclejin ajfocient , he anfweietrTcut of the o Apoftie,
*5. *• that we are to plcaie every one his neighbour onely in good things
to edification, & that we may not wink at abfurd or wicked things,
nor at any thing in Gods worfhip , which is not found in Scripture.
{p)part. 2. 2« j> I have (hewed, that Papifts are but more and more hardened in
cap. 6. eviil, by this our conformity with them in Ceremonies. 3. $Ihave
(q)fupra fhewed alfo the fuperftition of the Ceremonies, even as they arc re-
eap. 1. tained by us , and that it is as impoflible ro purge the Ceremonies
from fuperftition , as to purge fuperftition from it felfe. SeZl. 13. There are others, who goe about tofow acloakeof figge leaves,
to hide their conformity with Papifts , and to find out fomc diffe- rence, betwixt trie Englifh Ceremonies and thofe of the Papifts. So fay fome,thatby the figneofthc CrofTe they are not ranked with Papifts, becaufe they ufe not the materiali Crofte , which is the Po* pifh one , but the aeriall onely. But it is known well enough , that (r) deimag. Papifts doe Idolatrize the very aetiall CrofTe, for r Bellarmine holds, Saacl.cap. venerabile tjfe fignumOntcis quo d eflingitur in from e,aere%<$c. And though 19. theydid not make anldollof it, yet forafmuch as Papifts put it to a Religious ufe, and make it one of the markes of Romane-Catho- likesfaswe have feen before) we may not be conformed to them in theufe of the fame. The Fathers of fuch a difference between the Popifh CrofTe, and the Englifh,have not fucceeded in this their way, yet their pofterity approve their fayings, and follow their footfteps. (f) Vroc. in J #• Lindfey by name will trade in the fame way, and will have us to Ttrtb a[- think , -that kneeling in the aft of receiving the Communion , and feab part, keeping of Holy-dayes,doe not fort us with Papifts, for that, as tou- i.pag.iz, ching the former, there is a difconformity in the object , becaufe they kneel to theSignc>we to the thing fignified. And as fortheLt- ter , the, difference is in the employing of the time, and in she exer-
Chap. 3 . we fymholiz.e With Idolaters, 4 j
cife and woifhip for which the ceffation is commanded. What is his Verdict then, wherewith he fends us away ? Verily, that peo- ple fhould be taught, that the difconformity between the Papilts and us , is not fo much in any external! ufe of Ceremonies , as in the fubftance of the fervice,and objecl, whereunto they are applied. But, good man, he leeks a knot in the Bulrufh. For, 1 . There is no fuch difference betwixt our Ceremonies and thofe of the Papifts , inrefpe&of the obje&and worfhip, whereunto the fame is applied, as he pretendeth. For as touching the exercife and worfhip where- unto holy dayes are applied, t Papifts tell us, that they keep Palche and Pentecoft yearly, for memory of Chrifts Refurre&ion , and C0R*'W* the fending downe of the Holy Ghoft ; And I pray , to what other am£- cn imployment doeFormahfts profeiTe, that they apply thelc Feafts , Act. 2..I0 but to the commemoration of the fame benefits ? And as touching kneeling in the Sacrament , it fhall be proven in the next Chapter , that they doe kneel to the Signe , even as the Papifts doe. In the meane while it may be questioned, whether the B. meant fome fuch matter , even here where profeffedly he maketh a difference betwixt the Papifts their kneeling , and ours. His words wherein I apprehend this much, are thefe:T7?e Papifts in prayer kneehoanldoll, and in the Sa- crament they kpeel to the Signe , we kneel in our prayer to God, and by the Sa- crament to the thing fignified. The Analogy of the A ntithefis required him to fay, that we kneel in the Sacrament to the thing fignified : but changing his Phrafe, he faith, that we kneel by the Sacrament to the thing fignified. Now if we kneel by the Sacrament toChrifi , then we adore the Sacrament as objeBum materials , and Chrift as objettum for- mal?. Iuft To the Papifts adore their Images, becaufe per imagmem they adore prototypon. 2. What if we fhould yeeld to the B.thatKnee- ling and Holy- dayes , are with us applied to another Service, and ufed with another meaning, then they are with the Papifts? doth that excufe our conformity with Papifts inthe external! ule of thefe Ceremonies ? If fo u I. Hart did rigtly Argument , out of Pope In* (u) l.Rain. nocentw ,that the Churchdoth not judaize by the Sacrament of tin- confer, with clion or anointing •> becaufe it doth figure and worke another thing 7. Hart. cap, in the New Teftarnent , then it did in the Olde. Rainoldes anfwcreih, 8.<#wf 4. ' that though it were fo, yet is the Ceremony Iewim:&: markehis rea- pav.4$.6'. fon, f which carrieth a fit proportion to our prefent purpofr, ) Itrufl faith he , you will not maintained but it wereludaifme for your Church to fa~ crifice aLambe in burnt offering, though you did it tofigmfy , not Chrift, that was to come , as the lewes did , but that Chrift is come, &c SainB Peter did conjiraine the Gentiles to ludai^e , when they were induced by ha example and authority) to follow the lewifhPjte in choice of meats ;ytt neither he. nor they allowed it in that meaning? which it was given to the lewes in. For it was given them to betoken that holineffe , andtraine them up unto it , which Chrift py bis grace fhould bring to the fahhjull. *And Peter knew that Chrift had done
F f f 3 ' %hn
46 Tijat by the Ceremonies Parr.?,
this in trueth , and taken away that Figtrre , yea the whole yoke of the Law of Mops: which point he taught the Gentiles alfo IVherefore alt hough your Church dbe kj'epe the lewifh Rites, with another meaning then God ordained them for the Lives , <&c. yet tbv of Peter fhetvtth 3 that the thing u lewifh 3 and you to l.idaize who keepc them. By the very lame reaions prove we , tfttc For- niahfts doe Romanize, by keeping the Popifh Ceremonies , though w :h another meaning, andtoano her ufe then the Rom ani its doe. The very externall ufe therefore , of any facred Ceremony of hu- mane Iniiitution, is not to b? fufFeredin the matter ofworfhip,when m refpecr, of this externall ufe, we are forced with Idolaters. 3. If conformity with Idolaters in the externall u(e of their Ceremonies belawfull ,if fo be there be a difference in the fubftanceofthe Wor- fhip and Objed whereunto they arc applied , then why were Chri- ilians forbidden of old, (as we have heard before) to keep the Ca- lends of January , and the rirft dav ofevery moneth , forafmuch as the Pagans uled f o ? Why was trin-imroerfion in Baptifmc, and fading upon the Lords day forbidden, for that t::e Herenkes did fo? Why did the Kicen Fathers inhibite the keeping of Eafter upon the (x) Zanch. fourteenth day of the month , x fo much the rather , becaufe the lib. 1. in 4. I ewes kept it on true day? The B. rauft fay , there was no need of pru.Col. fhunnmg conformity with Pagans, Icwes, Heretikes, in t>e exter- 674. nail ufe oftheir Rites andCuftomes, and that a difference oughc
tohave been made , onely in thcObjed and ufc, whereunto the famewas applied. Nay , why did God forbid Ifraell , to cut their (y) 1*. 1*. haire as the Gentiles did ? had it not been enough, not to apply this q. 101. art. Rite to a fuperftitious ufe , as y Aqmnai fheweth the Gentiles did ? 6.refp ad 11 vvhy was the very externall ufe of ic forbidden ? Seel. 14. There is yet another peece brought againft us,but we will abide the (z) S. Tra- proofe or* it, as of the red. Nobx faith ^ SaraVia. fatisefi, modeftts &pw tn & amico Chrifiianisfatisfacere, qui ha recefferunt a fuperfiitionibm & idolotatrix Ko- refp.adart. mance Eccleji<ey utprobatos ab Orthodoxts P ambus mores , non reijciant. S o 12*. have ibme thought toefcapeby taii poiterne,that they uietheCe- remonies, not for Conformity with Papifts , but for Conformity (a) ubifu- with the auncienr Fathers. ±Anf. i.When a Rainoldes fpeaketh of praVag. the abnlifnm^ of Pooim Ceremonies, he anfwereth this fubtilty. But 510. if vou fay therefore , that we be againfi the auncient Fathers in Religion , be-
caufe wephcli down that, which thy did fet up. Take heed left y our fpeech doe (*)iReg.:s. t0Uch theHoly Ghojl , who faith that b He^ekjas (in breaking do vne the (c6\ Hrazen Serpent) did keep Gods commandements which he commanded Mo -
4? ' C§' ' fes. And vec withal; faith, c that he brake in peeces theSerplt ofBrajfe which {a)[upra Mo fes had made. 2. There are feme of the Ceremonies which the pm.i.cap. Fathers tiled not, as the Surplice (which we have iccn d before) o.,C 14. and kneeling in the ad of receiving the Eucharift , (is we (hall fee (e)mfracap. e afterwards) 3. Yeelding by conceiTion , not by confeffion , that l.fecl. 26. all the Ceremonies about which there is controverfy now among 27. 28. us
Chap. 4 . we fjmboliz.e frith Idolaters , &c . 47
us , were of oIJ ufed by the Fathers, yet that which thefe Forma- lists lay, is, (as f Parker ihewcth) even as if a Servant fhould be cove- ( f) ef$h» red before his M alter, not as covering is a late figne of preeminence* Cnjftcap. 1 butasit wascfolda figne of fubje&ion, oras if one fhould preach, fist, 10. that the Prelates arc Tyranni r o their Brethren , Fures to the Churcn, Sophifl* totheTruetlijvX excufe tiimfelfe thus. I ulethefc words, as or old they tignified, a Ruler , a Servant, a Student ofWifedome. All men know , that words and actions rauft be interpreted, tiled and received, according to their moderne ufe , and not as they have been of olde.
C H A P. I V.
That the Ceremonies are Idols among Tjrmallfts themfelves ; and that kneeling in the Lords Supper before the Bread and Wine in the aft of receiving them, u formally Idolatry.
}; Y fourth Argument againft the lawfulneffe of the Cere- S(% l monies , folio weth : by which I am to evince that they are not onely Idolatrous rednclrve , becaufc monuments of by- paft, and participative , becaufe badges ofprefent Idolatry, but that likewiie they make Formalifts themfelves, to be formally, and in refpeft of their owne uOng of them , Idolaters, confederation not had of the by-paft , or prefent abufing of them by others. This I will make good : firft , of all the Ceremonies in generall ; then , of kneeling in particular. And I wifh ourOppofues here, looke to themfelves, for this Argument proveth to them the Box of Pandora, and containeth that which undoeth them, though this much be not feen , before the opening.
Firft then , the Ceremonies are Idols to Formalifts. It had been good to have remembred that which g Ainfivorth noteth, that Ida- (gj upon lothyts and monuments of Idolatry fhould be deftroyed,left them- Gen. 35 felves at length become Idols. The Idolothyous Ceremonies, we 4, fe now, are become Idols to thofe who have retained them. The ground which the Bifhop ofWincbeficr taketh for his Sermon of the worfbipping of imaginations , to wir.tliat ;he Deuill feeingthat laoia- trous Images would downe , he bent his whole device, in place of them to erect and fet up diverfe imaginations, to be adored and magnified in (lead of the former; is, in iome things abufed andmif- apphed by him. But w.!l may I apply it to the point in hand. For that the Ceremonies are the imaginations which are magnified, ado- red, and Idolized , in fteadof the Idolatrous Images which were put downe , thus we inftruft and qualify.
Firft ,
48 That the Ceremonies are Idols. Part. 5;
SeB. i. £ifft 1 ^ey are f° ere&ed and extolled , that they are more look-
el to , then the weighty matters of the Law of God; all good Dif- cip'ine mud be negle&ed , before they be notholden up. Acovc- (h)Expof.in tous man lS a Idolater , for this refped among others, as h Ddvenant Col. 3. 5. noteth, becaufehe negle&s the fervice which he oweth to God, and is wholly taken up with the gathering ofmony. And I fuppofe e- (1) Mark, very one will think, that thole /Traditions, which the Pharifees kept 7»8.?. and held , with the laying afide of the commandements of God, might vvel be called Idols. Shall we not then call the Ceremonies idols, which are obferved , with the neglecting of Gods com- mandements, & which are advanced above many fubftantiall points of Religion ? Idolatry , Blafphemy , Prophanation of the Sabbath, Perjury , Adultery, &c. are over looked and not corrected nor re- pro oved , nay , not fo much as difcountenanced , in thefc who fa- vour and follow the Ceremonies; and if in the fellowes, and favou- rites , much more in the Fathers. What if orderbe taken with fo me of thofe abominations , in certain abjed poore bodies ? DatVeniam cofviii Vexat cmfura columbas. What will not a Epifcopali confor- mitane paile away wi:h , if there be no more had againft him , then the breaking of Gods Commandements, by open and grolTe wicked- neffe? Bit,0 what narrow notice is taken of Non-conformity.' How mercileflyis it menaced ? How cruelly corrected ? Weill the Cere- monies are more made of , then the Subftance. And this is fo evi- (k) of the dem , that ^ D. Burgeffehim felf lamented the prefTure of confor- lawfull. of tnity , anddenieth not that which is obje&ed to him , name'y , that hneel.cap. more grievous penalties are inflicted upon the refufail of the Cere- 18.pag.6z monies, then upon Adultery and DrunkennelTe.
Se8. 3. Secoundly, did not I Eli make Idols of his Sonnes, when he fpa- (l) 1 Sam. red them and bare with them , though with the prejudice of Gods 2-29- woifhip ? And may nor we call the Ceremonies , Idols, which are
not onely (pared and borne with, to the prejudice of Gods worfhip, but are iikewifefo ere&ed, that the moft faithfull Labourers in Gods Houfe for their fake are deprefTed, the Teachers and Maintainers of Gods true worship, caft out ? For their fake many Learned & Godly men are envied, contemned,hated, and nothing fet by, becaufe they paffe under the name (I fhou Id fay the Nickname) of Puritans. For their fake, many dcare Chriftians have been imprifoned, fyned, ba- nifhed, Sec. For their fake, many qualified and well gifted men , are holden out of the Miniftery , and a doore of enterance denied to thofe , to w horn God hathgraunted a doore of utterance. For their fake, thofe whofe faithfull and painfull Labours in the Lords Har- vest, have greatly benefited the CI urch, have been thruft from their charges, fo that they could not fulfill the Miniftery, which they have received of the Lord, to teftifyof the Gofpell of the grace of God. The beft Builders, the wife Maftcrbullders, have been by ihem over- turned.
Chap. 4* 7h At the Ceremonies are Idols. 49
turned. This is objected ro m lofeph Hall , by the Brownijls : and what can he fay to it ? forfooh , that not fo much the Ceremonies are flood upon , as obedieitcc. IfGodpleafe to try Adam but with an apple , it is enough. What doe we quarrel at the value of the fruit , when we have a probition? She* mzi is jlaine : what f merely for going out of the Citie ? the ail was little , the bond was great : What ts commanded matters , not fo much , ai by whom f %Anf 1. ifobediencebe the chiefe thing ftoodupon *why are not other Lawes and Sta uses urged as ftri&ly , as thole which concernc the Ceremonies ? z. But what mcanes he ? what would he fay ofthofe Scottifh Proteftats, imprifoned in the Cafte of Scherh burgh in France r* who n beeing commanded by the Captainetocometo the Maffe , jPc?^/ anfwercd, that to doe any thing that was againfi their confeience , they would ta* ** . not^neither for him nor yet for theKjng? If he approve ihis an! vet of °J Sc0"- "u- theirs, he rauitallo/v us tofay , that we will doe nothing which is ifa&'l%l» againft our confeiences. We fubmit our felves,and all which we have to the King, and to inferior Governours we render all due fubje- ction, which we owe to them. But no mortallman hath domination over our confeiences , which are fubjeel to one onely Law-giver » and ruled by his Law. I have fhev\ed in the firft Part ofthis Dif- pure , how confeience is fought to be bound by the Law of the Ce- remonies , and here by the way, no lefle may be drawne from Hals words, which now I examine. For he implieth in them, ihat we are boundto obey th° Statu es about the Ceremonies, merely for their Auctorities fake who command us, though there be no other thing in the Ceremonies themfelves, which can commend them to us. But I have alfo proven before , that humane Lawes doe not bind to o- bedience, but onely in this cafe , whenihe things which they pre- fcribe,doe agree and ferve to thofe things which Gods Law pre- fenbeth: fothat, as humane Lawes, they bind not, neither have they any force to bind , but onely by Participation with Gods Law. This ground hathfeemed to 0 P. Bayne% fo neceffary to be knowne, that {o)part,u hehathiniertedit in his bnefe expofition of the fondamentall points W*fl* 3. of Religion. And bel'ide all that? which 1 have laid for it before , I may not here pafle over in filence,this one thing, that p H<*ff himfelfe (?) lib.i. calleth it fuperftition to make any more (nines, then the ten com- Charaft. of mandements. Either then, let it be (hewed out of Gods word , that the [uperjlit . Nonconformity & toe refuting of the Englifh Popifh Ceremonies, is a fault, or e fe let us not be thought bound by mens lawes, where Gods Law hath left us free. Yet we deale more liberally with our Oppofitcs, for if we prove not the unlawfulneiTe ofthe Ceremonies, both by Gods Word , and found reafon, let us be then bound to ufe them for Ordinances fake* 3. His compatifonsare farrewide: they are fo farre from running upon foure feet, that they have indeed no feet at all : whether we confide: the commandcrnen s, or the breach of them, he is aUogither extravagant. God might have comman-
G p; g ded
jo That the Ceremonies are Idols* Part. 5,
ded Adam to eatc the A pp!e, which he forbade him to eate, and fo the earing of ir. had bee.i good, the not ea ing of it e v ill : whereas the Will ev v o mm an dement of men is nor regularegulans, buiregula rz~ gulata,, Nei h.jr can they make good or eviil , bcieeming or not be- teetnrng , what they lift , but their commandements are to be exa- mined bv a higher rule. When Solomon commanded Shemei to dwell atlentfalem , andnottogoe over the brooke Kjdron , hi hid good (q comm. reafon for that which he required: for as q PeterMartyr noccth , in 1 Reg. he r was a man of thefamily of the houfe ntSauU and hired the 2. Kmgdome and Throne of David, fo that reliBm liber multa fuijfet
(r) 1 Sam. \6 mo\'nH^ \dcum IfraHiw, Vel atm Paleflhims. But what reafon is there , • J* for charging us wuh the Law of the Ceremonies, except the fole
will of the Law- makers? yet fay, that Solomon had no reafon for this his commandement , except his owne will and pleafure, for trying the obedience of Schema, who will fay, that Princes have as great li- berty and power of commanding at their pleafure, in maters of Religion, as in civill matters? If weconfider the breach of the com- mandements, he is ftill at randone. Though God tried Adam but ( f) A. P0- with an apple, yet / Divines marke in his eating of that forbid- Un.fynt. den fruit, many groiTe and horrible finnes, as, Infidelity, Idolatry , TheoLUb.6. Pride, Ambition, Self-love , Theft ,Covetoufne(Te , Contempt of m». 3. D. God , Prophanation of Gods name , Ingratitude, Apoftafie , mur- Tunw ex- dering ofhis pofterity, &c. But 1 pray , what exorbitant evills are the. catuhit. found in our modeft and Chriftian-like deniall of obedience to the fzn.i.queft, 1-aw of the Ceremonies ? When Scbemei ttanfgrefTed King Solomons 7. I. Scbar- commandement, befides t the violation of this oath, and the dif- futicurf. obeying of the charge wherewith Solomon (by the fpeciall direction Thsokg. de & in fpi ration of God) hadcharged him, (that u his former wick- psccatocap.8 ednelTe , and that which he had done to David > might be returned (I) 1 Reg.z. upon his H ead , the Divine providence lb fitly furnifhing another 43- occafion and caufe of his pumfhment *, ) there was alfo a great con-
■■u) 10. v. 44. temptan,j mifregard fhewed to the King , in that Schemei knowing his owne evill defervings,aknowledgcd (asthetrueth was,} he had re- ceived no imall favour, and therefore confented to the Kings wotd as good, and promifed obedience. Yet for all that, uponfuch a petty and frr.all occafion, as the feeking of two runnagat fervants , he reckoned not to defpife the Kings mercy and lenity , and to fee at nought his moll jr. ft commandement. What ? is Non-conformi- ty no lefTe piacular ? If any will dare to fay fo , he is bound to ihew that itisfo. And thus have we pulled downe the untempered mor- tar, where* ith Hall would hide the Idolizing of the Ceremonies. 5*3.4. But thirdly , did not Rachel make lacob an Idoll , when (he a (bri-
bed to him a power of giving children? ^Am I in Gods ftead faith W G«V3* x lacob? And how much more reafon have we to lay, that the Ce- remonies are Idols , and are let up in' Gods ftead , fince an opera- tive
Chap. 4.
Tktt the Ceremonies are Idols* j 1
tive vcrtue is placed in them , for giving ftay and ftrength againft finne and tentation , and for working of other fpirifiiall and fuper- naturall efFecls ? Thus is the Signe of the CrofTe an Idol I , to thofe who conforme toPapiftsin the life of it. 7 M.Ant. de Domim's hoi- [y)deRep. dcth , Cruets fignum contra D <a>mones effe prafidium. And z that even Eccl.ltb.7. ex opere operato , ejfcBus mirabiles figni Crucn , etiam apud Infiddes , ali- tep.it* quando enituerint. Shall I fay , Faith a Mr. Hooker , that the Signe of the «"OT S3. Crojje (as we ufe it)ts a meane in fome fort toworkf our pre ftrvation from (l) * num. reproach ? Surely the minde which as yet hath not hardened it fclfe in finne , %9* js feldome provoked thereunto in any groffe and grievous manner , bv.tna (i)Eccl Vol, tures ficret fuggeftion-, objeBeth aga'm(i it ignominy , as a barre. Which lb. J . feci, conceipt being entered into that palace of mans fancie ('the Forehead) the 65. Gates whereof have imprinted in them that Holy Signe (the CroiTe) which bringeth forthwith to minde whatfoe^er Chrifi hath wrought •> and we Vowed Againft finne ; it commeth hereby topaffey that Chriftian men never want a mofi effectual! > though a filent Teacher , to avoid what foever may deferVedly procure j rha me. Wnacmore doe PapiiV afcribe to theSigne of the Croffe , when they fay , b that by it Chrift keeps his owne faith- (b) Cornel. full ones contra omnes tentationes <? bojles ? Now if c the covetous aL*pidecom. man be called a Idolater, becaule, though he think not his mo- in Hag. 2. ney to be God, yet hetruftethto liveand profperby it, (which con- 24. fidence and hope d we fhouldrepofe in God onely) as e Bginoldes (CJ EPh- *♦*• marketh, then doe they makethe Signe of the Crolte an Idoll,who ;^\ ^*w£r7" trult by it to be preserved from Sinne, Shame, and Reproach, and Wlt^ ^rt to have their mindes ftaiedin the inftant of Tenration. For, who ^_ g ^ hath given fuch a vertue to that dumbe and idle Signe, as to work ? .' ' that which God onely can worke?and how have thefe goodfel- Jowes imagined , that not by knocking at their braines, zslupitcr> but by onely figningtheir Foreheads, they can procreate fome me- nacing Minerva , or armed Pallas , to put to flight the Divell him- klfe.
The famekinde of operative vertue is afcribed to the Ceremo- Se:l. 5. ny of Confirmation or B'mopping. For the Englifh Service Booke teacl.eih , that by it Children receive Arength againft Sinne, and againft Tentation. And / Hooker hath told us, that albeit the Sue- (£)£ccl.PoU cedorsof the A poll: I es , had but onely for a time fuch power as^-5^«6^ by Prayer and imposition of hands to beftovv the Holy Ghoft , yet Confirmation hath continued hitherto for very fpeciall benefices ; and that the Fathers impute every where unro it, that Gift or Grace of the Holy Ghoft , not which makjth us firfl Chriftian men , but when we are made fuch, affifieth us in ali Virtue , armeth us againft Tentation and Sinne. Moreover , whiles he is aihewing why this Ceremony of Confir- mation was feparated from Baptifme , having been long joyned with it, one of his reafons which hegiveth for the Separation, is , that fometimes the parties who received Baptifme were Infants,
Ggg 2 at
ji Of the Idolatry of kxeclivg Part. $,
at: which age they might well be admitted to l.ve in the family, but to fight inthearmie of God , to bring forth the fruits , and to doe tic -.vorkes of .he Holy Ghofr, , their time of liability was net yet come, which imphe h, that by Confirmation men receive r. ishabi- li v , eife there ;s no fence in that which he faith. What is Idolatry, if this be nor, to a 'bribe to Rites of mans deviling, the power and venue of doing that which none but he to whom ail power in hea- ven and earth belonges, can doe? And howbeit Hooker would ftnke us dead at once, with the hig'i-foti.ultng name of the Farhers, yet it is not unknowne, chat the firft Fathers from whom this Idolatry hath (o] Exam, defcended , were thole auncient Hereukes, the Montamslr. for as fart. z. ds g Cbemrittw market h our oiTertuUian & Cyprian , the Montanifis were rit in admin, toe firft, who beganne to alenbe any fpirituall efficacy or operation fA:rt"S-l l* t0 ^-nes and Ceremonies deviled by men.
Sec? 6. Fourthly, that whereunto morerefpetr and account is given, then
God alio* eh to be given to i:» and wherein more excellency is pla- ced, then God hath put into it, or wil at allcomnumicat to it , is an (h) lib. i. de Idol! exalted againft God: which makcth /; Zanch'tus to fiy, Si Luthero viti. act. Vf/ Cahino tribuas , quodnon potuerant errare Idola tibi fingfi. N ow w hen cult, oppof. i Hooker accoun eh feitivati dayes , for Gods extraordinary workes Col 505. wrought upon them , to be he Iyer then other dayes , What man of (i) Bed ?d. iound Iudgement , will not perceive that theie daves are Idolized, lib. f.fiB, Gncefucfc aneminency andexcellencv is put in :hem, wheels God 69. hath made no difference betwixt them, and any other dayes ? * We
(k)fufra havefeenea fo,t aacthe Ceremonies are urged as neceiTary , but did part, 1. dip. 1 ever God ailowy.hat things IndirTerentfhouldbefo highly advanced, (i)fipracap. at thepleafureof men B And moreover , 1 1 have fliewed,tha:wor- ' ! . fhip is placed in them ; in which refped , needs they muft be Idolls,
being thus exa-redagainft Gods Word, at which wc are commanded to hold us, in the mater of worfhip.Laft: of all, they are Idolotroufly advanced and dignified , in fo much as holy mifticall fignifications (&) bSn are Slven them , which are a great dea e more then Gods word a lo- L* c ' weth in any Ries of humane in ftituti on, as (hail be {he.ved >» after- wards. Andfo it appcareth, Low the Ceremonies, as now urgedand ufed, are Idolls. Kcw, to kneeling in the ad of receiving the Lords Supper , which I will prove to be aired and fcrmal Idolatry , and from Idolatry fha-11 i: never be purged , while the wor'd ftandeth, though our OppoG es drive for it, tar.quamproarn & foci}.
The queftion about tl e Idolatry of k&eeiing, be forixt hem and us, ftandeth in this , V/hcther kpetthtgat the tnflant cfrecehivg the $Atxamtnf\ hi fore the con fecrated Bread & Wint , purpcfily placed m our fight, hi the aci of kneeling, as Signes Jiandingin Chrifis fiend before which we the receivers arcto exhibit e outwardly religion* adoration ^ be form ah idolatry, or not? No man can pick a quarrell at the ftatrng of the queftion thus. For, 1. Wcdifoure only about kneeling at the i 11ft am of receiving he
Sacra*
**h 5-
Chap. 4. In the aH of receiving the [ommmmu j 5
Sacramentall Elements, as all know. 2. No man denies inward adoration , in the act of receiving , for in our minds we thenadore, by the inward graces of Faith, Love, Thankfulneffe,cVc. by the holy and Heavenly cxercile whereof ;we glorify Godj i*o thattneconrro- verfy is about outward adoration. 3. No man will denie hat the confecrarcd Elements are purpofely placed in our fight, when we kneel, except he iay , that they are in that action only accidentally preient before us, no otherwife then the Tabble-clo.h,orthe walls of the Church are. 4. That he Sacramentall Elements, are in our fighc (when v\e knee'l JasSignes (landing inChrifts ftead;itis mo ft unde- nyable. For if theicSignes ftandnot in Chrifls fteadto us, the Bread bearing "vieem corporis Cbrijii , and the Wine vicem fanguints -} it rolio- weth, that when we eat tne bread, and drink the wine , we are no more eating the flefh, and drinking the blood of Ghtift, fpintual y and facramentaiiy, then if we were receiving any other Bread and AVine notconfecrated. I ft ay not now upon this head, becaufeour Oppofitcs aknowledge i~, fcrw Dr. Burgejfe calls the Sacraments the (n)0/V>* Lords images and deputies. And the 0 ArchbimopoftydLzfo far Iv hat lawf. of when we take the Sacrament of Chriftsbody, weadore Cbriftum'kneel. pag. fub hac (igura figuratum. 5 • That kneeiers at the inftant of receiving, 115,116. have thcconlccrated Bread an Wine , in the eyes both of their bodies (o) OeRep. and minds, as things fo dated in that action, that before them, they Eul hb.j* are toexhibite ontward religiousadoracion, as well as inward; it is cap. 6. alio molt plaine.For oiherwife they fhould fall downe and kneel, num. \i69 onely out of incogicancy, having no fuch purpofe in their minds, nor choice in their wills, as to kneel before ihefe Sacramentall Signes.
The queflion thus flared, Formalists deny, we affirme. Their ne- §*?: *•■ gative isdeftrcicd, and our affirmative confirmed by theferenfons.
Firfr, the kneeiers worihip Chrift in or' by the Elements, as their owne con'feffions declare. When we take theExcharift , weadore the body 9fChrift,pcrfuumJignwnfahh p the Archbifhop ofSpalato. We kneel by (p) De rep0 the Sacrament to the thing fignified , faith the q Biihop of Edinbrugh. etcl.hb. 5. V The Arhbifhop ofSanFt- Andrewes, and / I>. Burgejfe? proreiTe the cap.6.?ium. adoring of Chrift in the Sacramento. D'.Mortoune man- aineth fuch an 1 3$. adoration in the Sacrament, as he calleth relative from the Signeto (<]) Tree m Chnft. And t Pajbody defendcth him herein. But * the rcplierto Penh.aJJem, D*. Mortouns particular defence, inferreth well, that if the adoration part.i*pa£, be relative from the Signe, it rnuft firft be carried to the Signe as a 22. meanes of convoyance vnto Chrift. x Dr. Bourgeffe allowe-h adora- (r) Ser*n, at tion, or Divinevvordiip, fas hecallcthir,) to be given to the Sacra- Perth, af- mem refpectively : and v he alledgcth a place o£ T?beodorcL>> to prove V^wi.
(f) cfth& hwftdl. $f kneel cap. io_.p> 17. (0 *Ap3l.part. v cap^.ftl. 16. [u}Op. 1./&.M* (x) Ofthihwf of kmeL captH.pag,%). [y) ibid cap. 23.
Ggg 3 sto
/4 Of the Idolatry of kneeling P art. 5 3
that fuch an adoration as he there taketh for Divine worfhip , is done to the Sacrament in relacionto Chrift, and that this adoracion performed to the mvftetics as types, is to be pafted over to the Ar- chr.ype, which is the bo iy and" blood of Chrift. Since then, that kneeling, about which our queltion is, by the confeflaon of kneelers ihemfelves, is Divine worfhip given by the ii^nc to the thing figni- fisd, and done to the Sacrament refpe&ivtrly or in relation to Chrift; he that will fay, that it is not Idolatry, m u ft acquit the Pa- pifts of Idolatry alio, in worfhipping before their Images : for thev doe in like manner profe(Te,chat they adore prototypon per imaginem, ad imagincm, or in imagine , and chat thev give no more to the image, ( -] Annot on b«K relative or rdpj&ive worfhip. % The Rbamfts tell us, that they KcW,: 1,21. doe no more but kneel before the creatures, at or by them adoring God. It availeth not here to excogitate fome differences betwixt the Sacramental! Elements and the Popifh Images, for what difference foever be betwixt them, when they are confidered in their owne na- tural! beeing, yet as obje&s of adoration they differ nor, becaufe when they arc confideredw ejfe adorabili , wc fee the fame kinde of adoration is exhibited by Formalists before the Elements, which is by Papifts before their Images. To come nearer the point, Papifts profeffe,that they give to the outward Signes in the Sacrament , no (a) Expof. o^her adoration, then the fame wh'.chFormalifts give to them, a Fran- ertic con- ufa** SanBxClara faith, rhat Divine worfhip doeth not agree to the pjr Ana\t Signes per JV> but onely per accidens^rd he alledgeth for himfelf, that ^rt agt the Councell of Trent Can.6, deEucb. faith not that the Sacrament, but that Chrift in the Sacrament, is to be ado.ed wirh lama. To the {b)De fact, fame pur pofe I oblerve, that b Bellarmine will not take upon him to 'Etich^r Ub. roantaihe any adoration of the Sacrament with latria, holding onely 4.^.29. t':at Chrift in the Eucharift is to be hus adored, and that fymbola ex- terna per fe & proprie non funt adoranda Whereupon he determineth, flatus questions non eft-, nifi an Chrislus in Eucharifiia Jit adorandus cultu la. trice. Now,albeit Papntsunderftand by the outward figne of Chnfts body in the Euchanft, nothing eife but the fpecies oracc;den's of (c) Zancb. the Bread; yetc (incethev a tribu'.e to the fame, quod fub ilhi acciden- itb.i.deviti* ttbus utVocant Jit fubftantialiter corpus Chrisliwun,, cum fua Deitate con- txt. cult. junElum, and (nice d they give adoration or Utria to the fpecies, eppef. col. though not perftj , ye: as quidunum with the body of Chrift which 504. they containe; hereby »t is evident, that they worfhip Idolatroufly
(d)Bell,nbi thole very accidents. And I would underhand, if any of our Oppo- fupra. fires dare fay, that Papifts commit no fuch Idolatry, as here I impute
to them? Or, if they aknowledge this Idolatry of Papift; , how make they hemfelvs cleanc? for we fee, that the worfhip which Pa- pifts give to the fpecies of the Bread, is onely relative to Chrift, and of the fame kvnd with that which Formalift'sgive to the Bread and ■Wine .
Seound-
C hap .4. /» the acl of receiving the Communion. $ 3
Secoundly, religious kneeling before the Bread which is fet before StS. 9. us for a figne to (land in Chrifts ftead , and before which we adore whtlles it is to us actually an e Image reprefenting Chrift -3 is the (e} Cart- vene bowing downc and worfhipping forbidden in the lecound wr, on commandement. The Eaeharift is called by the Fathers , Imago, Si- 1 Cor. 1 1. gnum, Figura, Similitudo, as / Hofiinian inftanceth out of Origent Na- Sett. \S. ^ian^eniAuguslinelHiUrUtsiTirtulliany%Arnbrofe. g The Archbifhop of [() De orig. Armagh hath alio oblerved,that the Fathers expreffely call the Sacra- imag.pag. meat, an Image of Chrifts body : and well might they call it fo, 245. fince the Sacramcntall Elements doe not onely reprefent Chrift to (gj Anf.'to us, but alio ftandin Chrifts ftead, in fucb fort, that by the worthy re- the Iefchall. ceiving of them, we areaffured that we receive Chrift himfelf, and in of the real! eating of this Bread and drinking of this Wine, we eate the flefh pref. p. 74, and drink the blood of Chrift Spiritually and by faith. Neither could theconiecrated Elements make a Sacrament , if they were not fuch Images, (landing in Chrifts ftead. But what needeth any more? bDr. /fargrjfphim.elf calleth the Sacraments the Lords Images. Now (h) of the that a man who adoreth before the painted or graven Image of lauf : of Chrift, though he profeiTe that he intendeth his wholle adoration to kneeling , Chrift, and that he placeththe Image before him onely to reprefent pag.116. Chrift, and to ftirre up.his mind to woifhip Chrift, doth neverthe- leffe commit Idolatry , i ttuft, none of our Oppofites will deny. Nay,/ B. Lindfey teacheth plainly, that it is Idolatry to fet before the (i) Troc. in eyes of our mindes, or bodies, any Imageas a meane or motive of Terth. «/- adoration, even though the worfhip mould be abftra&ed from the femb. part. z Imageand not given unto it. Weil then : will it pleafemm tolet us /ag.92. fee, that kneeling before the a&uall Images of Chrifts body and bloud in the Sacrament, even though thefe Images fhould bee no otherwifeconfidered in the act of adoration, but as active objects, motives, and occafions which ftirre up the mind of the kneeler to worfhip Chrift , ( for this is the beft face which himfelf puts upon kneeling, thoug falfely , as we (hall (e afterward,} is not fo great Idolatry as the other. A 11 the difference which j^hemaketlvs. that (k)ubi fo- no true worfrip can be properly occafioned by an Image , which is a Do&or of *ra^ lyes teaching nothmgof Gcd, but falflwod and vanities : but the bU (fed Sacra- ment biing injtiiuted by Cbrisl, to call to our remembrance his death , <S>c. gives us, fo oft as we receive it, a moftpowerfull and pregnant occafion of tbankfgi- Ymgandpraifu. I Dr. Burgejfe lntermedlmg with ihe iatfie difference- (',) ubi [m« making, will not have the Sacraments, which are Images of Gods pra. makmg and inftituticn , to be compared with Images made by the luftofmen. Two differences thenar j given us. i.lhjt the Sacra- mentall Elements have their inftitution from God , Images not fo. 2. That the Sacrament is an occafton of worihip , an Image not io. The firft difference makes them no helj-; for though the ordi- nance and inftitution of God, makes iheufe of Sacramentall Ima- ges
/6 Vj the Idolatry of kneeling ^-^Part.j,
gesto be no will-worfhip,yet doethit noth any whit availe to fhew, rhac adoration before them is no Idolatry. May I notcommit Ido- latry with Images of Gods inftitution, no lefle then with thofe in- vented by men, when [detcrh paribus) there is no other difference be- twixt them, confideredas objects of adoration, but that of the or- dinance and inftitution which they have ? What if I fall downe at thehearing ofa Sermon, andrchgioufly adore before the Paftor, (m)z Cor.?, as the Vicarius figneof Chrift himielf, who (lands there win Chrifts ' 20. ftead, referring my adoration to Chriltonciy, yet in or by that Am- bafladour who ftands inChrifts ftead? If this my adoration fhould be called fo great Idolatry, as if I fhould ^fall downe before a graven I mage, to worfhip God in or by it, (for it is indeed as great every way,) our kneelers I perceive would permit metoanfwerefor my felf, that my worfhipping of God by the minifter, c->n not be called Idolatrous, by this reafon, (becaufethe worfhipping of God by a graven Image, is fucb, therefore alfo the worfhipping of him by a living Image, is no other, ) fince Images of Gods inftitution muft not bee paralelled with thofe of mens invention. As to the fecound difference, I anfwere, i. Though the B. muttereth here, that no true worfhip can bee occafioned by an Image, yet belike he and hisfel- lowes will not ftand to it, for many of them allow thehiftoricall ufe of Images, and the B. hath not denied this though his Antagonift, / \ -mf objederh it. n D*. Mortoune plainly aliowerh of Images for hiftori- dif cat a ca^ commemoration. And herein he is followed by o Vr.Burgeffe, £k r. z.Whereashe faith, that the blefTed Sacrament is inftituted by Ci-rift o Rejoind. to ca^' to our rememberancc his death, this inferreth not that it is an P zo6» occafionof thankfgtving and praiiein the verie aft of receiving, as we fhall iee afterward. Our queftion is onely about kneeling in the ad of receiving. 3. We confefle, that the Sacrament is an occaflon fp} Cornel °^ Inward worfhip, in the receiving of it. For p in Eucbariftia exerct* a Upide tur fumma Fides^ Spes> Ch/trh<tf, B^ligio, c<eter<eque v'mutes, qu'tbus Deum co* com in Mai ^rm¥^ ' glonficamw. but rue outward adoration of kneeliing downe Ci 1 1 ' uPon °ur knees, can be no more occafioned by the b efTed Sacra-
ment, in the ad of receiving it, then by a graven Image in the ad of beholding ir. The point which the B. had to prove, is, that whereas an Image can no be the occaflon of outwara adoration and knee- ling to God before it, in the ad of looking upon it; the Sacrament may be, and is an occaflon of knee ing, when it is fet before us in the ad of receiving. Tnis neither he, nor any for him, fliallever make good. Stft 10. Thirdly , knee'ing inthead of receiving the Sacrament, before the vicarious fignes which ftand in Chriftes ftead , and are purpo- iely let before us in che ad o adoration, rhat before them we may adore ; wanteth nothing to make up Idolatrous coadoration or rela- tive worfhip. Our Oppofites here tell us of two things neceflary to
t.c
C hap . 4 • In the aft of receiving the Communion. 5 7
the making up of Idolatry, neither of which is found intr eir knee- ling. Firit,ihey fay, except there be an intention in the worfhipper, to adore the cteature which is before his eves , his kneeling; before it is no Idolatry. What {hall Ifay,h\t\\ (q) Pajbody ? What need J fay in this (c\) part. 3* place, but to profeffe and lil^ewife avouch, that we intend ondy to tvorfhip the cap. 3 . feci. Lord our God,when we kneele in the aB of receiving ? we worfhip not the Brand 29. andwine.we intend not our adoring and kneeling unto them. Give us leave to avouch ourfincerity in this matter, and it will takeaway therefpeti of Idolatry hi Godsworfinp. Anfw. I fhewed betore,ihat Paybody defendeth Dr Mor- tone his adoration,which he calleth relative from the Signe to Ch n ft: yet let it be lo, as here he pretendeth , that no adoration is intended / » ^ -o to the Signe; will this fave their kneeling from Idolatry? Nay then, .' , A&j the three Children fhould not have beene Idolaters, if they had? ft °, "* kneeled before Nebuchadnezars image,intending their worfhip to God ^ ' . ' * only, and not tothe Image. Our Oppofireshere, take ihe Nicodemites ,
by the hand. But what (21th [r)Calvine ? Si iftiboni fapientefque Sopbiftw, faSt- °t" ibi turn fuiffent, [implicit atemiHorumtrinm ferVorum Dei irrififfenu. Nam I JL.' fmjufmodt credo eos Verbis objurgajjenu: miferi homines iftudqmdem * non eftf * adorare, quum Vos m rebus nuliam fidtm adhibttis : nulla esl Idololatria nifiubi *>corrrt co\ eft deVotio, hoc eft quadam arimi ad idola colenda venerandafque adjun&io tfilf.m*'~ atque application cVc. It Paybody had beene in Cahines place, hecouid rta JT" ^" nothave called the N/W«»»« Idolaters, forafmuch as they have no r!tH form*~ intention to worfhip the Popifh Images, when they kneel and **?**?* *" worfhip before them. Nay, the grofTeft Idolaters that ever were, mm A (hall by this doclrme be no Idolaters, and (/) Paul fhall be cenfured ^0r\ 1 for teaching that the Gentiles did worfhip Divells, fince they did (y..eu '**' not intend to worfhJp Divells. ldololatr<e nee olimin Paganifmo inten - 10. 20. debanty nechodiein Papatuintendunt, Da?monibusojferre Quid turn? Apofio- (1) Com. in lus contrarium pronuntiat, quicquid illi intendant ? taith (r) Pareus .. ilium locum.
The ether thing which our kneelers require to the makingupof Seft.n. Idolatry, is, that the creature before which we adore, be a patfive object of the adoration ; whereas («) fay they, the Sacramentall Ele- (u) Lindfey ments are no manner of way thepaflive objeSt of our adoration, but the afiive ubi fupm onely of that adoration, which at the Sacrament is given to Chrift, that vs,fuch pa". Si. an Object and Signe as moVes us upon the fight, or by thejignification thereof \ to lift up our hearts 9and adore theonely ObjeB of our faith , the Lord lefts: fuch as the holy Word of God, htsworkes, and benefit es are, ly meditation and confederation whereof, we are moVed andfiirredup to adore' him. Anfw. 1 . That which he afhimeth is falfe, and out of one page of his owne bookeldrawan Argument, which deftroyeth it, thus: If the Sacra- mentall Elements, were onely thea&ive object of their adoration who kneele before them in the receiving, then their reall prefence fhould be but accidentally the kneelers. But the reall prefence of the Elements, in the aft ofreceiving, is not accidentall to the knee- lers. Ergo. The proportion I drawefrom his owne words : We can
H h h mitlhr
5 S Of the IdMtry of kneeling Part. 3 .
(x) Ibid, wither (faith x ha) pray to God, nor thanke him nor praife him,but ever there P*£-9 *« mu^ be,before the eyes of our minds at least, fomething of his IVorkes Word, or Sacraments, if not before our ext email fences. He confefleth it will be enough, chat tiiefe active objects of worfhip, be before the eyes of our mindes, and tha: their reall prefence before our external fences is not neceffary, but accidental, to us whole minds ar bv heir mea- nesftirred up toworfhip. And fo it is indeed. For ejfe fcibile or reme- morativum of an a&ive object of adoration, is that which ihrrerh up the mindeto worfhip, fo that the reall prefence of fuchan object is but accidental! tothe worfhipper. The aifumption I likew.fe draw (y) ibid, out of the Bifhops owne words. For ty)he fairh, that we kneel before the Elem ems, having them in our fight, or object to our fences , as ordinary Signes, meanes, and memorials, to fiim us up, toworfhip,&cc. Now it we ha\ethem in our light, and before our fences, for r±is purpofe,that they may be meanes,fignes, & memoriailsto ftirre us up to worfhin, then (fure) their beeing really before our fences, is no: accidental! (z) Of the lP us w'lcn we knecle- Since PQ Dr- Surgcf[e hath beene fo duil and Urn* of *ott'fr»i as to write that the Signes are but accidentally before the Communis kneell cap cants> when they reaive, he is to be ignominioufly exfibilat,for making 32 paz the ^acrecl Sacramentall Signes to bee nootherwife prefent.rhen the £" f walls of the Church, the naiies and timber of the materiall Table
whereupon the Elements are fet,or any thing eife accidentally before the Com municants. But, 2 . put the cafe they did make the Elements onely active obje&s of worfhip, when they kneel in the ad of recei- ving them: What doe fome Papifts make more of their Images^ (A)Dereb. when they v orfhip before them ? they hold, as (a) the Arch bifhop Zed. lib. 7# ofSpalato n o^eth, that Imago en medium duntaxat feuinftrumentum quo ex- cap. 12.* emplar occurritfuo honor atori, cultori, adoratori : imago excitat tantummodo num.±z, memoriam , ut in exemplar feratur. Will we have them to fpeake for (b) Com. 1. themie: ves? (b) Suan^ will have Imagines effe occafiones VelSigna excitan- dtfp. 54. ' tia hominem ad adorandum prototypa. (c) hnar Pedro de Cabrera a Span- fee?. ^ iarc*> taketh the opinion or Durand and his followers, to be this, That r \ seeLr I nages are adored onely improperly, becaule .hey put men in mind Vfher amf. °^ cI"-e rerfo-rsreprefented by them : and hereafoneth againft them, to the lefii. *h US: V Images were onely to be worf hipped by way of rememoration and re- chall of cordation, hecaufe they make us remember the famplares , which we doe fo Imatts pa? worfhip , as if they had beene then prefent , It would follow that all creatures . £ fhould be adored with the fame adoration, wherewith weworfhipGod:feing all of them doe leadens unto the knowledge and remembrance of God. Wh«c- ie lAIiudeft by ir is evident * thai in th- opinioa ot Durand -3 and t ote who are piblmT*m a of his rru-tde. Images are bit active ob;ccts ot adoration. Laftly, Aurare: alui what faith (d) Bccane :he Iefuite .? Imago autem Chrisiinon esloccajio Idolo* per piZurz.
bftmam ouidfit adsrandum addifcere} faith Durand. Ration, lib. l,tit. depulur, (d) manual, lb 3. cap. 1. qutfl. 5 .
latri*
Chap. 4. Jn the aB of receivmgthe Communion. J9
latrice apudnos Catbolicos , quia non alium oh fincm earn retinemus, quam ut nobtf Chriftum Salvatorem > & beneficia ejus reprcfentet. Mere particu- larly , he will have the Image or Chnit ro be honoured for two rea- fo n s . 1 . Quia honor qui exhibetur Imagini redundat in eum cujus esl Imago. 2. Quit iliudin pretio habcri potest , quod per fe reVocat nobis inmemor'wm beneficia Dri , <S? eft occajio ut fro en accept;* grati exijlamus. *At Imago Chrijli per ferevocat nobis in memoriam beneficium nofirce Redemptions, &c. True tor this reipecr. the Image of Chnil is honoured , he confir- med by this fim'iU. Quiaob eandemcaufam apud nosin pretio ac honorc funt Sacra Bibl'ia, itemquePefia Pafchatts, Pentecoftes lNatrvitatH, & Paflio- nis Clmfii. What higher accoumpt is f:ere made of Images then to be a&iveObjects or Worfhip? for even whiles it is faid , that the Honour done to the Image, refulteih to him whole Image it is, there is no Honour afenbed to the Image, as a Paflive Object : but they who honour an Image for this refpect , and with this meaning, have k onely for an Active Object which reprefents and calls to their minde the firft famplar , as the <e) Archbrfhopofty^/^o alfo(e) u& fi*~ obferveth. Neither tue papifts onely , but fome alfo of the very Pra- Heathen Idolaters, (J) Norunt in Imaginibus nihil DeitatH inejfe , meras / c\ znnch, autem efie rerum abfentium reprwfentaiiones , £rc. And what if neither /;£# x fav[„ Heathens , nor Papilts had been of this Opinion , trnt Images are ^ '€X( cuf^ but Active Obje&s of worfhip? yet I have before, obferved , that oppJ&L * the B.himfelfe aknov ledgeth, it were Idolatry to fet before us an 5IO>* Image , as the Active Ob]e& of our Adoration : though the wor- fhip fhou Id be abstracted from the Image.
Finally, to fhut up this point , it is to be noted, that the ufingof Sefi.iz. the Sacramentall Elements as active objects of Worfhip onely, can not make kneeling before them in the receiving, to be no Ido- latry? for then might we lawfully, & without ldolatry,knecl before every active object , which fhrreth up our mindes to worfhip God. All the workes of God arc fuch active objects , as the B. alfo Tefol- veth in the words before cited. Yet may we not at the fight of eve- ryone of Gods workes , knecle downe and adore, whiles the eyes both of body and minde arefixed upon it, as the mcanes and oc- cafion which ftirreth us up to worfhip God. The B. indeed holdeth we may: onely (g) he faith, t is is not necefTary , becaule when by ( \ l- r the fight of the Creatures of God , we are moved privately to wor- fe' 'I,/" fliip 3 ourexrernall Gefture of Adoration is Arbitrary , and fome-^*^" times noGefture at all is required. But in the ordinary Mimitery , when the workes of God , or his benefits are propounded , or ap- plied publikely , toftifreus up to worfhip in the Atfemblies of the Church, then our Geftureccafeth to beArbitrary: for it mult be fuch as isprefcribed and received in the Curch where we worfhip. •Anf 1. He fhufTeleth the point deceitfully , for when he fpeaks of being moved to worfhip at the fight of any Creature, he means of
H h h z inward
. 6 o Of the Jdoktry of kneeling Pan. 5 .
inward worfliip , as is evident by thefe words >{omctimt no Gefture at fill ps required; but when he fpeakes of being moved to wonhip in ihe Aflemblies of the Church, by the benefites of God propounded pubhkcly, (for example, by the bleffcd Sacrament, ) then he means of outward worfliip, as is evident by his requiring neceiTarily a Ge- fture. Hefhould havefpoken of one kinde of worfliip in both cafe?, namely , of that which is outward, for of no other doe wedifputc. When we arc moved by the Sacrament to adore God in the ad of receiving, this can be no other but that which is inward, and thus we adore God by Faith, Hope, and Love, though neither the heart be praying, nor the body kneeling. That which we deny (where- of him felf'e could not be ignorant,) is , that the Sacramentall Ele- ments may be to us , in the receiving, adive objeds of outward a- coration ? or becaufc they move us to worfliip inwardly, that there, fore we fhould adore outwardly. 2. Whereas he teacheth, that knee- Jing before any Creature , when thereby we arc moved to worfhip privately,islawfull, but kneeling before the Sacramentall Elements, when thereby we are moved to worfhip in the AfTemblies of the Church , is necefTary ; that we may kneel there, but we muft kneel here : he knew; or elfe he made himfelfe ignorant , that both thefe fiiould be denied by us. Why then did he not make them good ? kneeling before thofe active objeds, which ftirre up our hearts to worfhip, if it be necefTary in the Church, it muftfirft be proven lawfull , both in the Church, and out of it. Now , ifa man meeting bis L. riding up the ftreet upon his blake Horfe, have'his heart ftit- rcd up to worfliip God, by fometbing which he feeth either in him- felfe or his Hor (e, fliould fa lido Aiie and kneele before him , or his Korfc, as the adive objed of his worfhip: I marvell, whether the B. would give the man leaveto kneele, and ffcand ftill as the adive ob- ject , before the mans fences? As for us , wee holde , that we may not kneele before every Creature , which ftirrcth upour hearts to worfliip God, kneele I lay, whiles the eyes both of body and minie are fattened upon it as the adive objedl of our Adoration. SeH i ?. Tne f°unn Reafon , whereby I prove the kneeling in queftion ,
to be Idolatry, proceeded thus. Kneeling in the ad of receiving, for reverence to the Sacrament , is Idolatry. But the kneeling in queftion is fuch. Ergo. The PropoHtion is necefTary. For if they ex- hibite Divine Adoration ( fuch as their kneeling isconfefTed to be,) for reverence of the Sacrament , they doe not onely give, but alio intend to give Divine Adoration to the fame. This is ib undenia- fhN ttbi fu- ^-c' r--at ic daft#th (*) B.Lindfey> and makes him give a broad Con- prapae 69 ^^on» ^:at ic 1S Wolatry to k tie tie at the Sacrament, for reverence ' ¥ * to the Elements. The Affumption I prove from thcConfefTion of Formalifts. King Edwards Booke of common Prayer teacheth, that kneeling at the Communion is hijoyncd for this purpofe,that
the
Chap. 4. fn the a% of receiving the Communion. 6 1
the Sacrament might not be prophaned , but held in atevcrent and holy eftimatiop. So doth (i) D'. Mortone tell us , that the reaibn (^pxrtk. wherefore the Church of England hata inftitute kneeling in the act ^y. cap, *# of receiving the Sacrament 5 is, that t'rereby we might teftify oury£#.2o. duceftimation of fuchholy Rites, (k) Paybody makes one of the re- (k) part -i,. fpeds of kneeling, to be the reverent handling and ufing of the Sa- cap. 3. fig, crament. The (l) B. offri«c/;eJ?fr exciaimeth againft fuch as doe not 45. kneel , for not regarding the Table of the Lord , which hath ever (1) serm. m been thought of ail holies the raoft holy, and for denying reverence Luke 1 .74 to the holy Symboles , and prctious memorials of our greateft de-^, 931. livery, even that reverence which is given to Prayer. Where, by the way I obferve , that , when we kneel at Prayer.it is not to give reve- rence to Prayer3but to God whom then moft immediately we adore, fo that kneeling for reverence of the Sacrament, receiveth no com- mendatio from kneeling at Prayer.The act of Perth about kneeling, whenB. Lwk(/*v had poll llhed and refined it as well as he could, or- dained us to kneele at the Sacrament , in due regard of fo Divine a Miftery. And what think we is underftood by this Miftery 5 for reverence whereof we are commanded to kneele ? The (m) B. ex- (m)ubifu- poundeth this Miftery , to be the receiving of the body and blood prapag. 71, of Chrift. But here, he either meanes the fpirituall receiving of the 73 . body and blood of Chrift , or the Sacramentall. If the fpirituall : why did not the Synod ordaine us to kneele in hearing the Gofpell? for therein we receive fpiritualiy the body and blood of Chrift , and that as truly and really as in the Sacrament. Whereupon the (n)Anf. to (»} Archbifhopof^rarfgfc fheweth, that the fpirituall 6V inward fee- thechall. of ding upon the body and blood of Chrift , is to be found out of the the reaN pref. Sacrament, and that divetfe of the Fathers doe appliethe fixth ofpag.jo.ji John, to the hearing of the Word alfo-,as Clemens Alexandr'mm, On- gen, Eufebius Cafarienfis> 5c o t h e rs. (0) Bajilius Magnus like wife t eache t h ( o) Epifl. plainly, that wecate the flefhof Chrift in hib Word and Doctrine. 141. WC<- This I amfure no man dare deny. The B. then muft mean by thisy^^, miftery,the Sacramentall receiving of the body and blood of Chrift. Now, the Sacramentall receiving of the body and blood of Chrift, is the receiving of the Sacramentall Signes of his body and blood. And as the p) Archbifhop ot Armagh alfo obferveth, the lubftance r^\uh;ru„ which is out vvardiy delivered in the Sacrament, is not really the bo- iM+aJ <~, dy and blood of Chrift. Againe q he faith, that the Bread and Wine ,*\ \^ \ !/' are not really the body and bloud of Chrift , but Figuratively and 6l S^cramentally : thus heoppofeih the Sacramentall prefence of the body and blood of Chrift, not onely to bodily, but alfo to Reail prefence : and by juft Analogy Sacramentall receiving cf the body and blood of Chrift , is not oncly to be oppofed to a receiving of his body and blood , into the hands and nsoir.hesof our bodyes , but likewise to the reail receivingof the fame fpiritualiy into out
Hhh 3 fouies.
C i Of the Idolatry of kneeling Parr. $ .
loulcs. Ic remaincth therefore, that kneeling in due regard of the Sacramentall receiving of the body and bloov! ofGhrift , mult be expounded to be kneeling in reverence of the Sacramental! Signes ofChrifts body and blood. And fo Pcrtbs Canon, and the Bifhops Commentary upon ic, fall in with the reft of thofe Formalists ci- ted before, avouching and defending kneeling for reverence to the Sacrament. (\l*& Thofe who fpeake out more plainely then Bifiop Lindfey, doe here
t "s" 0* °^ie<^ to us " tnat reverence is due to the Sacrament , and that wee 1*F r our felves doe reverence it , when we fit uncovered at the receiving ^vene~ of ir. But (r) Didoclavius doth well diftinguiih beiwixt Veneration rtfr! t ^f and Adoration, becaufe in civility we life to be uncovered, even to ejjee tamp- inf"eriors anci equals for the regard which webeare to them, yet doe Tth^l wenot worfhipthem.as weworfhip the King onourknees. * At V^/y*^ then , in civility there isarefpeet and reverence different from A- * ■* u, ' doration, fo it is in Religion alio. Yea (/) BeUarmine him {q[£q d:- ... itinguiihcththe reverence wn;ch is due to holy things from Ado- fW /"-' rat*on* W Pay body , and (u)l>. Bu^ejfc will by no mcanes admit this j ' -**" distinction betwixt Veneration aiid Adoration. But fince neither cram. c$»- ^ t«lcm nnn aj;ecjgecl ^ny reafon againft it, I hope they will be (™t rt' l * washed downe , by the Audority of the (.r) Archbifhop ofSpalato, catx fh and W C*ie ^l^°P o{ Edimbrugh, both of which agree to this diitm- r- 3- J • ftion. So then, we give no Adoration at all to the Sacrament , ( \ nf Ue becaufe neither by any outward nor inward action , doe we per- l If n f forme any worfhipfor the honour of the fame (z)Burgejfe himfelf krtl \ S natn noted tons, that the firft Nicene Councellexhorteth.that men (\*drtb ' ^10u^ not°e humiliter intent i to the things before them. We neither p ', ., *' fubmit our mindes , nor humble our bodies to the Sacrament, yet t 6 ^ ^oe we rcnder to * Veneration, for as much as we elteemeh ^h-
,+ h of it, as a mod holy thins;, and medle reverentlv with it.wirh-
num* I 3 7 • II • i r -r. r -i ' ' ■ r ■ i i
faiL j °llt all contemp: orunwonhy ulage. ]{es projedo mammata fai*hthe ' [b) Archb. ofSpalato, fint facra quantum placet ,alium honorcm a nobn
Cap. 12. i r • r r • lu i •
o non mermtur . tun in en unegativo , as that they be not contemned, num. AS . i i i ji j i: L /♦ • j .l i
. 7 r nor unworthily handled, it it belaid, that we ought not to con-
tr ' * ' i temne the Word , yet hatm it not that refpeel: given to it , whi h the
(r\ b f" Sacrament hath , at which we are uncovered, (orhat th;s veneration
1 " 2iven to the Sacrament, muft be fomew at more then non Propbanatio:
* ^ I a. llwer, as Honour in the PoiiLive lence, loallo m the Negative,
4 \Cartm na!^ va 10uS degrees: and according to the more or lefe lmme-
; . r> ' diarc manifeftation of Divine Ordinances to us , fo ouoht the de- w i Lor. ,- .y . . ., ji.
C£ g grees or our Veneration to be intended or remitted; which is not
VAdetet io to ^e unQ;erftooci > as »f one part of Gods facred worfnip , were to
Ecci lib 7 ^'~ ^e^e contemned then another , (for none of Gods moil Holy
" ' Ordinances, may be in any forte contemned,) but that tor the grea-
\ o n tcr rcoarc^e of thofe things \%hich are more immediately Divine, we
are
Chap. 4- I n the aft of recehingtkc Communion. 6$
are not in the ufage of them , to take to our felves To much Scope and Liberty , as otherwife we may lawfully allow to our felves , in medling with fuch things , as are not merely , but mixedly Divine, - and which arc noc from God fo immediately as the other, but more by the intervention of means. And thus a higher degree of Venera- tion is due to the Sacrament, then to the Word preached, not by ta- king ought from the Word, but by adding more refpe&cothe Sa- crament then the Word hath. The reafon hereof is (c) given to be (c) Dtao- this , becaufe when we come to the Sacrament, nihil hie humanum , chv.ubtfu- fedDiv'ma omnia y for Chrifts owne Words are > or atleaft fhould bePraPai* ipokentous , when we receive the Sacrament , and the Elements 808. alfo are by Chrifts owne Inftiturion, holy Symboles of hisbleiTed body and blood. Whereas the Word preached to us, is but mixedly and mediately Divine , and becaufe of this intervention of the Mi- niftery of men, and mixture of their conceptions with the holy Scri- ptures ofGjd,we are bidden try the Spirits, and are required af- ter the Example of the Bareans to fearch the Scriptures daily , whe- ther thefe things which we heare preached, be fo ot not. Now wee are not in like forte to try the Elements, and the Words of the In- stitution , whether they be of God or not, becaufe this is fure to all , who know out of Scripture the firft Principles of the Oracles of God. The confederation hereof warneth us, that the Sacrament gi- ven according to Chrifts Infhtution , is more merely and imme- diately Divine then is the Word preached. But others ( I heare) objecl, that if a man fhould uncover his Head at the fight of a Graven Image, we would account this to be an adoring of the I mage ; and why then fhall not we call our uncovering at the Sacra- ment Adoration alfo ? Anf. Though Veneration and Adoration be diftinguifhed in holy things , to fhew that Adoration given to them is Idolatry , but Veneration given to them is not Idolatry, yet in prophane things , fuch as Images are , Veneration given to them is Idolatry , as well as Adoration: and we are Idolaters for doing fo much , as to refpecl: and reverence them , as things facred or holy. For as I touched before , and as (d) fynchius evidenceth by (<\) Lib.j . fundry inftances, Idolatry is committed, when more eftimation is je <viti. ext. had of any thmg , more dignity and excellency placed in it , and cv\t. eppof. more regard had to it , then God alloweth, or then can ftand with col 504. Gods revealed will. For a thing thus regarded, though it be not ex- <oj. aked, ut D ens jimpliciter , yet it is fet up, tanquamDeus ex parte.
"Nowfifdy, if the kneehnginqueftion be not Ido atroufly refer- §t$t ^e, red ro the Sacrament, I demand, whereuntois it fpecially intended ? we have heard the confeflao a oh fome of our Oppofites , (and thofe nor of the {mailed note, ) avouching kneeling for reverence of the Sacrament. Neither can the Miftery fpokeo of in the Act of Perth (in due regard whereof, we are ordained to kneel,} beany other nor
the
6 4 Of the Idolatry of kneeling part. £
the Sacrament. YctbecaufeB. Lindfey, andtomeof his kynd, who dcfire to hide the foule fhape of their Idolatry , with the trimmeft fairdingthey can; will not take with kneeling in reverence of the Sacrament : let them fhevv us , which is the object , which rhey doe fpecialiy adore, when they kneelein the receiving of the fame, for this their kneeling at this time, arifeth from another refpeft, then that which they cofider in other parts of Gods worfhip, ettwo of our (ej Serm.nt Prelats tell it out? The (e) Archbifhop of to&^mm would teach ?mh Af- us out of Mw/zwe, that we ought to adore th* fleih of Iefus Chrift in femb. the Eucharift. The(/) B. otEdinbrughzKo, will have ustoworfhip
(f)kbifupra the flefh and bloud of Chrift in the sacrament, becaufe the huma- t*&* x42« nity of Chrift is there prefent, beeing ever and every where joyncd with the Divinity. But a twofold Idolatry may be here deprehen- ded. i. In that they worfhip the flefh and b:oud of Chrift. z. In that they worfhip the lame in the Sacrament. As touching the firft, albeit we may and fhould adore themanChiift withDivine worfhip, yet we may not adore his manhood, or his flefh and bloud. I. Be- caufe though the man Chrift be God , yet his manhood is not God, and by confequence can not be honoured W;th Divine worfhip.
2. If adorability agree to the humanity of Chrift, then may his hu- manity help and fave us : Idolaters are mocket by the fpirtt of God, for worfhipping things which can not helpe nor lave them. But the humanity of Chrift, can not fave us nor helpe us, becaufe ommaEiio cftfuppofiti: whereas the humane nature of Chrift is not fuppffitum.
3. Noneofthofe who defend the adoring of thehumanity or Chrift with Divine worfhip. doe well and warrantab'.y exprefle their opi-
{v)Aqu'm, nion. Firft, forne of the (g) Schoolmen have found no other refped,
3.9. 2 J. wherefore the manhood or Chrift can befaid to be adored, except
art. 2. this, that the flefh of Chrift is adored by him who adores the word
incarnate, even as the Kings cloaths are adored by him who adores
the Kin a. And thus they make the flefti of Chrift to be adored one y
(h) Be rep. per accidens. Ego v ero, fiith "he (h) Axchbithop o£Spdlato9non puto a quo*
lEcdhb.7. quamregtsvcflimentaquibMeftinduM.adorAri. And I pray , why doth
1. 1 1,0.45. he that worfhippes the King, worfhip his clothes, more then any
other thing which is about him, or befide him, perhaps a Haukeupon
his hand, oralitle dogge upon his knee ? There is no more but the
Kings ovvne perfon, fe: by the worfhipperto have any flats in the
(')) Franc, a worfhip,and therefore no more worfhippsd by him . (i) Others devife
S.cUraex- another refpcc~t wher -fore the manhood of Chrift may befaid to be
fof artic. worfhippc 1 , namely, that as Divine worfhip agrees one'y to the
ccr.fiff. Godhead^, and not perfom Divinis pracifefumptr). 2. e. fuh ratione formali
A*gl. art. co'riftitutiva perfonxrum qu<€ eft relatio: but oneiy as thele relations iden*
2,8. tificantur with the eftenceot the Godhead : fo the manhood of Chrift
is to be adored nonper ftpracife, fed pro utfuppofitatur a Deo. I Anfvere,
if by fuppofitatur thty meane,(asthey mult meanejthai the manhood
is a flu-
Chap. 4* In the att of receiving the Communion. 6j
is affumed into the unity of the perfon of the Sonne of God, (for o:herwtfe if they meane, that the manhood is made a perlon, they are Neftorians ,) that which they lay , can not warrant the worfhip- pmgof the manhood with Divine worfhip: becaufe the manhood even after this aflumption and hypoftaticall union, & being con- sidered by us asnowaiTumedintotnis perfonall union , is (till for ail that, a creature 6c a diftindt nature from the Godhead, (excep: we vviil be Eutychians; ) Co that it cannot yet be fatd to be worilvp- ped with Divine worfhip. (k)Dr- Field Uyeth out a third way. For(k) Of the whiles he admitteh the phraie of the Lutherans , who fay nor only Church lib. concretively, that the man Chrift isomniprefent.butthe humanity y. cap. 15. alfo; he forgeth a ftrangediftin&ion. Whenwe fpeake, faith he , of the humanity of Christ , fometimes we underjiandonly that humane created ejfenceof a man that was in him; fometimes all thzt > that js implied in the bee'mg of a man , as well fubjislence as effence. By the lame diftm&ion would Field defend the attributing ot the other Divine properties (andadorability among the reft) to the humane nature. But this diftin&ion is no better , then if a man fhould fay : by blacknefTe fometimes we underftand blackneffe, and fometimes whyteneiTe. Whoever confounded abftraftum and Concretum , before that in Fields field they were made to ftand for one ? It is the Tenet of the Schooie , that though in GodConcretum and abHraHum differ not, becaufe Demand De#<#arethe lame, yet in creatures (where- of the manhood of Chrift , is one, J they are realy differenced. For (I) Concretum fignifieth aliqttid completum fubfitlens , and abslra- (I) Aquin. Bum (Inch as humanity J (igmrieth iomething , nonut fabfijiens, fed 1. q 13. ut quo aliquid eft, as whiteneffe doth not fignify that thing which is art. 1. white, biat that whereby it is white. How comes it then, that Field makes humanitv in the abftracl: to have a fubfiftence. (m) sAntonim (m) Cent. Sadeel cenfures Turrianus , for faying that albedo cumpariete ,* idem esJ Flofc. Tur. at que paries albus: his realon is, becaufe albedadichur effe, noncumpa- difput. riete , fedin pariete. An abftrad is no more an abftrad, if" it have a Flofc. 16. fubfiftence.
There is yet a fourth fence remaining, which iSsAuguflines, and iheirs who fpeakewith him. His fentence which our Oppolitescite for them, is, that it is (Inne not to adore the flefh of Chrift : how- beit very erroneouily he groundeth that which he faith upon thole words of the Pfalme , worjhipat his footjloole, taking this foot ftoole to be the fiefh of Chrift: Vet that his meaning was better then his ex pre ffi on, 5c that he meant not that adoration fhould be given to the flefh. of Chrift, but tc the Godhead,whorefootftoolethe flefh is; it isplainefrom tbofe words which B/^geJ?^w)himfelfciteth out fn) Of the of him. To wbatfoe^er earth i.e. flefliof Chriji , thou howesl and pro- lawf vf flratesl thy fdf \ lookjnotonit as earth, i.e as flefh , hut looke at that kneel, cap. holy one whofe footftoole it is that thou does! adore , i. e . looly to the God- 13 p . 8 $.
Iii head
66 Of the Idolatry of kneeling Part.$ #
head of ChriH , whofeflefc thou doe ft adore in the ynifteries, Wh erefore if
we would give any found fence co their words , who fay that -the
\o) Synt. flefh of Chnll is to be adored, we rauft note with (o)A.?olanm,thar„
l.6.c. 16. cum dichur camera ChrifH adorari : non efi propria, fed figurata enuncid-
col. 1 15. tio ; quia non adoratur proprie caro fecimdum ft , quia creatura eft , fed
Dens in came mdnifeftam , fen Dew came yesiim. But two tilings I
will here adverriie my Reader of.
1. That though this forme of ipeaking,which fairh that the flefh
ot Chrift is to be adored, being thus eMpcuded,receiveth a found
fence, yet the expreflion is very bad? and violence is done to the
phrafe,when fuch a meaning is drawne out of it. For how can we
by the flefh of Chrift underftand his Godhead ? the communion
of properties,admittech us to put the man Chrift for God, but not
(p) Eccl. his manhood. A nd {p) Hookjr teacheth rightly tthat by force of union,
pol. lib. 5. the properties of both natures [and by confequence,adorabihty, which
f 5)-. is a propertie of the Divine nature, ) are imputed to the perfon only , in
whom they are , and not what belongeth to the one nature , really conveyed or
tranfiated into the other.
2 .Yet our Kneelers who fay they adore the flefh of Chrift in the Sacrament, have no fuch Orthodox ( though forced) meaning, (q) Vbifu- whereby to expound themfeives. For (q) B. Lindfey will have us in prat ' receiving the Sacrament, to bowour knees & adore thehumanity of Chrift , byreafonofthe perfonall union that it hath with the Godhead. Ergo, he meanes that we fhould, & may adore with Di- vineworfhip , that which is perfonally united with the Godhead. And what is that? not the Godhead lure: but the created nature of the manhood: (which not being God, but a creature only, can not without Idolatry be worfhipped with Divine worfhip.) I con- clude therefore, that by the flefh of Chrift , which he will have to be adored in the Sacrament, he underftands not the Godhead , as Auguftiru dothS! but that created nature which is united with the Godhead. Seel. ^ut 2- 2S we have feene what is to be thought of worfhipping
XVI . tne ^em °f Chrift , fo let us next confider , what may be thought of worfhipping his flefh. in the Sacrament; for this was the other head which I propofed. Now , they who worfhip the flefh of Chrift in the Sacrament, muft either confider it , as prefent in the Sacramentj&in that refpect to be there adored, becaufe of the per- fonall union of it withtheWord,or elfe becaufe of the Sacramen- tall union of it with the outward Signe, which is a refpeel fuper- venient to that of the ubiquity of it in the perfon of the Word. Firft then,touchingthe former ofthofe refpeds,the perfonal union c£the Jlefh with the word, can neither inferre theprefence of tie
ilefb
Ghap. 4. fn the dfl ofreceivmgthe Communion. 67
flefh in the Sacrament, to thofe who worthily receive-,nor yet can it make any thing for the adoration ofthe flcfh. Not the former ; f or in refpeel of the ubiquity of the flcfh in the perfonof the word, it is ever and alike prcfent with the Communicants , whether they re- ceive worthily? or not , & with the Bread & Wine , whether they be confeerated to be fignes of his body and bloud or no:. There- fore Divines rightly hold [r)prefentiam corporis Cbrijli in ccena, non ab (?) %*n*h* uiquhate.fed averbu Chrisii pendere. Not the latter neither; for (as I torn, b'. havefhewed already) notwithstanding of the perfonallunion, yet co^« 5iI# the flem of Chrift remaineth a creature, and is not God, and fo can not at all bee worfhipped with Divine worfhip. And if his flefh *Weadon could be at all fo worshipped, * yet were there no reafon for wor- |J? M fhipping it in the Sacrament3 (in refpeel of its perfonall union with ^ulta the Word, ) more then in all other actions, and at all other times. the. Prea~ For ever and alwayes, is the flefh of Chrift perfonally united with cb.mS°J the Word, & in that refpeel prcfent tons. There remaineth there- Jj$P m fore nothing but that other refpeel ofthe Sacrametall union ofthe an a*ram flefh of Chrift with the Sacramentali Signe , which they can have J^J-jL forworfhipping his flefh in the Sacrament. Whereas (s)B. Lindfey t_J, ' faith, that his no errour, tobeleev e the fpirituall powerfully perfonall pre- cacramm fence of Chrifts body at the Sacrament y and in that refpeEl to worfatp bis tuecuPm flefh <$ bloud there. He meanes(fure) fome f peciall refpeel, for which °J faitl{" it may be faid,that Chrifts body is prefent at the Sacrament, ( fo as *q'_ it is not prefent out of the Sacrament,) and in that refpeel to be wrj2hton there adored. Now Chrifts body is fpirituaily and powerfully pre- J? fent to us in the Word(as I fhewed before,) yea as often as looking J'g g' ' by faith upon his body broken , and bloud fhed for us, we rece ive J\ '£ ^ the fence & affurance ofthe remiflion of our finnes through his jV J merites: and as for this perfonall prefence of Chrifts body, which* he fpeaketh of, I havefhewed alio, that the adoring of the flefh of Chrift in the Sacramet,can not be inferred upon ii; Wherefore he can tell us nothing, which may be thought to inferre the prefence of Chrifts flelh in the Sacrament, and the adoration of it in that re- ipe& , fave onely the Sacramentali union of it with the outwarde Signe. Now adoration in this refpeel: 5c for this reafon, muft fup- pofe the bodily prefence ofChrifts flefhin theSacrament. Whereu- pon/>) the Archb. ofSpalato faith, that the Papifts adore the body (^ Derep> of Chrift in the Sacrament, only becaufeof the fuppofition ofthe fXci iib.j, bodiiy prefence of it; and if they knew^thatthe true body of Cap. n, Chrift is not under the fpecies of theBread and Wine, they would num. 7. exhibite no adoration. And (u) elfewhereheefheweth, that the (w) Oslenf. miftery ofthe Eucharift can not make the manhood of Chrift to error. Fr. be adored , quia in pane corporalis Chrifli prefemia non eft : implying, Suarez. that if the fklh of Chrift be adored in refpeel ofthe miftery ofthe cap.i.n.
Iii z Eucha- 13,
lib
60 Uf the Idolatry of kneeling Part. 5 .
Eucharift , thenmuft it be bodily prefent in the Signe , whicn is faife; and hereupon hee githercth truly, that it can not bte ado- red in refpeft of the rniftery of the Eucharift. 'x\ Stttira Furtner, it is to be remembered ( which I have alfo before (x) li J noted out of Dr.Vfher) that the Sacramental! prefence of ihe bo- dy of Chrift, or that prefence of it which is inferred upon the Sa- cramental! union which is betwixt it and ihe outward Signc , is not the reall or fpirituall prefence of it, (for in this mancr , it is prefent to us out of the Sacrament . even as oft as by faith we apprehend it and the vertue thereof, ) but it is figuratively only (0 cailed , tie fence beeing this, that the body of Chrift ispreient and given to us in the Sacramet,meaning by his body the Signeof his body. Thefe things being (o , whofoeverworfhippeth Chnfts body in the Eu- charift,& that in reipeel: of 1 he Sacramentall prefence of it in the fame, can not choofe but hold that Chnfts body is bodily and re- t )f h a^yiinc^cr thefpecies of the bread, and fo fall into the Idolatry of {yjZgncij. bread- worfhip; or elfe (y) our Divines have not rightly convinced . •. 1 ' e the Papifts, as Idolatrous worifhppers of the bread in the Eucha- ^n}' e* ', rift,for as much as they attribute to it, that which it is not, nor hath cut. oppoj. not^ to wit , that under the accidents thereof is contained (ubftan- Co ' f?** tially the true & living body of Chrift, joyned and united to his A Ji Godhead. What can B. Lindfey now anfwer for himfelfe, except he T)nt> e n-r fay with (s)oneof his bretheren 3 that we fhould adore the flefh of om. oje\. £kn£ -n t^e Sacrament, becaufe Corporals prafentia Chrifti , fidnon S ar c mo^° corporali,comitatur Sacramentum Eucharift*: AndChnftis there 2 n j\ ' ^Q^^corPor^tertmo^fpiritwilu But this man contradicts himfelf ' miferably, For we had him a little before, ackowledging that in pa- ne,Corporalts Chrift pre fentia non eft. How fhall we then reconcile him with himfelf? he would fay that Chrift is not bod ily prefent in the Sacrament after a bodily manner , but he is bodily prefent after a fpiriruall manner. Why fhould I blot paper withfuch a vanity, whichimplyetha contradi&ion , bodiiy and not bodily, fpiritually and not fpiritually ? Seel. 17. The (ixt and iaft Argument, whereby Iprove the kneeling inque- ftion to be Ido]atry>is take from the nature & kind of the worfhip wherein it is uied. For the receiving of the Sacrament being a me- diate worfhip of God, wherein the Elements come between God & us, in fuch fortjthat they belong to the fubftance of the worfhip, (for without the Elements, the Sacrament is not a Sacrament,) and withail are fufceptiveof coadoration,for as much as in the adt of receiving>both our mindcs.and our extcrnall fences, are and fhould be faftened upon them:hereby we evince the Idolatry ofkneeiing in the receiving, For in every mediate worfhip, wherein lome crea» ture is purpofely let bctwceneGod & us to have ftate in the fame,it
is
Ghap. 4* Jn the aft of receiving the Communion. 6 o
isldolatry to kneel before fuch aereature,whiles both our minc'sSe {a)Burg.of fences arefaftened upo it. OurOppofites have raked many things thelawf. together, to infringe this Argument. Firft (a) ihey alledgc the bovw ofknid. ingof Gods people before the ark,:heTemp!e,theholy Mountain, cap- 32«f« the Altar, the Bum., the Cloud, the Fire which camefrom heaven. l * ?• Pay- Anfttf. 1. Where they have read that the people bowed before the ^fy Part* Altar of God, I kno we not. {b)B.L'mdfey indeed would prove from 3- c4P' S> 1. Chron,6. 12. 13. andMtc. 6. 6. that the people bowed before the $*& f; Altar and the Offering. But the firft of thofe places , fpeakes no- [b)Vhi /«- thing of kneeling before the Altar, but only of kneeling before the Pra<P<94» * Congregation, that is, in fight of theCongregation«And it' Solomon had then kneeled before the Altar, yet the Altar had beene but occafionally and accidentally before him in his adoration , for to what end & ufe could he have purpofely fet the Altar before him, whiles he was kneeling and praying? The place ofMioz^can not prove, that Gods people did kneel before tbe offerings at all, (for it ipeakes only of bowing before God,) farrelefTe, that they kneeled' before them in the very ad of offering, and that with their minds and fences fixed upon them, as we kneej in the very ad of receiving the Sacrament , and at that inftant when our minds and fences- are fattened upon the fignes,that we maydifcerne the things figni- fied by them , for the exercifing of our hearts in a than kfull medita- tion upon the Lords death. 2. As for the other examples here ailed- ged,God was immediatly prefent,in and-with the Arke> the Tem- ple, the holy Mounraine , the Bufh,the Cloud,andthe Fire which came from Heaven, fpeaking and manifefting himfclf to his peo- ple by his owne immediate voice , and miraculous extraordinary prcfence:So that worfhipping before thefe things had the fame rea- fon which makes (c) the 24 Elders in Heaven worfhip before the Throne.Forin thefe things, God did immediatly manifeft his pre- W Apoe. fence, as well as in heaven. Though there be a difference inthede- 4"/*» grees ofthe immediate manifeftation of his prefence •'in Earth,and in Heaven, y et magts & minus non variant fpeciem. Now Godispre- fent in the Sacrament , not extraordinarily , but in the way of an ordinary djfpenfation, not immediatly but medially. They muft- therefore alledge fome commendable examples of fuch a kneeling as we difpute about, in a mediate and ordinary worfhip , elie they fay nothing to the point.
Yet to no better purpofe^j they tell us, thar when God fpake, Seel. i$\ Abraham fell on his face. And when the fire came downe at Elijas dB.Lindf. prayer, the people fell on their faces. What is this to the purpole? ubifufra^ Andhow (hall kneeling in amediatand ordinary worfhip, be war- pag*7<>. ranted by kneeling in the hearing of Gods owne immediate voice, or in feting the miraculous fignes of his extraordinary prefence I'- ll i £ How-
jo Of the fdolatrj of kneeling Parr. $.;
Howbeit itcan not be proved, neither,that the people fell on their faces in the very a£t of (eeing the fire fall/ when their eyes and their mindes were fattened upon it,)butthat after they had. feene the mi- racle wrought, they fo confidered of it , as to-full downe and wor- ffiip God. , * T,. , But further, it is objected, (e) that a poenitentiary kneels to Godpur-
I ' " pofely It fore the Congregation , and with a refpebl to the Congregation, &c . P £- >*• wkm we come to our commcnTables before we eate, either fitting with our heads difcoVered , or Handing, or kneeling, we give thanks and bleffe, with a refpecl to the meate , which ps purpofely fet on Table , <STc, The Paftor when he Begins the holy aEtion, hath the bread and the cup ft be - fore him, purpofely , upon the Table , and with refpeH to them , hee gives thankes , &e
Anfw. Though a poenitentiary kneeletoGod purpofely in the prefence and fight of the congregation, thathe may make knowne to them his repentance for the finne whereby he hath fcandalizcd them; yet istheconfefling of his finne to God kneeling there upon his knees, a immediate worfhip , neither doth the Congregation come betwixt him and God, as belonging to thefubftanceof this worfhip, for he kneeleth to God, as well3and maketh confeilion of his finne, when the Congregation is not before him. But I fuppofe ourkneelersthemfelves will confefle, that the Elements come fo betwixt God and them , when they kneele,that they belong to the eflenceofthe worfhip in hand,and that they would not, nor could not worfhip the flefh and bloud of Chrift in the Sacrament 3 if the Elements were not before them.
To be fhort,the cafe of a poenitentiary ftandeth thus, that n ot in his kneelingjfjM^/fc/w^butin his kneeling pubhkely and in fight of the Congregation, he fetteth them beforehim , purpofely, and with a refpecl: to them: Whereas our kneelers doe kneele in fuch fort, that their kr\ec\ingjimpliatery and without an adje£tion orad- jun&.hath a refpecl; to theElements purpofely fet before them, nei- ther would they at all kneele, for that end and purpofc for which (/) Vbi Jtf-they doe kneele, namely, (f ) for worfhipping the rlefh and bloud pra,fett. of Chrift in the Sacrament , except theElements were before the 15. cyes both of their mindes and bodies ; as the poenitentiary doth
kneele, for making confeflion of his finne to God, when the Con- gregation is not before him.
And if one would fay , that in kneeling at the Sacrament he wor- fhippeth not the flefh and bloud of Chrift > but the Lord his God on!y,yet is the famedifTerence to be put betwixt his kneeling be- fore the Elements, & the kneeling of a poenitentiary before theCo- gregation: For the very kneeling it felfffim ply confidered} before theElements, refpeð them as then purpofely fet in our fight,that we may kneele before the;whereas in the cafe of the poenitentiary,
it is
Chap* - 4* fn tfo'dtl of mewing the (}mmmion. "ft
iris not his kneeling to confefle his finne to God, which hath are - fpect to .he Congregation as fee in his fight for that purpofe ; Cut fomecirumitances of his kneeling only ,to \vujVbm":At that time when the Congregation is aflembled. And where} Pubhktly in fight; of the Congregation. In regard of thefecircumflances.he ha'hthe Congregation purpofely in his light, <k fo rcfpcð them-, But in regard of the kneeling itfelffimply,the pretence of the Congrega- tion is but accidental! to him who kneeleih, &confefiTethhis finne before God. As touching giving thankes before the meate feton our common Tables3:hough a man (hould doe it kneeling, yet this fpeaketh not home to the point now in controverfy3excepta man fokneele before his meat, that he have a religious refpeft to it, as a thing feparated from a common ufe and made holy , and likewife have both his minde & his externall fences of feeing, touching, Sc tailing fattened upon it in the ad of his kneeling. And if a man. (hould thus kneele before his meate, he were an Idolater.
Lattly.giving thankes before the Elements of Bread & Wine , in the beginning of the holy a&ion, isasfarre from the purpofe: For this giving of thanks, is an immediate worfhip of God , wherein we have our minds & fences not upon the Bread & Wine, as upon things which haveaftatein that worfhip pe of the Lords Supper*. & belongto thefubftanceof thefame , (for the very confecration of them to this ufe, isbutthen in fieri,) but we worfhip God imme- diately by prayer and giving of thankes: Which is all otherwife in the ad of receiving.
Moreover [g) it is objected out of LeV/V. 9. 24. iXhron.7, 3. Seel:. Mie* 6.6. 1 Chron.19.1S. 29.30. that all the people fell on their fa-. XIX. ces, before the legall Sacnfices,when the fire confumed the burnt- (gj Paybody offering, pan. }.
Whereuntoitmay be anfwered, that the fire which came from cap. 3. God, and confumed the burnt offerings,wasoneofthe miraculous Sect. 4. Signes of Gods extraordinary and immediate prefence, (as I have faid beforehand therefore kneeling before the fame, hath nothing to dv ? with the prefent purpofe.
But if we will particularly confider all thefe places , we finde in the firft two, that befide the fire, the glory of the Lord did alio ap- peare in a more miraculous 6c extraordinary maner, Lev if. 9.2 3. The glory of the Lord appeared to all the people, % Chron. 7.1. 12. 'the glory of the Lord filled the houfe. They are therefore running at ran- dome,whotakeholdof thofe places, to draw out ofthem thelaw- fulneiTe of kneeling in a mediate and ordinary worfhip. The place olMkab I have anfwered before: A nd here I adde, that though it could be proved from that place, (as itcannot,)that the people both bowed before the offerings , & that in the very ad of offering, yet how ftuliit-be-praved^hat in the a& of their kneeling? •
they
7i Of the Jdolatrj of kneeling Part. $.
they had the offerings purpofely before them, and their minds Sc fences fixed upon ihcm, in the very inftant of their worfhipping.
This I make clearer by the laft place , 2. Chron. 29. out of which no more can be drawne , but that the people worfhipped , whiles the Priefts were yet offenngthe burnt-offering. Now the burnt- offering was but accidentally before the people in their worfhip- ping, and only becauie it was offered at the fame time when the long of the Lord was foung. Verf. 27. Such was the foreward- neffe of zeale in reftoring Religion,& in purging the Temple, that it admitted no ftay , but eagerly profecuted the worke, till it was perfected , therefore the thing was done fuddenly, Verf. 36 Since then the Song and the Sacrifice were performed at the fame time, we mud note that the people worfhipped at that time , not becaufe of the Sacrifice which was a mediate worfhip , but becaufe of the Song of the Lord, which was an irnmediat worfhip. Now we all commend kneeling in an irnmediat worfhip. But this cannot con- tent our Oppofites , they will needs have itlawfull to kneel in the hearing of the Word, purpofely and with a refpect to the Word (b) Paybo* preached, (though this be a mediat worfhip only. (fc)Their warrants dyibid. are taken out of Exo d 4.30.31. Exod. 12.27. 1 Cbron. 20.1 8. Mattb. $eft. 5. 17.6. From the firft three places no more can be inferred, but that thefe hearers bowed their heads & worfhipped, after that they had heard the Word of the Lord; Neither fhall they ever warrant bowing and worfhipping in the act of hearing.
In the fourth place we reade",that the Difci pies fell on their faces when they heard Gods owne immediate voice out of theCloud : What makeththis for falling downeto worfhip at the hearing of the Word preached by men ? How long fhall our OppoCtes not diftinguifh betwixt mediate and immediate worfhip ? {i)ldpm. Laftly,(i) itisalledged, that God in his Word allowes not only 2 cap. 1. kneeling at Prayer > but alfo at Circumcifion,PafTeover, &c Bap- Setl. 7. tifme.The reafon of this a(Teition,is given to be this,thatabodiiy gefture being necefTary,God not determining man upon anyone, leaves him at plaine liberty.-^w/Wheiher we be left at plaine liberty in all things which being in the generall necefTary,& are not parti- cularly determined in Gods Word;it fhall betreated ofelfe-where in this Difpute. In the meane tinie,vvhatfoever liberty God leaves man in bodily geftures, he leaves him no liberty of an unlawfull and Idolatrous gefture,fuch as kneeling in the inftant of receiving a S3crament>when not only we have the outward Signe purpofely before us, & our mindes and fences faflened upon it,for difcerning the fignification thereof, & the Analogie betwixt it and the thing fignified;but a'fo Iookeuponit asan Image ofChrift.crasa vica- rious figne flanding there inChriits flead.The Indifferency of fuch a gefture, in fuch a mediate worfhip , (houid have beene proved, « before,
I
Chap 4- J« tkc a& °f receivtng *** Communion 73
before fuch a rule (as this here given us forareafon, ) -had been
But the kneelers would yet make more adoe to us , and be dill Sect. 10.. ftirringif they can doe no more. Wherefore [ fcj one of our Doc- \Dr.For~ tours ob e^tul^that we lift up our eyes and oui hands to heaven, and hejfe Ircu. worfhip God, yet doe net worth, p the heaven : that a man going }tb. 1. to bed, prayeth before his bed : that David offered th? Sacrifices caf.i* ofthankfgwirg, in the prefence of all the people, Pfal. 116. that prfw/ having taken bread gave thankes , before all ihem w ho were intheflvp^/Jtf. Z7. 3?. t'huth'j liraelits worshipped before Mofes and Aaron , Exod^.^1. . Hereupon! /] another Dr. harping on / fcj. Hag. ihe fame ftiing , tells us , t-hat when we kneel in the adt of receiving ftpl. am •the Sacrament , We kneel no more to bread, then to the pulpit >when guinft ye joyne our payers with the minificrs. Ch , unworthy inltances, ^Brotrn and reproachful! to Dortours! All theie things were and are acciden- Se8. 36. tally prefent to the worf hippers,and not purpofely before them, nor refpected ashauing a religious ftate in tj&e worf hip. What? doe we worfhip before the bread iu the Sacrament , even as before a Pulpit^a bed}&c ?Nay,graduate men f hould understand better what they fpeake off.
Anoher objection isjm] that a man v%ho is admitted to the office m jy^orl, of aPaitor,andreceivethia poiition of hands , kneeleth ftiil on his UH fuvra^ knees,tili the ordination be ended,the reft about him being ftanding or fitting.
Anfiv. Kneeling in receiving impofition ofhands,\vhich is joyned with prayer and invocation , hath nothing adoe with kneeling in a mediate worf hip, for in this cafe a man kneels,becaufe of the imme-v diate wori hip of invocation : But when there is no prayer , 1 fuppofe no man will kneel religioufly , and with a religious refpedt to thofe perfons or things which are before him , as there purpofely in his light, that before them he may adore,' which is the kind or kneeling now in Queftion,) or if any did fo,there were more need to give him inftrudtion then ordination.
It is further told us, that [«] he whoisbaptifed,or he who offers him n D.F<?r£. that is to be bajptifed , kumbleth himfelf and prayeth that the bap- fc^ tifme may be laving uuto life eternall , yet worf hippeth not the ba~ fen,nor the water. But how long f hail fimple ones love fimplici- ty, or rather, fcorners hate knowledge ? Why is kneeling in the im- mediate worfhip of prayer , wherein our minds doe purpofely ref- 0 TfaLl^. pect no Earthly thing, ( but tire [0] foule, [p] the heart , the hands, l- [q] the eyes, \r) the voice,all directed imsuediatly to Heauen, ) pa- p Lament* ralelled with kneeling in the mediate worfhip of receiving the Sa~ 3 41. crament,wherein we refped purpofely the outward figne , which is Pfal- 123 - then in our fight, that both our mindes and our externall fences may 1 • be fattened upon it ; Qur mindes by meditation > and attentive r Pfal, 5. }
K k k con-
y± Of the Idolatry of kneeling Part.$.
confide ration of that which is fignified , and of the representation thereof by the (igne : Our fences by feeing, handling, breaking, ta- tting, eating,drinking ? Sccl.ll* thus we fee that in all thefe examples aliedged byourOppo- fites, there is nothing to prove the lawfullnt fTe of kneeling , in fuch a mediate wori hip , wherein fomething belonging to the fubftance of the worfhip comes between God and us , and is not accidentally but p urpofely before us, upon which alfo our minds and fences inthe action of worf hip are fait fixed ♦ Howbeit there is another refpect, wherefore none of thefe examples can make ought for kneeling in the act of receiviug the Sacrament, (which I haue f hewed before,) namely, that in the initant of receiving the Sacrament, the Elements are actually Images ard vicarious Signesftanding in Chriftsftead* But belike onr kneelers have not fatished themfelves with the rouing rable of thefe impertinent allegations, which they have produced to prove the lawfullneffe of kneeling in a mediate worfhip, they have prepared another refuge for themfelves , which had been needleffe, if they had not feared , that the former ground fhould faile them.
What then will they fay next to us ? Forfooth , that when they kneel in the act of receiving they are praying and praifing, and fo worfhippin g God i mmediately. And if we would know, what a man s DrTdrb. doth then pray for, it is told us,[j] that he is praying and earnestly fihifup'ra. crying Co God vt eum faciat dignum convivam. To us it feemes very ftrange how a man wlien he is actually a banqueter,and at the inftantofhiscommnnicating,canbemadein:any other fort a ban- <jucter,then he is, for quicquid eft,dum efinon Poteft n«n efle. Where- fore it a man in the initant of his receiving , be an vnworrhy ban- queter, he can not^atthat inftant , be made any ether then he is. Scci. 22. The truth is, we can not lawfully be either -praying or praifing in the very act of receiving, becaufe our hearts and mindes fhould .then be exercifed in meditating vponChrifts death, and theinaeltima- ble'benefites which comes to us thereby. i.Gor. II. 24. Doe this in remembrance of me.
This remembrance is defcribed verf. 26". Yedoefhetv the Lords r,L\ith. . Now one of the fpeciall wayes , whereby we remember Chrilt and fo doe fhew forth his death,is by private meditation vpon t Com. /« - liis death , as{>j Pdw/rrefolveth.
i" Cvr.n . This mediation is a fpeech of the foule to itfelf.-and though it
26. - mav ftand with fhort ejaculations, which may and fhould have place
in all our actions , yet can it not itand with an ordinary 6c continued
v v^i 'fU¥ prayer purpofely conceived, as [v]B.Lindfey would maintaine. For
khtipiT&U ^ovv ca:'1 we °^deriy both fpeake to God by prayer,and to our felves
by meditation at one initant of time- ? jf therefore prayer be
f pu.rpofelya-ncl orderly- conceived, it banifheth away meditation,
wJniwla fhould be the fouls exe&ife , inthe receiving oftfee Sac^u-
•
Chap.4« ^ the aB of receiving the Communion*, 7y
ment. And fey the contrafyif meditation be entertained,as it fhould
be , it admitteth not prayer to have place at that time. For it is
wel [x] faid , that Dum auribus, oculis,manil us, dentibus exter-'us-, x Bidoft*
auribus, oculis, manibus, dentibus fidei interius occupa??:ur, orationcm Alt*D*m.
eontinuam & durabilem , abfque mentis dir-tgatione ab operepracepto pag 803.
& imperato,inftruere non pofumus.
Bat let us heare^how the B. proveth that we fhould be praying 8c Setl.2 1 . praifing , in the adt of receiving the Sacrament. Whatsoever Spiri- tual! benefit [y] faith he, we fhould receive with a fpirituali hunger & ^y- r thirst, and with afpirituali appetite and defire after the grace and ver- "1 tt*
tue that is therein to falvation: The fame we fhould reseive with *■'*■' prayer, which is nothing elfe,butfuch an appetite and defire* But the body and blond of ' Qhrift isfuch a benefit, &c.
Anftv. .1 . Why did he not prove his proposition ? Thought he his bare affertion fhould fuffkePGods Word is a fpirituali benefit, which we fhould receive with fpirituali hunger and thirft , yet theB. will not fay , that we lhould be praying all the while we are hearing and receiving it, for then could not our minds be attentive. His propofition therefore is falfe. For though prayer f houid goe before the receiving of fuch a fpirituali benefit as the Word or the Sacra- ment, yet we fhould not pray in the adt of receiving. For how can the heart attend by ferious consideration , what we heare in the Word,or what is fignified and given to us in the Sacrament,if in the actions of hearing the Word, and receiving the Sacrament, it fhould be elevated out of the world by prayer?
2. Why faith he,that prayer is nothing elfe but a Spirituall appe- tite or defire ? He thought hereby to ftrengthen his propofition, but ^ Ibid. f± we deny all. r\] He faid before , that every prayer isa meditation xoi. and here he faith, that piayer is nothing elfe but a fpirituali defire. Theie are vncouth defcriptions of Prayer. Prayer is not meditation, becaufe meditation isa communing with ourowne foules , Prayer a communing with God: Nor yer can it be laid , that Prayer is nothing •elfe; bnt a fpirituali defire, for Prayer is the fending up of our defires toGod.beingput in order.
He fpeeds no better in proving that we fhould receive the Sacra- Seel. 24* ment with thankf giving. What fever benefit, faith he, we fhould receive by ex tolling and preaching , and magnifying and praifing the inaftimable worth and excellency thereof, the fame we ought to receive with thankfgiving. But in the Sacrament we fhould receive the bloudof Chriftwith extolling and preaching, (&c. Ihe affumption he confirmes by the words of our Saviour i Doe this in remembrance of me.- And by the words of S.Paul: So oft as ye fhall eate this Bread and drinke this Cup , ye J hall dccUre , that is extell , magnify \ and fraife the Lords death , till he come againe.
KkK* Anftv.
76 Of the Idolatry of \neeling,(3 'c
Anfo. His aflumption is falfe, neither can his proofs make it true* Firlt, we remember Chriit in the a& of receiving^ meditation, and not by praife.
2, We fhew forth the Lords death in the ait of receiving , by ttfiog the Signer and Symboles of his. body broken and his bkmdfheafor us, and by medicating vpon hisdeath.thereby repre* iented.
3 . We deny not that by, praife we f hew. forth the Lords death. a Vji r«- a^° »- . Dal: l^iS *s not m lhz act of receiving. It is to be mar- pf'4 J ked. with (a) ?areus , that the ibewing forth of the Lords
death, rnult not.be restricted to the act of receiving the Sacrament,
becaufe we doe alio fhew forth his death, by the preaching of the
Golpell,a»d by private and publike celebration of it,yea by a perpe-
tuall ftudy of lanctification and thankfuilneiTe. So that the f hewing
forth of the Lords death, by extolling , preaching , magnifying ancl
praifing the fame;ac:ording to the Z$.Sc&.Oftbe Ctnfiffion of faith,.
to which hisArgument hath reference, may not be expounded of the
very act of receiving the Sacrament. Neither doe the words of
the Institution rcfuic,but eaiily admit another fhewing forth of tho
Lords death,rhen that which is in rhe very act of receiving. For
the word is r.oiquandc,h{dt quoties.lzlsonlyhyd , as often <u ye eat
tbts bread and drvike tb;-i cuf, ye doefhjive (3c Which words can
not be taken, only of the inftant. of eating and drinking-.
ScFt. 2y Now having lb ftrongly proved the vnlawfalneffe and Idolatry' of
kneeling in the act of receiving the holy Communion , let me adde,
c:n larij locojhix. the reader needs not to be moved with that whkh
B. Lifidfey \n the taile.of his difpute about the head of kneeling,ofters
;•: a dead lift , namely, the teltimoaies of fome model ne Doctours.
For 1. What can humane testimony avail e againft fuch cleare truth?
£. ' w 2. We have moe teiiimonies of Divines against kneeling , then-he
b-rdrttc* jj^ for :z. And 1 ere I perceive (y) Dr. Morton fearing we f houii
?»*4^" come to good fpeed this way .would hold in our travel .JVe arc not ig~
o eel . 3 fc. noraUf y f^irV, ne 9 tj-.tit rniny Froteftant Autbours are moft frequent in
condemning the gefiure of Kneeling, at the receiving of the holy C 'ew-
nntnicn,
$* Testimonies agaiuft kneeling are gathered out of thofe very e A'r.Di. fame Divines whom the B.alleadgeth for it. . (r) For Didoclavim par. 7^6. hath cleare reftimonics againlt it, out oiQahive,Be^a , and Martyx, 702.794.. whom yet the B. taketh to-be for itt
Sett.z6. Neither yet need we here , to be moved with (d) D.Burgefe his d Of the adventurous undertaking to prove , that in the moil aunciert -iif.es, .,--.*". cj- before corruption ef the Doctrine of the-Sacrament beg&nne , the kjieel. 5*acr ament was received with anadoring gefture.
ivf 22. He fhoots fhort ofhisproofs,and hits not the marke. One place
in Termlltin di ortticne&z hammers upon : Sivuliter de Stattonum.
Die-
Ghap4* Torh^e^linginfhe aft of receiving. pp
Diebus non putant fieri que facraficiorum oratknibus interveniendum quod ft atiojolv en-da fit accepts corpore Domini. Ergo devotum Deo ebfcquium Etichariftia refolvit, an magis Deo obligat} Nonnefolenntcr eritftdtio tua,Ji & %daramdeifteteris ? Accepto corpore Domini & refervato, vtrumque falvum £Ji , £# participate Sacrificij , &. exec* utwoffictj .
To thefe words the. D. gives this fence ; That many -withdrew themfelves,whe they.came to the celebration of the Supper,becaufe the body of our Lord,that is,the Sacramentall Bread , beeing taken of the Miniftershand,theftation.i.e. ftanding muft.be diifolved and lelf: and becaufe ftanding on thole dayes might not be left ( as they thought,; therefore they rather left the Sacrament on thefe dayes> the they would breake the rule. of itanding on thofe dayesitherefore they forbore :
Which can have no reafon but this , that taking the holy things at. the Table Itanding, yet they ufed not to partake them. i. e. eate the Bread or drinke the Wine, in any other gefture , then what was on the Station dayes then foi bidden, kneeling : And that TertuUian wii hes them to come , though they might not thenkneele , and to take the Bread in publike,ftanding at the Table , and referve it , and carry it away, with them, and receive it at their owne howfes , as they dciired, kneeling.
Anfiff. The D. by this gloffe puts a weapon in our hands againft him lelf, for if when they had taken the Bread of the M'mifters hand, their Itanding was to be left and diltolved, and TertuUian, by com- mending to them another gefture in eating of the Bread , not ftan- ding, then whether vrgeth he that other gefture to be ufed in the publicke eating o£ the bread, or in the private ? Not in the private .- for his ad vice of re ferving and eating it in private , commeth after > and is only put for a remedyor next belt , in cafe they would not condefce-nd to this courfe in publicke, quedftatio Solvendafit accepto corpore Domini. Needs then-, it mult be understood of the pu- blicke* Now , if in the publicke eating of the -bread , Standing was to be left -y Which gefture was to come in plaeeof it ? Not Kneeling.
For i. TertuUian faith [f]eliewhere,-D/^/tf deminicu Icjunare nefas e De coro~ ducimus > vel de geniculis adorare: eademimmunitateadi<iPafcb<e ad namilitts* Ventecoften ufjuegaudemtij.
2. The Dr.himlcife faith,! hat upon thefe Station-dayes , Knee- ling-was reftrained , not only in prayer , bit in -all' Divine fer- vice.
Wherefore if according to the Doctours o;lolfe,the gefture. offtan- ding was left or diffolved , that gefture which had come in place of it, to be ufed in the partakiug.of the Sacrament , can hardly be ima- gined to have been any other nor fitting.
Kkk * Weill .
y% A confutation of Jome pretences Part,*
well , the D. hath unhappily raifed this fpirtt , to difquiet himfelf: lee him bethinke how to lay feim againe. If he can not , J Wil affay to make fome help, and to lay him in thisfafhion. Iheftation dayeswere northe Lordsdayes , together with thofe 50 betwixt Eafter and Pentecoft , ( on which both fafting and kneeling were forbidden , ) as the D. thinketh, but they were certaine fetdayes of faiting. For they appointed the fourth and fixt day of the weeke, fde Iejun. (that is wednefday and fryday ) for their Stations , as [/] Tertulian cap, 2. ££ faith : whofe words we may underftaad, by another place of [g] *4- Epiphanius , who wnteth that the Fait of the fourth , andthelixt
g Haref. day , was kept throughout all the Churches , and held to be an 7%* Apoftolicall conftitution. Howbeit herein they did erre : for to ap-
point a eertaine time of fafting to be kept by the wholle Church, agrceth not with Chriftian liberty , and wanteth the example of h hifi. ecel. Chrift and his Apoftles , as [ h ] Ofiander noteth. Alwayes we fee, cent.^Mb. what was meant by Station dayes, to wit, their fetdayes of 15*0 "Z.cap. zz, Rafting, which were called Station dayes , by a fpeech borrowed £*l}Q, from a military cuftome , as T 'ertultian teacheth. For as §ouldiers kept thofe times and places , which were appointed for their wat- ches, and fafted all the while they continued in thefe watches ; fo did Chriftians upon their ftation dayes , refort and meet in the place appointed, and there remained fafting till their ftation diflblved* TheDr.takethuponhim to confute thofe, whounderftandby the Station dayes fet dayes of faffing. But all which he alledgeth to the contrary, is that he findeth fome where in Hertullian , Statio and Tejunia put for different things. Now this helpeth him not , except he could find that Statio', and Stata Iejunia are put for different things. For no man taketh the Stations to have beene occafionall, but only fet fafts. Touching the meaning then of the words ailed- ged by the D. ( to give him his owne reading of tr. cm, howbeit fome read otherwife , ) thus we take it. There were many who came not to the Sacrament upon the Station dayes , becaufe ( in their opin'6):he receiving thereof fhould break the Station i. e. the fervice of the day, and that becaufe it fhould breake their Fift,a principall chvy of the farAe.TertuJlian iheweth,they were in an errour, becaufe their partaking ofthe Sacrament fhould not breake their Station, ■bur make it the more folemne and remarkable. Eur if thev could notbedrawne from that falfe perfuafion of theirs, that the Sacra- ment fhould breake their Faft , yet be wifhetb them at lead to come , and ft and at the Table , and receive the Sacrament into their i Magd. hands, and rake ir away to eate it after , (for permitting whereof cent. 3. he had no warrant , ) So fhould they both partake the Sacrament, cap. -6- col. and alfo ( according to their mind ,.andto their full contentment,) i}?- keep their Stations ;\vhich were often prorogated [/'] till even, but
kEpiphan, ever and at lead [j^] till thenfcvth houre. Finally from this place, uhi fupra, w.hich the D.perverteth for kneeling , it appeareth that the geffure
ox
Chap 4. To r kneeling in the atl of receiving. yf
or pofture in receiving the Sacrament , ufed in that place , where Hertullian lived , was (landing , becaufe fpeaking ofthe re- ceiving of the Sacrament , he faith , fi (3 ad aram Dei Ste- teris.
As for the reft of the teftimonies, [l]DtBurgefie produceth out of Se&lZyZ the Fathers for kneeling , I need not infift upon them ; For either / ybi fu- they fpeake ofthe inward adoratien ofthe heart , which we ought pra cap,zZ to diredt unto Chrift,when we receive the Sacrament, (and this none (£2*, of us denieth,) or elfe they fpeake of adoring the Sacrament:where by the word Adoration^ z may not understand any Divine worf hip, inward or outward,but a reverence of another nature, called Venera- tion. That this (which we denie not neither,) and no more is meant by the Fathers, when they fpeake of the adoration of theSacrament. (m)Antonius de Dominis fheweth more copioufly. And thus we have m »^; furfered the impetuous current ofthe Do&our6 audacious promifes, Eccl.lib.t' backed with a verball difcourfe , to goe foftlybyus Quid dignum cap.'$, tanto tulit hie promiffor hiatu.
Finally, if any be curious to know what gefture the auncient r£^ ^ Church did ufe in the receiving of the Eucharift. To fuch I fay,firft jjt q* - of all,that [n] Didoclavius maintaineth , that which none of our Of- v o %. * polites are able to infringe , namely, that no teftimony can be pro- ^'7 '*' duced which may evince, that ever kneeling was ufed before the time ofHonorius the 3, neither is it leife truely obferved by the Au- thouroffo] the Hiftory ofthe Waldenfes, that bowing of the knees - ., before the Hofte,was then only enjoy ned,when the opinion of tran- ° I- fubftantiation got place. cap,i.
Next I fay , the auncient gefture, whereof we read moft frequent- ly, was itaading. (p) Qhryfiflome complaining of few communicants, P In F.ph.i faith ; Fruflrahabetur quotidiana oblatio : Truftra ftarnus adaltaire : Senw.j. nemo eft \qui fimul participet. (q) The Centurie- writer's make put qCent. of bionyjiw Alexandrinus his Epiftle to Xiftus Bifhop of Rome , Magd.%. \ that the cuftome efthe Church ofA4exandria in receiving the Sacra- caf.6. coL ment, ^szs^ut menfe afiijterent. It is alfo noted by (r) Hejpini an, 133* ' thatinthedayesof TertnllUn -, the Christians fiant #J Sacrament* percipiebant. _ .
OTirdiy t I fay » fince we aliknow , that the Primitive Chrifti^ns £W °n&' did take the holy Communion , mixedly and together' with their ! f f^ Love^FeaJ}sy{s) in imitation pf Chrift ,. who whileas he djd eate his "*!•& ca¥° X)ther Supper, did alfo inft^tute the Euchariit. And ! fince fas (t) it is ^' obferved from 1 .Corsri 21 3 jg ) -thefc was a twofold abufe in the s F£rem HJ Church of Corhtb : One in their Love-Fytsls , whiles that which * °Cy * fhould have fervid for the knitting oftfa kMttftove , wot nfed to-cut Q^y.iiidl the cords thereof jn that every 6 ^{m hirrt.fajt kl>ed)made choice of c Carttvr. fahashempldhave to fit at Tabic with "htm.A the other either not in \.Qor.
~~ — -■-- - - tarried ^'^4
t* Of the Ancients geftttYe. Parr.j.
tarried for, or [hut out r*hett ticy came , especially the Poore.) The o- o £,&?• tber abufe (pulled in by the firmer^) vraf, for that tb oft which Merc ap. 22 . companions at one Table tn the common Feaft, comm&acated alfo ni^ * Rj<** the facredyWith the fame ftparation, and fever ally fiom the reft of the fiulmfal Church (and the poore efpeciallyx ) whiGh )vas tn their former Ban-
cram Cor- V*!?m
nam voca- Since alfo we reade.that the fame cuftomc of joyning the Lords- rit : Et Supper together with common Feaftscontinued long ahcr. For [y\ quia fen* '$'{/?*& reporteth , that the JEgyptians adjoyning unto Alexandria, ptum eft together with the inhabitants ot"Tfota:J,uled to celebrate the Com- apud Lu- m^ii1Qn upon the Sunday *, after this manner : V/benthey haveban- cam.Stmi- ^ietcdtfilled tbemfelves with ftindry delicate cUfJjes in the evening aj - itter&ca- ter Ser?Kc,they. uje to c*mmunicate. How then can any man thinke 1iccm-p;ft- tnit the gefture then ufed in the Lords Supper was any other, nor quam Ck- ^ne *Ame which was ufed in. the Love-Featt or common Supper ? navie. ft/M what was that , but the ordinary fafhion of fitting at 1 able? Qtu ctix Since^the (x)Laodicean Canon which did difcharge the Love-Feafts, fucrunt ut ?b°ut: tne yeare 368 , importcth no lefle,thcn that the gclture ufed arbitror m toern>w*s fitting, N#» opfortet in Bafilicisfeu Ecclefijs Agapenfa» caitfte cur cere>& intusmanducare,veiaccuhitusfternere. Now , if not only t&iALvyp- Divincsofourfide,butPapiftsalfo put it om of doubt , that Chritt tij de am- £ave tne Eucharift to his Apoftles fitting , becaufe being fet downe tQ bus lonui- tne Preceding Supper , it is faid , whileas they did eate^ he ttoke tur Socra- 1>\ead>&.c. (Of which things I am to fpeake afterward J What doth tcs Lib.c. n.m<^er us to gather in like maner , that for as much as thofe Primi- friufauam llve Chri{tian$>did take the Lords Supper, whiles they did eate their ad mifte- owne Love-Feafts , therefore they fate at the one as well as at the 7iz acce~ other? And fo I clefe with this collection. What fn e ver geftu re in derent procefle of time,creptinto the Lords Supper, otherwife th« faing,o£ laute cce- lt we may truely fay, fritn the beginning it teas not fo% narent*
f'itbQ*. CHAP. V.
faubone.
' jtl ' The fift ^Argument againtt the Lawfulnefeoftht taoT' Ceremonies, taken from the myfiicalUndJigni* C*"*Z< fcant nature of them.
Sell, i, npHat myfticall fignificationsare placed m the controverted Cere- -1 monies, and that they are ordained tobefacied Signes of Spiri— toall mifteries,to teach Chriftians their duties , and to cxpreffe fuch holy and heavenly affcclions,difpofuions,naotions and delire , as arc
and
Cbap.^ Of the fignificant nature cf the Ceremonies 81
and f hould be in them ; it is confefled and avouched by our Oppo- fues. [; ] Saravia holdcth thatby thehgne of the Crcfle we pro- y S figtri feffeourleUestobcChriitians. [ 5] fl.Mmwicalleth the Ctofle, $ A„iica a figne ofconitant profefiion of Chrillianity. (*) Hoclyr cal- Art 17 Itch it hrtftktmATke, applied unto that part , where baJhfuUncJJe ^rartic. appeareth, in token that they which are ChnjUansf hould beat no time &cf,Cap. I . aj'hamed of bis ignominie. (b) Dr.Bwgejj'e mai.taineth the tiling or je$ 0 the Surplice, to iignify the purenefTe that ought to be in thj Minilter a Eccl.pol. oi God. Pay body will have Kneeling at the Lords Supper to be aligni- /,£.e./.<5c. fication oi the? humble and graterull acknowledging of the benehtes \ of the ofChrift. '1 he prayer which the Englifh Service Bookeappointeth /atry. 0f Bit kopstoufe , after the confirming of Children by the impofition j^cel. cap. cf hands, avoucheth that Ceremony of connrmation for a iigne l7.p. $2. Wher by thofe children are certified cf Gods favour and goodwill c /ipd.far towards, them. Inthegenerall , (d )Our Oppoftesderendtrnt i^neel.part. theChurch hath poverto ordaine fuch Ceremonies , asbyadmo- ^.cap.z. ' (lifting men of their duty, and by expretTing fuch fpirituall and je ft, j- keavenly affections, difpoiit'ons, motions, ordefires, as f hould ^ Sarav. be in mm , doe thereby Itirre them up to grer,t:r fervor 6c devotion. je diverf. Butagainftthjlawfullnefle offuch milticallandtignificant Cere- grajt jv/*- mo ies, thus \*c difpute, hrft , acheifpartof the nature of Sacra- nift.Evan* met t< is given rmo thofe Ceremonies , whentheyare in this ma- cap 2j. ner appointed to reach byt eir lignincction. This reafon being y^ 2$\, alle^ged by the abrivignunt of the Lincolne Minilters , ( e ) Paybcdy £>r pielA anfwert th , that it is ixt a bare fignification that makes a thing par- 0j> tye ticipare o'; the Sacraments nature , but fuch a fignification as is Sa- church fib cramertill, both in what isngnind andhow. Anfi. This^ c4p ,I# Jsbuttobegge the queftion , ior what ether thing is alledgedby ' S^ us , but that a Sacrnmentall bonification is placed in thofe Ceremo- jnt% ,je nieswe fpeakerf ? 2 tyhit'calls h: a Sacramentall fignification, dcml{ev. ifamifticall refemblance and reprefei tation of lbme fpirituall grace Ecd.hb.x, which God hathpromifed in hisWord , be not it. And that fuch a cnp' n'UYn\ figr 'ficaiion as this is placed in the Ceremonies , lhave allready ^g madeitplaine ; from the teftimoniesofour Oppofites* Ihisffure) jf^ ^ makes thofe Ceremones , fo to encroach upon the confines and e ±tol nart praecinfts of the nature and quality of Sacramems, that they ufurpe - £ '? fome thing more then any kites which are not appointed by God *" .*' hi'iifelf can rightly doe. And if they be not Sacraments, yet faith [/] Hooker, they are *i Sacraments. Ettin Avgvftines Dialect, fpccl*0l they are not only as Sacraments, bur they tbemielves are Sacra- il A (ft ments. Signa( faith the Father ) cumad resdivinas pertinent Sa- '^"^ mentaappeOantur. Which Teftimony fo matters Dr. Burgeffe xhst he breaketh out into this witlefle anfwer , [ £ ] that the meaning cf* AweL Auguftinewas to fhew, that the name of Sacraments, belongeth fYe(h juite properly co Divine things , and not to all Signes of holy things. | *«, .^- %
L 11 take, 5%
Si The vnla tvfu Un efie ofMifticall facred Part. $ .
take, he would have faid , htlongeth properly te the Signes of Divine things,
And here , befide thac which Ames hath faid againft him , ] ad.ie thac thefe two things , I. Thac this diftindtion can not be conceived , which the Dr. rnaketh betwixt the Signes of Divine things, and the Signes of Holy chings.
2. i hat his other ditcinction can as little be conceived,which impor- ted that the name of Sacraments .belongeth to Divine things pro- perly,and to all Signes of Holy things improperly.
Lattly , if we call to mind that which hath been evinced before, namely, that the Ceremonies are not only thought, to be radically figniricant , for letting forth and exprefling certaine fpirituall gra- ces , buc alfo operative and ava'leable tothe begetting of thofe gra- ces in us,if not by the Worke wrought , at leaft by the worke ot the worker;for example that the Signe of the CroiTe,is not only thought by our Oppolltes, tofignify that at no time we fhould be af named h Supra ot :ne ignominy of Chrift , but is alfo efteemed (b) to be a meane cap 4. to vvorKe our preiervation from f hame,and a moft effectual teacher, Se# A. t0 a-VO[(^ tnat wnie^ may defervedly procure f hame : And that Bi-» '^' Chopping is not only thought , tobeaSigne for certifying young children of Gods favour , and good will towards them ; but alfo an ilbid.Secl. exhibitive Signe , whereby (i) chey receive ftrengch againft finne f , and tentation,and are aHifted in all vertue.
If thefe things, I fay, we call to mind , it will be more manifeft, that the Ceremonies are given out for facred Signes of the verie fame nature that Sacraments are off. For the Sacraments are called by Divines, commemorative, reprefentative,and exhibitive Signes; and fuch Signes are alfo the Ceremonies we have fpoken of in the opinion of Formalites. SeHt. ?! Mitticailandfignifieant Ceremonies, ( to proceed to a fecond
J ' realon ) ordained by men, can be no other but meere delufions, and ferveonly to feed mens minds with vain-* conceits. For to what other purpofe doe Sigkd inftituta fer*e , if it be not in the power of him who *gi ves them inftitution , to give, or to worke that which is tignifiedby them ?
Now, it is not in the power ©f Prelats , nor of any man living, to
give us thefe graces, or to worke them in us > which they will have to
be fignified by their Muticall and Symbolical Ceremonies. Where-
k Axitiih. fore [fe] Be%<z faith well of iu:h humane rites as are thought to be
P^ptt. (3 fi^nijacant ; Q^tum nulU rei fights illisfubfit, propter caqnbi vmut Dei
Cbrifti.vi. ej} promittere, ■.$ futs promijfionibuifigiUumfuwm opponere : confequi-
art. I t . tur cmnii iUa tommtritd, inanes efie Urvas , (3 vana opintonc ?niferos
I On Luk* homines ,illh p>opofit<sfignis deludi. [I] D.Fttlk, thinkes he hath al-
24 50. lcadged eapu£h againft the figniiicative and commemorative vfe
of the Signe of the Croflb,<trhen hs hath faid , that it is not ordained
Chap.4« Ceremcnies.devifedbymen 83
ofChrift nor taught by his Apoftles: from which fort of rcafoning itfolloweth,thatall hginricant Signes which are not ordained or" Chrift,nor taught by his Apoftles, muft be vaine , falfe, and fuperfti- cious.
Thirdly , to introduce fignificant facred Ceremonies into the Seel. 4. Mew teftament, ether then the holy Sacraments of Gods owne in- ftitution,wereto reduce Iudaifme,and toimpofe vpon us againe the yoke of a Ceremoniall Law,which Chriit hath taken off.
Upon this ground doth m] Amandus X!olanus reprehend thePopifh "J , f'/ Cleargy^ for that they would be diftinguifhed from Laicks by their Tbeol.hj. Preiftly apparell,in their holy acl:ions,efpecially in the Maffe. Ilia ve- 9'caf>- 3 «• ftium facer dot alium dtfiinclw (3 varietas , erat in veteriTeftamento typica : Veritate autem exhibita, quid ampliits typos requirunt.
Upon thi ground alfo dath [n] Pexkines condemne all humane fig- n Cent, m nificant Ceremonies. Ceremonies, faith he , are either of figure and Gal.$ 24^ fignification , or of order. The firft are abrogated at the camming of Chnft,&c.
Upon the fame ground doih[o]Chemnitius condemne thQm,Quod 0 Exam* vero prtetenditury&c. But whereas, faith he , it is pretended that by fart. 2. de thefe twites of mens addition ,many things are -profitably Signified , ad' rit. in ad-* monifhed% and taught : Hereto it may be anftvered , that figures doe mm. fa- properly beUng to the OldTefiament : but thofe things which XLhrift cram.p.\Z would have to be taught in the New Teftament.he would have them de- livered and propounded,not by fhadowes , but by the light of the Word. And we have a fromife of the efficacy of the Word3but not of figures in* vented by men.
Vpon the fame ground [p] Iunius findeth fault with Ceremonies u- *, Aminad, fed for fignification . Iftis elements mundi(& vocanturCol.2.) Do- in BeU. de- minus (3 oervator noluit nee docuit, Ecelefiam fuam infermari. cult.fanclm
Laitly,we will conlider the purpofe of Chriit, whiles hefaid to the cap.%. Pharifes , \cf\ The Law and the Prophets were vniill Iohn : from that qLuc.16. time the Kjngdome of God is f reached. He had in the Parable cf the 1 £% unjuft Steward, and in the application of the fame,fpoken fomewhat contemptibly of riches ; Wh.eh when the Pharifes heard, they de- rided him, and that for this pretended reafon (as is evident from the anfwer which is returned unto t hem,) becaufe the Law promifesthe worlds goods, as rewards and bleflings to the people cf Hod, thrtby the temporall things , v\ hich are fet forth for types and fhiddowes e'f asternall things,they might be inftru£ted,helped and ledde as it were by the hand,ro the contemplation , defire aad exfpe(5ration cf thofe heavenly and acternall things, which are not feene. Now , Chrifi: did'not only rip up the hyp ocrify of their heaits , Verf.if. but alfo gave a formall anfwer to their pretended reafon , by f hewing them how the Law is by him perfected , Verf. j 6".yet not deftruyed , Verf, 17% Then > will we obfer.ve how he teacheth, that the La\v and the
III Z Pro-
84 The vnlatofulneJSe ef MifticaS facrei Part.j.
Prophets are perfected, and fo our point f hall be plaine. The Lam and th; Prophets wereuntiH \ohn. i. e. they did cypitie and prop helie concerning the things of the Kangdome of God until \ohn,tor before that time the faithfuli only faw thole things afarre otf, and by types, f haddowes,and rigures, and the rudiments of the world were taught to know zhem;Butfrom that time thel^tngdome ofGod is preached.i.e. the people o:God are no ioger to be lnttruited cocerning the things of the Kingdome of God, by outward Signes , or vilible f haddowes and tig jre,but only by th » plaine Word of the Golpell , for now the Kingdome of God <*U*>f«Ai£sra/ , is not typiried'as before , but plainly preached , as a thing exhibitedto us , and prefcnt with as. Thus we fee , that to us, in the dayes of the Gofpell/he word only is appointed,to teach the things belonging to the KUigdome of God. ff& $\ If any man reply, that though after the co.r.ming of Chrift , we
are liberate from the lewifh md typ.call figni'icant Ceremonies, yec ought we to embrace thofe Ceremonies, wherein the Church of the New Teftament placeth Tome Spiritual ligmfication.
1 anfwer. i* That which hath been (atdin this Argument, hol- deth good againlt Significant Cere no lies in gene rail. Otherwife when we reade of :he abroga-ion of the Ceremoni 11 Law , we f hould only understand the ab oration of thofe particular ordinan- ces , which Mnf-s del were dtottie lewes, concerning , he Ceremo- nies that were ro endure t uhecomnrngofChnft • and fo not- withstanding all this , the Church fhoaldftill havepjwer to fet up new Ceremonial! Lawes in (read of the old , even which, 6c how many fhe lifteth. r Ames 2 What can be anfwered to (V) that which the Abridgement pro-
frefjjfuite poundeth touching this matter ? Itkmuh lefie Law full , ( fay thofe Par. 266. Ministers J for man to bring ftgnificant Ceremonies into Gods worj hip, now , then it was under the Lam* F^r Ged hath abrogatetb his owne (not- only fuch as prefigured Chrijl, butfiuhalfo asjervedby their figni- fication,to teach morall duties, )fo as now (without great finne ) none of them can be continued in the Church , no not for Jignification* Whereupon they inferre : If thofe Ceremonies which God him* felfe ordaineX , to teach his Qhureh by their figmfication , may not now be iifed , much lefie may thofe which man hath devi<* fed. Set~l.6. Fourthly, facred figniflcant Ceremonies devifed by man , are to
be reckoned among thole Images forbidden in Me fecond com- mandement. (s) Polanus faith, that smnvfigura illicita is forbidden in the fecond Commandement. (t) Th* Profe (Tours of Leyden call s Synt. call it Imagmem auamlibet, five mente concept am Jive manu efficiam. Th'coLlib. 1 have i hewed (v) elie-where,that both in the writings of the Fa- 6. cap. 10. tkexs
fag$% ft (t)Sjnof.fur,TbeQl.di$.i9 thef.4. {v) Supra cap^Stti. 9.
C!iap.j\ Cerem$nTestdeviJedtymen 8-f
thers , and of Formalifts themfelves , Sacraments get the name of Images ; and why then are net all lignificant and holy Ceromonies to be accomtcd Images r Now, ihs Z.Commandement forbiddcth. Images made by the Luft of man (that 1 may ule(*) Dr. burgeffe his x Of the phrafe,) thererore it forb:ddeih alio, all religious limilitudcs,vvhich laivf. 0f are homogeneal unto them. 1 his is the inference ofthe Abridgement; foe'el/pae. ^herear^P^o^ftarteth, 6c replieth that t hi geflures winch th^ x\6. people ctGod uiedin circumcihon and Bap til me, the renting of ihe^ ApoL garment uled in humiliation and prayer E\ra Q.f.2j<jw£.y 22.19.Zer. Part.$m 36.24. lifting up the hapds,kneelmg wiih ih . knees , uncovering the cap. 2: head in the Sacrament , ftanding and fitting at the Sacrament; were Sect. 4, and are fignifccant in worihipping , yet are not forbidden by the 2. Commandcment.
Anfiv. T here are three forts of Signes here to be diftingui'fhed. I. Naturall Sgnes : fo fmoake is a hgne of fire, and the dawning of the day a ligne of the riling of th-- Sunne. X. Cuftomable iignes,and fo the uncov ering of the head , which of old was a ligne or preemi- nence, hath through eultome become a ligne of fubjeciion. 3 . Vo- luntary figne%w hie hare called Signa inftituta; theleare either Sa- cred or Civill. To appoint Sacred Signes of heavenly miiteries or fpir.uall graces,isGoasowne peculiar, and of this kynd are the ho- ly Sacraments. Civill Signes for civill aud morall ufes , may be and are commerdably appointed by men , both in Church and Com- mon-wealth,vand thus the tolling of a Bell , is a ligne given for af- fembling, and hath the fame lignification both in Ecclefiafticall and Secular alfemblings. Now, b- tides the Sacred Signes of Gods owne inkiturion , we know that naturall Signes have alfo pi ^ce in Divine worf hipj thus knetling in time of Prayer tagnifieth the fubmiilion of our hearts & mindes, the lifting up of our eyes and hands, (ignifieth the elevation of our affections, the renting ofthe garments (igniBed trie-renting of the heart by forrow,ftand'ng with a religious refpec"t to that which is before us, fignifieth veneration or reverence , fitting at table (ignifieth familiarity & fellowfhip. For which of 'you ,(%) faith % Luc.lJ% our Matter , having a fervant plowing or feeding cattell,wittjay unto 7. him by and hyphen he is come from thefyld,goe and fit downe to meate* All thefe fignes hive their fignincations from natare.And if it be (aid that howbeit f tting at our common-tables be a ligne naturall,to iig- nify familiarity amongftus , yet nature hath not given fuch a Signifi- cation to fitting at the Lords-Table ; I anfwer,that fitting is a natu- rall figne of familiarity , at what Table foever it be ufed. At the Heavenly Table in the Kingdomeof Glory , familiarly isex- preffed and fignifyed by fitting Math.$ 11. Many fh.ill come from the Eaft and Weft , and f hall fit downe with Abraham , 5cc. Much more then at the Spirituall Table in the Kingdome ©f Grace.
HI 3 The
86 The vnlap j 'nine >jle of Mifrical! facred Part. 2.
The difference betwixt oiher common tables, 8c the Lords Table,
ciinferre no more, but that with great humility we ought toaddrefle
our felvesunto it .-yet ftill we are to make vie of our familiarity with
a BomiL Chriit ut tanquam in eodem toroaccumkentes,as faith [a] Chryjojiome.
2.7. in I. Wherefore we doe not there h looke to Chrift , in h.s Pnicely
£0T% Throne and glorious Majeity, exalted farre above all principalities
and powers, as to forget that he is our loving and kmde Banqueter,
who hath admitted ustothat familiar fellowihip with him which is
fignifyed by our fitting at his table.
Secondly , cuitomable Signes have likewife place in Divine Ser- vice,for fo a man comtaiug into one of our Churches , in time of publike Worf hip, if he fee the hearers covered , heknowesby this cuitomeableiigne , that Sermon is begunne.
Thirdiy,civillor morallSignesinftituted bymen,forthat common order and decency ,which is,refpe& both in civ ill ar.d facred adtions# have alfo place in the a£ts of Gods worfhip. Thus a Baicn and a Lauer fet before a Pulpit, are fignes of Baptifme to be miuitred: bus common decencie teacheth us to make the fame ufe of Bafen and a Lauer in civility , which a minifter maketh of them in the action of Baptiiing* All our Queftion is about Sacred My fticall Signes. Every Signeof thiskinde , which is not ordained of God , we referre to the Imagerie forbidden in the 2. Commaundement. So that in the toiling of this Argument Paybody is twife nought : neither hath he faid ought , for evincing the lawtullneffe of facied fignifkant Cere- monies ordained of men, which we impugne. SetJ. 7. Fiftly , the fignificancy and teaching office of myfticall Ceremo-
nies invented by men, mutt be drawne under thofe Dodtrinesof men condemned in the Gofpell. Wherefore was it that the diverfe wafh- ings of the Pharifes were reje&edby Crnift , as a vaine worfhip? Was it not •, becaufe they were appointed for Dodtrines ? In vaine, b Mark.?, [i] faith hetdce they to or f hi f me teaching forDofirinesttho Qommaunde- 7* ment s of men .
The diverfe wafhings commaunded in the Law were forefigni-
fying to the people , and for teaching them , what true and inward
holinefTe God required of thetn. Now , the Pharifes when they
multiplied their wafhings of Hands,of Cups and Pots, Brafen Vel-
fells and Tables , had the fame refpedf. of fignificancy before their
e Cxmer. eyes. Kcque emm alioJpe&ahant(\\\*i I mav ufe the words[c]cfaFor-
fralecl. malift ) quam ut fe JknBiiatu jludicfis hoc externoritu]>robarent.
Tom.$. Neither have we any warrant to thinkethar they had another ref-
/> 37. peel: then this. But the errour was in their addition to the I aw, and
in that they made their owne Ceremoniall wafhings , which were
only the commaundements of men, to ferve for Dodtrines,Inftruc-
tions and Significations. For thofe wafhings, astheywerefignifi-
canr and taught what holineffe or cleanneffe f hould be among the
people
Cnap.f. Ceremonies devifed by men. $7
people ofGod,they are called by the name of worfhip ; and as they were fuch iigmricanc Ceremonies as were only commanded by men, they are reckoned for vaine worfhip.
And turther I demand, why are the Colojlians ( d) rebuked , for j Q0\t %f fubjeotingthemfelves to thole ordinances , Touch not , Tafte not, 20.21. 22. Handle not? We fee that thofe ordinances were not bare comande- ments , bat com nandementsvnder the coulour of Doctrines ; To wit, as the law commanded a difference of meats, for fignifying that hoi uieife which God would have his people foimed vnto: fo rhefe falfe teachers would have the fame to be iignified and taught by thin ditference of meats & abit'inence, which they of themfelves 6c wi:h- out the commandement of God, had ordanied.
Moreover, if we consider how that the Word of God is given vnto U>,(0 for doctrine, for reproofe.for correction, for inft ruction in rigb- e^Ttm.j teoufhefie, that the man of God may be perfect , thoroughly furnifhed * •"• unto all good works : It can not but be evident , how fuperfluoudy, how fuperftitiouily,the office of facred teaching and mifticall fignih- cation,is given to dumbe and lifelelfe Ceremonies,ordained of men, and confequently how juttly they are taxed as vaine worfhip. We hold therefore with the worth-eft (/) of our Divines , null am DoEtri- f I.Cafo* nam, nullum faorum Jignum debere inter pos admitti , nifi a Deo pro- in Matth. feci a ejf* conftet. 212*7.
To thefe reafons , which I haue pot in order againft mens fignifi- Seel. 8- cant Ceremonies:, I will adde a pretty Hiftory before I goe further.
(g) When the Superior of the Abbey of Saint Andrewes was g Hifl of difpur ng mzh]ohn ]Qiox, about the lawfullnetfe of Ceremonies the chucb devifed oy the Church , to decore the Sacraments and other iervice of Scctl. of God : Kjtox anfwered, The Church ought to doe nothing hut in l.x.p. 157. faith, and ought not to goe before, but if bound to follow the voice of 1$ 8.159* the true Past mr. The Superior replied,that every one of the Ceremo- nies hath a G§dly fignification, and therefore thjy both proceed from faith, and are done in faith. Kjiox reply eth , it is not enough , that man invent a Ceremony , and then give it a Jignificaticn according to his pleafure; for fo might the Ceremonies of the Gentiles and this day ■ the Ceremonies of Mahomet be mniitaincd. But if that any thing pro- ceed from faith, it mufi have the Word of God for th: affurance , £cc. Th 'Superior anfwereth, willye bind us fo fir ait , thit^vemay doe Kothing.witbout the exprefic Word of God. .Whit and ] fifkf fyAfyffit thinkeyeth-at Ifinhet and yet ihave not Gods Word forme, .u ''V..
Knox here telleth him,firft.that if he fhould either eate or drirjke without the aflurance of Gods Word, he finned ,' for faith not the Jtprftle.jpeaking even of me ate and- drinke,th.tt the creatures are fine-, tifiedvnto men by the Word and Praier. } J he Word. is this: all. things. arechanetothe cleans :Nc -.-> let me h ear e thu.s much of your Cere-mo* nits )and]pj all give you the argument}
Hue
88 "The vnhwfullnefie ofMifticall facyed Part.j. '
But fecondly , he tells him that he compared indifcreetly toge- ther Prophane things with Holy, and that the Queition was not of meate ai,d drinke, wherein the Kingdome of God conhiteth not, but of matters of religion , and that we may nottake the' fame free- dome in the viing of thrifts Sacraments, that we may doe in eating and drinking , becauie Mofes commanded, all that the Lord thy Godcommandeth thee to doey that doe thou to the Lord thy Cod; adde nothing to it .dimmifh nothingfrom z>.TheSupprior now iaith,ihat he was dry , and thereupon dehreth the gray W\zrArbugkjllto follow the Argument. But he was fopreflcd with the fame , that he was con- founded in him felt, and the Supprior aihamed of him. DiciteIoP<ean, ■& Io bis dicite paan. S/tl. 9« As for the examples alledged by our Oppohtes out of Scripture,
for Iuftifying their fignificant Ceremonies j they have been by our Propugners of Evargelicall lirnplicity,lo otter & fo fully anfweied, that here I need doe no more but point at the. Of the days oifurim% and Feaft of Dedication lam t> ipeake afterward. In the meane while, our Oppoiites can not by ihefeexamples,fTrengthen ibefelves in this prefent Argument, except they could prove that the fealt of Dedication was lawfully inhituted, St vhat the dayes of Purim were appointed for a religious feiti ity.and that v pen no fuch extraordi- nary warrant as the Church hath not ever and allwayes. 1 he rite "Which dbrahstm commanded his fervant to vfe,when he fware to him namely the putting of his hand vnder his thigh, Gen 24. 2 maketh them aslitlehelp: for it was but a moralliigiie of thar c.vill fubie&j- on, reverence, and fidelity, which Inferiois owe unto Superior;. , ac- cording to the judgment of Calvine, lunius.Pareui , and Tremehitts, all vpoo that place. "I hat Alrar which was built by the Revbenites ■ Gadites, t\ halfe Tribe of Manafieb, [of. 12 . had/as fome tb.nkc ) not a religious, but a morall vfe,and was not afacred , but a civ'll fgne to witnefTe that thofe two Tribes and the halfe, were of the (to eke and linage of Ifraell.which if it were once called in q< eftion K then, their feare (deducing the connexion of caufes and consequents,) led them in end to forecaft this ilfue , ]n time to come , your chil- dren might fpeakevnto our children , faying > tchat have you to doe tvitb the Lord God of]fraell,for the Lord hath made Jordan a herder hetyijet vs andyou,&c. Therefore to prevent all apparent occa- fiorisbf fuch doolfull events, they erected the patierne of the Lords h Calv. in AUar,(£>) vt vinculum fit fraternal conjuntlionis. Iof.22. And befides all this;th re is nothing wh.ch can vrge vsto fay, that
the two Tribes and the halfe, did commendablyjn the erecting of i Ibid. this AlarfijC^me finds 2 faults in their proceeding. 1. In that they attempted fuch a rotable & irrporrant ?rro\atioi , without adv1(ing W ith their brethren of the oiher 1 ibesc1 efrtcialy withcv.renquU ring the willcf Gcd iby the high Prk ft. z.ty here as the Law cf God
com-
Chap.f. Ceremonies, devifedbymen. Zp
commaunded only to make one Altar, forasmuchas God would be worshipped only in one place; they did inordinary , fcan- daloully , and with appearance of e v ill , erect another Altar, for every one who f hould looke upon it , could not but prefcntly thinke , that they had forfaken the Law , and were fctting up a. itrange and degenerate Rite. Whether attb, that Altar which they kt up for a patterne of the Lords Altar , wasone of the Ima- ges forbidden in the. 2. Commandement , Heave it to theludici- ous reader , toruminate upon. Bur. if one would gather from veff. 3 3 . that the Prielt , and the Princes , and the children of Ifrael , did allowe of thar which the two Tribes and the halfe had dor*.!, becaiifc it is laid , the thing f leafed the children oflfrael , and the children of Ifrael hlejfed God , and did not intend to goe u}> again ft them . in battel!.
I anfwere , the Hebrew text hath it thus. And the word was good in the eyes. of the children of ifraell £#c. That is , the children of Ifrael blefled God , for the word which Phinehas and the ten Prin- ces brought to -them, becaufe thereby they underftocd that the two Tribes and the halfe , had not turned away from following the Lord , nor made them an Altar for burnt offerings or Sacrifice^ which was enough to make them (the nine Trybes and a halfe) defift from their purpofe , of going up to warre againlt their bretheren, to fhedde their bloud. Againe when Phinehas and the ten Princes fay to the Heubenites, Gadites, and the halfe Tribe of Wlanafeb^ this day we perceive that the Lord isamoug us , becaufe ye have not com- mitted this-trefpafe againji the Lord , verf. 31. the doe not exeympt the from all pteuaricationpnly they [a.yjignanterythis treftufle,to ivit of turning away from the Lord , and building an Altar for Sacrifice, whereof they were accufed. Thus^we fee , that no approbation of that which the two Tribes and the halfe did , in erecting the Altar, can be drawne from the text.
But to proceed our Oppofites alleadgc for another example a- Sect. I gainft us , a new Ahar built by Solomon 1. Kings. 8. 64. In which place there is no fuch thing to be found , as a new Altar built by Solomon; but, only that he fanctifred t'.ie pavement of the inner Court , that the wholle Court might be as an Altar , neceffity fo requiring ,>' becaufe the Brazen Altar of the Lord was notable to containe To many Sacrifices , as then were offered. The building of Synigdugs can make as litle againft us.
For. i. After the Tribes were fetled in the land of promife , Sy- nagougs were built, in the cafe of an urgent necefiity , becaufe nil Ifrael could not come every Sabbath day , to the readingand expounding of the Law,, in the place which God had chofen , that his Name might dwell there, what hath that cafe to doe with the addition of our unneceiTary Ceremonies ?
Mmm a. if
€|o The unlawfullneJJeofmiJticaRfacre&.l Part, a,
2. ]f Formalifts will make any advantage of the building ofSyna* gogus they muft prove that they were founded , not upon the ex- traordinary w arrant of prophets , bur upon that ordinary powe* which the Church retainerhftill. As for the Love-fealts ufed in the primitive Church. 1. They had no religious ftate in Divine worfhip , but were ufed only as morall (ignes of mutuall Charity. (VOn.i. l)k) The R&wifts will have them called c<enas dominicas. But Cor 11. what-faith Gartwrigbt againft them ? We grant that there were Cecil 6. fHC^ fea^s ufc^ *n times paft , but they were called by the name of 'ayxz-uf or Love-feafts , not by the name of the Lords Supper : »w- ther coulu one without Sacriledge give fo holy a name to a common Feafl , which never had ground out of the Word , and which aft er forjuft eaufe was thruft tut by the word of God. 2_. Ifit be thought, that they were ufed as Sacred Signes of Chriftian Charity , becaufe they were eaten in the Church. I anfwere , the earing of them in (I) \. Cor. the Church is forbidden by ( /)the Apoftle. what r faith he , hive 1 1 -.. 22. ye not boufes to eat and to drink, in ? or dejpife ye the Church of God* (m)com.in A-perte vetat faith ( m ) Pareus , commefiationes in Ecclefia , quo- ilium lo+ cunque fucopingantur. Vocabant 'etycc7T%i. charitates : fed nihil minus erant. Erant fchifmatumfomenta. Singula, enim feclafuai inslituekxnt. And alitle after. Alvqua Ecclefia obtemperafye vi- daitur. Nam Iuftini temper ibui }{pmana Ecclefia '*p«7ru{ non ha-^ buit. Concerning the kifle of charity ufed in thofe times , 2. Cor*" 13.22. we fay in like maner , that it was but a morall ligneof that reconciliation, friendfhip , and amiry , which ihevv it felf as well at holy a(Temblics,as other meetings, in that kynd and courtilie* ^ a but with all chafte falutation, which was then in ufe.
• ll ' As for the vails wherewith the Apoftle wo -Id have women covered whileastbey were praying ( that is in their hearrs following the publike and common prayer ) or prophecying ( that is ringing. 1. Sam. 10. 10. 1. Chro?i. 25. 1. ) they are worthy to be covered with fhame as with agarment, who alleadge this example for facred figniricant Ceremonies of humane Inttitution. 1 his covering was a morali figne , for that comely and orderly diltinction of men and women , which civill decency required in all their meetings: where- fore , that diftin&ion of habits , which they ufed for decency and comlinefle in their common behaviour and converfa^ion , the Apoftle will have them, for the famedecencie and come iinefle, (till to retaine , in their holy Affemblies. And further the Apoftte fheweth , that it is alfo a naturall figne , and that nature it felf tea- chet it ; therefore he urgeth i: both by the inferiority or fubje&ion of the woman vcrf 3, 8. 9^ ( For covering was then a figne of iub- jeclion ; ) and by the long haire which nature gives to a woman verf. 15% Where he wcruld have the arrificiall covering , to be faf- kuoned in imitation ©i the natural!* What meed we any more?
let:
Chap.fc iZertmdnies^eviJedbymen, $t
Let vs fee natures institution , or the Apottles recommen dation for the controverted Ceremonies, (as we have feen them for vvomens vails) and we yeeld the Argument.
Laft of all, the ligneof imposition ofhands,helpeth not the caufe of our Oppohtes, becaufe it the example of Chrilt , and the Apoftles, and their difciples,which our Ceremonies have not ; yet we thinks
not imposition of hands to be any iacred or milticall figne, but only a morall,for defignation of a peribn :let them who thinks more highly or honorably of it, looke to their Warrants*
Thus have I thought it enough to take a paiTing view of thefe ob- jected inttances, without marking narrowly all the impertinencies and falfhoods, which here we find in the reafoning of our Oppohtes. One word more,and fo an end, (n) D. Burgefie would comprehend the fignificancy of fscred Ecclefialticall Ceremonies , for ftirring men up to the rememberance of fome myfterie of piety or duty to God, under that edification which is required in things that concerne order and decency by all Divines.
Alas ! what a forie conceit is this ? Divines indeed doe rightly re- quire,that thofe alterable Circumftances of Divine worlhip , which are left to the determination of the Church , be fo ordered and dif- pofed,as they may be profitable to this edification. But this edifica- tion they fpeake of,is no other then that which is common to all our actions and fpeaches : are we not required to doe all things unto e- difying , yea fo to fpeak as that our (peach may be profitable Unto edifying ? Now,fuch Significations , as we have f hewed to be given to the Ceremonies in Queftion, as namely, to certify a child of Gods favour and eood will towards him;To betoken that at no time Chri- stians Should be af named of the ignominy of Chrift; to Signify the pureneife that ought to be in the Minifter of God .- To expreffe the the humble and gratefull acknowledgement of the benefites of Chrift,&c. belong not to that edification; Which Diuines require in things prefcribedby the Church concerning order and decency$ex- cept of every private and ordinary acl:ion,h the whole courfe of our conversation , we either deny that it f hould be done unto edifying, x>x elfe affirmethat it is a facred fignificant Ceremony,
Mmm* , CHAP.
92 That the lawfuhtefie of tbo Ceremonies ?4tUtt
C H A P. VI.
That the lavfulnefte of the Ceremonies is falfely
grou:Medrupon the holy Script tire : where fuch
places as arealleadgedby our Otttiojite slither
for all the Ceremonies in generally or for
any one of them in particular, are
yindicatedfrom them.
Sed i TT remainCliTn0W> to examine the warrants which our Oppofites A pretend for the lawfullnelie of the Ceremonies. But 1 perceive they know. not well what ground to take hold-on. For Inftance (o) Eccl. whereof; 'o\ Hw/^/deFendeth the lawfulnelfe of Fettrvall dayes,by Pol. lib. f. the law of nature, (p) D.D0w;;4>?u' groundeth the lawfumeftVof them S.69. on the law of ^od , making the obfervation of the Sabbaths of reft (p) On appointed by the Church , fuch as the Feafts of Chrifts Nativity , prac.q. Paiiion.Scc. to be a dfcty commanded in the Law of God , and the notobfervingofthem , to be a thing forbidden by the fame Law. (q.Epift. But '4) B. Lwdfey provetrrthe lawfulnes of thofe Holy dayes,fro the to thepaft. power of the Church to make Iawes in fuch matters. As for the Lords of the ^/faithhe , tvbicb hxthfuccecdedto the Ietvifh Sabbath, albeit God Church of haihcomandedtofantlify it, yet neither is the whole publike worfiip nor Scotl. any, part of it appropriated to that timeybut lawfully the, fame may be
performed vpon any other convenient day cf the weeke t of the moneth, or of tbcycare,di the Church fhallthivl^expedtent. Vpon this ground X^anchius affirmed: Ecclefn-e Chrifti liberum efie quos vclit preter domi- nicos dies ftbi fancltficandos deligerc. And by this warrant did the Primitive Church fanfiify thefe five anniversary dayes of Cbrifts Na- tivity,&e.
Nay , let us obferve , how one of them wavercth from him- feife, in feeking here foine ground to reitupen. Paybody groundeth thelawfulneffe of kneeling at tjse Sacrament;o.n nature, part. Z. cap. 4. Sett. 1. On the act of Parliament, part. 3. cap. 1. Scft.31. On an Kccleliafticall Canoiy.m.^ .cap. 1. Sett. $1,. On the Kings ibveraigne authority ,part. 3. cap. 1. Sect. $6. Yeragaine he faith,that this knee- ling is grounded upon rhecommandemen: of God , part. 3. cap. 3.
Well. I fee our Oppofitesfometimes warrant the lawfulnelfe of the Ceremonies from thG Law of God , fometimes from the Law of Man,and fometimes from the Law of Nature . But I will prove that
the
Chap.6. Cannot be grounded upon Scripture. 93
thelawfullneffe of thofe Ceremonies we fpeake of, can neither be grounded upon the Law of God, nor the Law of Man,nor the Law of Nature,and by coniequence that they are not lawfull at all : So that befides the anfwerhig of what our Oppofites alleadge for the lawfjl- neffj of them, we f hall 'have a new Argument to prove them unlaw- full.
I beginne with the Law of God. And firft,let us fee what is allead- Sea. 2. ged from Scripture for the Ceremonies in generall : Then-after, let us looke over particulars. There is one place which they will have in mythologie o itand for the head of Medufi , and it they ftill object to us for all their Ceremonies : even that (r) the A pottle, (r) i.Cor. Let all things be done decently and in order. What they have d1 awne 14.40. out of this placer{ s \ D. Burgejle hath refined in this maner. Ke diftin- (s) Of the gui.fhethbervvixtpr^c^/ww Scfrobatum ; and will have the contro- lauf of vened Ceremonies to be allowed ofGod, though not comandeeLAnd kneeL if wee would learne how tliefe Ceremoniesare allowed of God (t)\\t pag.$. gives us to underftand , that it is by commanding the generall kynd (t) Ibid. to which tbefe particulars doe belong. If we afke, what is this ge- fag. H« ner all kynd commanded of God to which thefe Ceremonies doe be- x long ? ft;) He rcfolves us, that it is order and decency : And if fur- {^jlbtA* ther we demaund, how fuch Ceremonies as aie initituted and ufed i^'4* t;> ftirre up men in refpect of their iignification unto the devoute re- membrance of dieir dunes to God, are in fuch an inftiturion and u-fe matters of meere order ? As a Magift eriall Dictatour of Quodlibets, ■ ( jrjhe tells us that they are matters of meere order fenfu largo , in a (x] Ibid, large fence. Bu: lai'tly,if we doubr where he readeth of any wor- pag. 14. f hip commaunded in the generall , and not commaunded hut only ( y ; Ibid. allowed in the particular ( y ) he informed! us , that in the free-will- pag,6.J* offrings , when a man was left at libei ty to otter a Bullock,Goare,or Sheep at hispleafure,ifhe chofea Bullock to. offer , that Sacrifice in that particular, was nor commaunded,but only allowed. "What fhould I doe,bu: he fur dm contra ahfurdum ? NevertheletTe leaft this lolly fellow thinke himfelf more lolly then he is , 1 anfwer 1. How ab- furd a tenet is this which holdeth that there is fome particular wor-< f hip of God allowed and not commanded ? What new Light is this- which makerh all our divines to have been in the miff, who have ac- knowledged no worfnip of God, but that which God hath comman- ded r W'k) ever heard of commanded and allowed w.rf hip? As for the'inftancesof the free-will-oHe-ings,:^; Ww^jhathanfwered fuffi- (K) ^reJ'- cientiy , that though the particulars were net nor could not be deter- \ulte>V~ mined,by a diftinB ruk in generally yet they were determined by the cir" * 53 cttmjlAnce's)& our Divines are wont to anfver the Papifts , about their Votves,Counfcls,Sitpererogations: NOT BY A GENERALL LAW, BVT BY CONCURRENCE OF CIRCVM- STANCES.
Mmm 3 S&
AT*
$4 T/.a* the Upfulnefie of the Ceremonies Partj.
So Deut. 16.10. Mofes Jhewetb that the fret ft offrings were to be ac- cording as Cjod bad blefjed them ; From whence it f olio wet h , it had been finne for any Jfraehte, whom Cjod bad plentifully blefjed y to offer a pair e of Pigeons wjlead of a *Bulloc^cr two> upon his owns meere pleafure . Where that proportion was obfirved , the choice of a Go ate be fire a Sheep , or a Sheep before a (joate was no for mall xoor- fhip. SecT.$. 2. How \vW D.Burgtffe make it appearc, chat the Englifh Cere-
monies doe belong to that order and decency* which is comanded. aDceffccl. (a)BeSdmtint would have all the Ceremonies cf -he Church oii^ome Sacr. Ub.z comprehended vnder order and decency, and therefore warranteth ca?-l l* them by that Praxept or die A pottle. Let all things be done decent- ly and in order. The one fhall as ibone prove his poynt as the o- cher, and that lhall be never.
For 1 .The /• poltle only commands that each action and Ceremo- ny of Gods worf hip be decently and orderly performed, bat gives us no leave to excogitate or devife new Ceremonies , which have not been inftituted before. He hath fpoken in ihat Chapter ofalTem- bling in the Qurch^Prophecying and Preaching, Praying & Praifmg there.
Now let all thefe things, and every other action of Gods worfhip Ceremonies and all be doRe decently and in order. Licet ergo, b In fr<e- Paulus7&cy Albeit therefore fakh (b) lob. 'Baftwic^, T>aul hath f*t el en cb. commuted to the Churchy the judging both of decer.cy and order y yet 7pC/r'Fa~ ^At ^c notgramUd ati) kberty of [itch mifticall £eremonics, as by their ' V tc" more inward figni fie at ion doe teach the duty of piety : For fince the whole liberty of the Church in the matter of Divine worfhip, is cxer- cifed only in order and decency ; it followeth that they doe impudently fcorne both God and the Script ures , who doe extend this liberty to greater things , and fitch as are placed above us* %JA€oft certaine it is$ that Cbnsl the Iso&our of the (fhurch hath by bis owne writtetu andfealed Word^aboundantly expounded unto us the will of Cody net* ther is there further need of any Ceremouiis , which by aficret vertae tnay 'mslrucl us : neither is it leffe evident, ,th <at order confifteth not iu the tnfthmtiofu orufe of new things , but -only iu the right placing of c De caf. thiugs which havs been inftituted be fire. Decency ,faith (c) Baldwinejs confe. lib . opp ofed to le vitie, and order to confufioru . Speclat ant em hie or do po- <*. cap. ii# tiffimum ad Ritus Ecclefix in ojpcijs Saeris in qttibM nullum debet effe
fcandafam, nulla Qonfyfto.
Then,
Chap. 6. C**Mt °e grounded upon Scripture 9?
Then , In his Iudgment , order is not to the Rites of the Church a generall kynd , but only a concomitant circumftance ; neither ate rhe Rites of the Church comprehended under order , as parti- culars under the generall kynd to which they belong, but order belongeth to the Rites of the Church , as an adjunct to the Sub- ject. And I pray, muft not the Rites of the Church be managed with decency and order ? Iffojthen mult our Opposes either lay, that order is managed wiih order >. which is to fpeake nonfence , or clfe t'ut the Ritesof the Church are notcomprehended under order. But f not : then it rolloweth that the Ritesof the ChurcrT are to be managed wi:h levity; confufion , and fcandall ., for every adtioa that is not done indecently and in order, mult needs be done fcanda- loufly and confufedly. 2. Order and decency , whether taken largo , or ftritlo fenfu 9 allwayes fignify fuch a thing as ought to be in all humane aclions , .. as well civiil as iacred ; for will any man fay that the civill actions of men are notto be done decently and in or- der ? [ d ] The directions of order and decency , arc not ( we fee ) (d ) AmtJ. popiarcligionis. But as (e) Balduine fhzweth out Gregory Na- Bell.everv zianzen,oider is in all other things , as well as is in the Church.Whe- torn, i . lib. refore facred fignificanr Ceremonies f hallnever be warranted , by $.crp.y. the precept of order and decency , which have place no leife in civi- (e) Vbifu- lity then in religion, pra.
Now to rhe particulars. Andfirft , that which Chrift did Matth. Se& 4. 19. 13. 1 5*. can no: commend unto us the Bif hopping, or confirma- tionofch ldren by prayer and impolition of hands. For as(/) if) Com. m Maldonat faith rightly, Hdbreotum confuetttdintm fuiffe^ut qui ma~ l^um t°m joreserant & aliqut pollebant diviua gratia , m4vuumimpcfitionecum* inferior ibus benedicerent ,. conjlat ex Gen* 4$t 14.1 / , hac ergo ratienc addul'li parentes , Infant cf ad Chriflnm afferebant s ut impefuvs manibuiiliisb^nediceret. And as touching this bleffwg of children and imposition of hands upon them , faith (g) Cartwnghtyitis pecu- (g)oni\iat har unto our Saviotr Chnft :■ ufed neither by his difciples , nor his ^9-fi^-9* Aposlles , either before or after his Afcenfion. Whereunto m.u keth that the Children being brought , that he fhruldpray over them, he did not pray for them , but b\efftd them , that is tofaycommen- dtdthem to be blepd 5. thereby to fhew his Divine power. Thefe be- ing alfoyet fit f ants , and in their fuatheling clout cs , as by the Word which the Euangshsl ufeth* and as by our Saviour Chnfis taking them into his **mts , doth appear e ; beting alfo in all likeliehood un* baptifed. Lafl of all , their confirmation is a notable derogation mtQ the holy.Sacram ant of Baptifme , not alone in that it prefumth
the
-bj Pfal.
95 71: at the lawfulnefle of the Ceremonies Parrj.
t hs (eating of that which wo* fealedf efficiently by tt : but alfotn that both by affneeration of words • and ty Jpeciahy of theMimfttr that givethit it ts m*_/ preferred tint 0 it.
The act of Pert h about kneeling, would draw fometommenda- t;on to this Ceremony , from thole words of the ( b )Pfalme , O 95.6. come let us worihip and bow downe. let us kneele before the Lord our maker. Which is as if one f hould argue thus. We may wor- ihip b:fore the lord. Ergo before a creature. We may kneele in an immediate worf hip of God , Ergo in a mediate. For \* ho feeth not , that the kneeling there fpoken of, is a kneeling in the action or lolemne praife , and Ioyfull- noife of finging unto the. Lord? I wilhycu, my Mafters, mere fober fpirits , that ye may feare to take G6ds name in vaine , even his word which he hath magni- \e)Irkn. iied above all his name. ( c) Dr.Forbejfe goeth about to warrant lib. 1 . cap. private Baptiime , by Philips baptifing the Eunuch , there being no 7-6 7* greater company prefent , fo far re as we can gather from the 'nar- ration of Lwfe.*, A&\ 8. As lykwife by Paul and Silas their baptifing the Coaler and all his , in his owne private houfe, Aft. 16. Touching the ririt of thole places , we aniwere . 1 . How thinks he that a man . of lo great auctority and charge, was alone in his Iourny ? we fup- pofe a great man travelling ma charret , muft have feme number ol attendants , efpecially having come to a folemne wori hip at lent- fahm. 2. What Philip then did , the extraordinary direction of the Spirit guided him untoit,Kcr/l29 39. As to the other p!ace,there was in that time of perfecution no liberty for Chriftians to meet to- - gether in Temples and publike places as now there is. Wherefore the example of Paul and Silas doth prove the lawfulnelTe of the like deed in the like cafe. Seel. 6. (d) Hooker muttererhfome fuch matter,as a commendation of the
(djEcclef. Signeofthe Crotfe,from rhefe two places E^ech. 9 4 Kcvel.y .$.a\- Tol. lib.%. leadging that becaufe in the forehead nothing is more plaine to be S.6f. feene then the feare of contumely and difgrace ; therefore the Scripture defcribeth them marked of God in the fotehead , whom • his mercy hath undertaken to keepfrom finall confufion and fhame. Xe) Del- (e/BclIaymj7iea\\rtc]gti\\ for the Crofle the fame two places. Butfor rnag.fantl, anfwer to the firft,\ve fay that neither the figne whereof we read in cap.29. that place nor yet the ufe of it can make ought for them. As for the figne inelfe. Albeit the Ancients did interpreter his (igne of the (fjQcm.in letter T^to have been the (igne of the Crofle , yet faith (f) Junius, ilium io* 'Bona iilorum venia ; ¥ cjaidem (fr&corem , Utinor -unique majn(cu- cum% lum^ cruets qotidammodo fignu*n videtuv effingere , verum hoc ad tire*
ram H&buornm Tau non potesJpertir.^e. Deinde ne ipfum qwdem Gracoxum LtinorttwqHe T, for mam Crffii. " >* aped veteres %ne(U- erat, qnum fumebantur fupphria , rep
Where-
Chap.6. Cannot be grounded vf on Scrtpture. 97
Whereupon diiTenting from the Auncients , he delivers bis ownc Iudgement,that T<*m in this place is taken Technics , for that hgne or marke of the le.ter wherewith the Lord commanded to marke the elect for iheir fafety and prefervation. And fo there was no miftery to be iought in that lerter more then in any other, A s for the ufe of that marke, wherewith the eledt in Ierujalem were at that time fealed, it was ©nly for distinction and feparation. It had the fame ufe which thatfprioklingofthe potts of ihe dooreshad, Exod. 12.7. only the foreheads of men and women , and not the polls of doores were here marked , became only the remnant according to clection,at:<d not * hole families promiicouQy were at this time to be fpared, zslunius noteth.
But the ufe of the fignc of the CroiTe pretended by Forrardifts , is not to feparate us in the time of Iudgement , but to teach that at no time we ought to-be afhamed of the ignominy of Chrift.
Shortly, the figne wherewith they in ]crufaUm were marked , was tot prefervation 'from Iudgement ; but the iigne of the Croife is u- ied for prefervation from llnne. 1 hus we fee, that neither the figne > '
nor the ufe of it , had any affinity with the CroiTe. Now,the fureit ,interpreation of that place E^ech .94. is to take Tau for an apella- : tive noune, Signifying generally and indehnitly a Marke or a Signe? fo that there is no make determined by this word : only there was a commandemet given te fet a certaine marke, fome figne or other, npon xhz foreheads of the eledt. So have our Englif h Tranilatours taken the place.
This expofition is- conre(Ted by (g) G 'after • Sanc~lius , to befbl- vCom.in lowed almoft by al the Hebrew matters , and by the meft Auncient £^^.9.4 Interpreters., to wit , the Seftuagints , Jquila , and Symachus. The word beareth this glofle , euen according to the confefTion of thofe, who expound it*otherwife in this place, to wit , for an Image t>r reprefentation of the CroiTe. Tau faith :h, SanHius, commune no- ( h ) ibid, men eft,quodfignum indefinite figui fie at. Tau is expounded by *Bel- * Gram. /^rm*we,t:>fignify Signum or Terminus. Well then: omr Adverfaries Uebr. parti themfelves can lay nothing againft our interpretation of the word x, c*p.i • Tau. We have alio Buxtorf for uj,whoin his Hebrew Lexicon , tur- neth Tau to be Signum , and Br this lignification he citeth both this place Eqech.f) 4, and lob. 31.3$. Tauifignummeum.
Laftly , if 'Tau be not put for a common appellative noune fignify- ingamarkeor figne , but for the figure or character of the letter Tau as an Image of the CroiTe , by all likelyhood this character only fhould have been put in the Hebrew text , and not the noune fully written • Vchithvitha tau.and marke a marke. As to the other place, Revel. 7. 3 . (i) Parew obferveth,that there is no figui e or forme of any (0 Ccmrn* figne there expreffed, and he thinks that feale was not outward and in ilium viiible3bkrt the fame whereof we read 2.17m. 2. 19. and Revel. 14. 1. locum*
._ .Nnn Which
$S That the lawfulnejfe of the Ceremonies Part.J.^
Which can ncr be interpreted deftgno tranfeunte': nam Chriffianum~ k.Animad. fcmper nomen filij & patris in fronte opportet gerere , faith [ fcj lu- ad Be!!, de mUi •
imag.Cintl ^•^t^f^rc/e/./, 3. faith, that the figne here fpoken of is proper to cap. 20. Gods elect, therefore not the figne ot the CrolTe, which many repro-.
bares have received.
Se£. 7. ( h ft. Andrews mil have the fealt or Eafter drawne from that
/ Serm.cn place i.Cor.5 8. Where he aith, there is not only a warranc, but an
that place, order for .he keeping ofit,and tie Will have it out o^ dou')t, that this
fealt is of rpoitolxall initituiion , becau'e after the times of the
Apoftles,when there was a contention about the maner or keeping
Eafter,itwas agreed vpon by all, that itihoulibe kept , and when
the cnefide alleadged :or the.n Sz.lvhn^nd the ether S.Peterjt was
acknowledged by both, ;hat the eaft was ?. poftolicall.
J anfvver, the Teftimony of Socrates defer veth more creditthen
the Bishops naked conclusion.
m Lib.f. I am °f 9pinion faith ( m ) Socrates , that as many other things
cap. iz, crept in of enftome infnndn places, (0 the Feaft of Eafter to have pre-
yailedamong all people ^of a csrtawe private cuftome & obferyation^.
But whereas B.I in dfy in deence of\B. Andretves, replyeth that
Socrates propoundeth this for his owne opinion only.
I anfwer , that Socrates in that Chipter proveth his opinion from
the vene fame ground, which B.Andreives wrefteth, :o prove that this
Feaft is Apoitolieall. For whileas in that hot controversy about the
■ keeping or Eafter , they of the Eaft alleadged Iohn the Apoftle for
th^tr Auth^r,andtheyo tie weft alleadged Peter&cPaul for them-
fel ves; Tat (faith Socrates , there is nont that can foew in writing any
teftimony 0] theirs, f or confirmation^ and proof e of their cuftome \ An d
hereby I doe gather ,r hat the celebration of the Feaft of Eafter , came
up more of cuftome then by any Law or Qanon-j.
Sedt. 7. - Douname 'as I touched before) alleadgeth the fourth commande-
ti In Epift. ment for holy dayesof the Churches institution. But (n)D. Baft wick.
ad quenda alleadgeth more truly the fourth coramandemet again ft them , Six
quia re- day.es J halt thou labour. This Argument I have made good elle-
fotm. re* where,fo that now I need not infift vpon it. There are further two
Hg.adPa- examples alleadged againft us,for holy dayes,out of £/?/jer 9. 17. 18.
fifmMfe- 17-28. and ]o. 10. 22.
ccrat, VVhereunto we anlwer. 1 .That both tho'e feafts were appointed
to be kept with the confent of the whole Congregation o: J'rael , and body of the people,as is plaine from Efther. 9. ; 1. 6c i.Maccab,- 4. J9- therefore they have no fhew of making ou:rrr or :uch feafts as oars , which are tyrannically urged upon fuch as in their con- fciences doe condemne them. . -f
a. It
Chap.6. Cannot he grounded vpon Scripturel 99
1. Jt appeares, that the dayes of Purim were only appointed to be dayes oreivill mirth and gladnerie,fuch as are in ufe with us,when we fet out bone-fires,and other tokens of' civill joy for fome memorable benefite uhichtheKingdome or Common-wealth hath received, For they are not called the holy dayes oiPurim.bnt fimply the dayes of Purim , a day of feafting and of fending portions one to another \ Efther. 9. 19.22. no word of any worfaipor God on thole dayes. And whereas it feemeth to (e) B.Lindfey, that thole dayes were ho- c pf9e^ fa ly , becaufe of that reft which was obferved upon them : He mult pertf/aL know that the text interpreted itfelfiand it is evident from Verf.16. /my partt and 22. that this reft was not a reft from labour , for waring uponJ *,. »q, the vvorl hipping of God , but only a relt from their ene- * '^'5 mies.
But B • Andre wesgoeth about to prove by fix reafbns , that the ge(g. «# dayes of Purim were holy dayes,and not dayes of civill joy and So- p $erm.on iemnityonly. ^ Efther. 9.
Firft,faith he,it is plaine by Verft$i. they tooke it in animas, upon % j, their foules,a foule-m at ter they made of it : there needs no foule for feria oxfefium> ptay or feafting. They bound themfelves fuper ani~ m as fuas,vf hich is more then upoitehtmfelves, & would not have been put in the margent, but ftooa in the text : thus he reprehendeth the Englifh Tran(latours,as you may perceive.
Anfiv. The B . could not be ignorant that nephefch fignifyeth car- pus animatum,aswe\l sisanima, and that the Hebrevves doe not all— wayes put this word for our foules, but verie often for our 'elves. So Pfal.7.2,and Pfal.59.3. vveread naphfchi: my foule : forme ; and Pfal.44.2f. naphfchenu : cur foule : for we 5 and Gen.46 ,16 .col-ne- phefch : omnes anima : for emnes homines*
VVhat have we any further need of Testimonies. Six hundreth fiich are in the holy text. And in this place f/r/j. 9,31. what can be more plaine,then that nghal-naphfcham t vpon their foule : is put for nghalehem: upon themfelves , especially lince nghalehem is found to the fame purpofe both inKery.27.and 31. '
J~we will make the text agree well with it felf, how can We but take both thefe for one? But proceed we with the Bif hop. Se- condly, faith he , the bond of it reacheth to all that religionieo^ rumvoluerunt copulariverf. 27. then, a matter of religion it was, had reference to that : what need any Ioyning in religion for a matter o'good felIowfhip?
Anfw. there is no word in the text of religion, our Englifh tran- slation reads it, all fuch as joyned themfelves unto them. Montanus* cmnes adjtmftos. Tremellius , omnes qui effent fe adjunfturi efi, The old latine verfion reads it indeed as the Bif hop doeth.
But no fuch thing can be drawen out of the word hannilvim^ hich is taken from the radix lava , Signifying (imply and without any
N n n Z ad-
100 That the latvfulnefie of the Ceremonies .Part,},
any adjeilion,/r^#c//f,or adjunxitfe. But let it be fo , that the text meaneth only fuch as were toadjoyne themfelves to the religion of the lewes ; yet why might not the Iewes have taken upon them a matterof civility, not only for themfelves , but for fuch alio aswere tobejoyncd with them in religion ? Could there be nothing pro- mifed for Profelytes but only a matter of religion ?
Alas! Is this our Antagonifts great Achilles , who is thus falling downe and fuccumbing to me a iilly Stripling . Yet let us- fee . , if there be any more force in the remnant of his reafons.
For a third ,- he tells us, that it is'expreffely tearmed a Rite and a Ceremony , at the Z$. and 28. Verfes , as. the Fathers read them.-
Anfw. If fame of the Fathers through ignorance of the Hebrew tongue,have pat into their verfiones more then the originall bearcth, finll we therefore crre with them.
In the z$.Verf. we have no more but Sufceferunt , zs-Pagnime, or \ I{e$eperunt,as Tremellim reads it : But to read, Sufceporant infolem- nemritHm>isio make an addition to the text.
The 2$.Verf. calls not this Fealt a Rjte > but only dies memoratiy ■ or celebres. And what if wegraunt that this Feaft wasa rite ? might it not,for all that,be meerely civill ? No , faith the Bif hop-, F(ites, I truft, and Ceremonies , fertaine to the Church , and lotbe fervice of God.
Anfiv. The verfion which'the Bif hop followed, hath a !{ite,not a Ceremony-. Nbw,ofi^z>^ is certaine, that eh? y belong to the com- mon-wea!tb,as well as to the Church.- For- injure Politico , fuifunt a De Pol. *™Pcrati & folemnes rttusfoith (q) lunius.
Mofis cap. Fourthly , faith the B. they fall: and pray here in this Verfe ,fmea~ - * " ning the 31.) faft the eve, the fouitccnthjand fo then,the day follow- ing^ be holy day of courfe.
Anfw. The latine veriion, which the B. followed!, and whereupon he buildeth this reafon,rcadeth the 31. Verfe very corruptly, and no vvayes according to the originall , as will eafily appeare to any who can compare the in together. Wherefore the beft interpreters take the fading and prayer fpoken of Verf 31. to be meant of the time before their delivery. Now,af;erthey were delivered, they decreed that the matters of their fafting and crying i f hould be remembered upon the dayes ofl?wn'w;which were to folemnize that prefervation, quam Jgjunio & mecibm ffterant aT/eo 6onfequuti , as faith Tre- mellifis.
But nftly,fai.h he, with falling and prayer fhere) almesalfo is cn- joyned,(at the 22. Verfe) thefe three will. make it paft a day of re- bels or re "r h.
I have anfwercd already,that their fafting and praying are not to be referred to tae dayes of Puritfi, which were memorialls of
their
Cfcap-6-' Cannot be grounded upon Scripture. 10 1-
their delivery , bar to the rim; palt, when by the meanes of tailing; and p;ayer they did impetrate their delivery , before ever the dayes oiPurim tfere h:ard of: and as touching alm3s,it can make no holy- day ; becaafe machalaies may be, and hath been given upon dayes oi civill joy and folemniuy.
If the B.help no: him elfe with his fixt rearon , he is like to come off with no great credit.' May we then know what that is?
Laftiy , faith he, as a holy day the lewes ever kep: it;have a pecu- liar let iervice for it in their Seders ; fet Pfalmes to fing,fet lelfonsto read,fet prayers to fay,good and godly all .- None, but as they have ufed from all antiquity. v
Anfiv.i .The B. could not havemade this word good ,that the lewes did ever 5c from all antiquity keep the dayes ofPutimja this ral nion.
2. This miner of holding that Feaft.whenfoever it beganne, had no warrant from the firft institution , but was fas many other things) taken up by the lewes in after ages; and fo the B. proverh not the pjint which he takethin hand, namely, that the dayes fpoken of in this text were enacted or appointed to be kept as holy dayes.
3 . The (ervice which the lewes in latter t'mes ufe upon the dayes
of PtfWwijis not much to be regarded. For as (r)Godiryn noteth out r Mof.ml of Hofbinian , they reade the hiftory of Efiher in their Synagogues, Adrsnjib* and fooften as they here mention of Human , they doe with theif 3 . cap.iu- ftfts and hammers beat upon the benches and boords , as if they did knock upon Hamans head .
Wnen thus they have behaued them(elves,in the very time oftheit Lyrurgie,like furious and drunken people , thereftof the day they palfe overmoutragiouS revelling. And here I take leave of the Bit hop.
Thirdly, we fay,whether the dayes of Ptirim were inftituted to be Sect.io* holy dayes, or no:, yet there was fome mo'/e the ordinary warra t f >r them, beeaufe Mor decai yby whok advice 5c direction they were ap- ■-' poinred to be kept , was a Prophet by the inftiaft and revelation of the Sp rhyEftbs7.4.ij. No?t mptltum fortaffe aberraverimas, faith (s) Hosfiniafu , fi dicamxt hoc a *Jftt or doch&o & Heft hint, ex pt- s De Orig* ctilUri Spiritus Saftfti ittftwttit fattum. feftoY*
(t) B. L*W/t^ beleeveth , that they had only a generall warrant cap.Zs'ad- fuch as the Church hath {till to put order to the circumltances be- fincm. longing to Gods woiThip, and all his reafon is beeaufe if the lewes (tWhifu** had received any other particular warrant, the 5 acred ftory f houid f fit tag* not have palled it over in file nee. 31*
Anfiv. Thus much we underftand from the Sacred Storic , that the lewes had the direction of a Prophet for the dayes of Vurim\xx\\ that was a warrant more then ordinary , beeaufe Prophets were the extraordinary Miniftcrs of God.
Nnn 1 ■ Fev»rth--<-
io2 That the lawfulnefte of the Ceremonies Part, t ,
Sect .ir. Fourthly , as touching the Feaft of the dedication of the Altar by v> Annot. judos Machabcus I. Let us heare what (w) Cartwright very gravely onlo.io. and judicioufly propoundeth.
be #,4. jbat tfa Yeaft was unduely instituted and ungroundedlj, it may
appeare by Confoence of the dedication of the fir ft Temple vnder Solo- won , and of the fecund , after the captivity returned from Baby- lon, fn which dedication feeing there was no yearly remember ance by folemnitj of Feafl,not fo much as one day, it is evident that the yearly celebrtion of this Feaft for eight dayes , was not compaffed by that Spirit that Solomon^ and the captivity were direlled by : Which Spirit when it dwelt more plentifully in Solomotu , and tu the Pro- phets that slood at the fteame of the captivities deAicatiovufhen it did in Judas, it was in himfi much the more pre fumpt nous , as having a Jhorter legge then they, he dm ft iff that matter overftridethemm And his r*fh ruffe is fi much the more aggravated , as eaeh of them for the budding of the whole Temple , with all the implements and furniture thereof, made no Feaft to renewe the annuaU memory, where Judas on- ly for renewment of the Altar , and ofcertaine other decayed places of the Temple, inftituted this great folemnity.
i. The Feaft of the dedication was not free of Pharifaicall inven- x Annot f tion : For as f *) Trewe//*'w obferveth out of the Talmud, ftatuerunt *n jo. io. Sapient es illiusfeculi, ut recurrentibits annis,*8o illidies, 8cc. Yet al- 2*1 beit the Pharifes were called Sapientes ifraelis. (y) B.Lindfey will
y Vbi fu- not graunt,that they were the wife-men of whom the Talmud fpea- pra, f.31 . keth ; for (faith he) it behoved thefe who appointed feftivities , not only to be wife-men,but men of authority alfo.
But what doe we heare? were not the Pharifes men of authori- % Math. ty ? Why ? ( ^Sai h not Chriit they fate in Mofes Chaire? Saith not 2^2, (*) Calvine, In Scclefi®imine &Scriptura interpretation , hac illuml' *~ ]t^?lPimatHm tenebat, ? Saith not (b) (fa?nero, Cum Pharifdtorum b Pr<ehtl' Pr<£CtP^a effet authontas (ut ubique docet Iefephus.) &c. in Math.' Doth not /o/eftoipeake lb much of their authority , that in one To. 2. de (c/ P^ce he <aith, Nome igitur regni,erat penes r e gin am( Alex an dram) Tharif. penes Phwifeos vero admmtslratio. And in (d) another place, Erat* c Antiq. emm qu&dam Judaovum Sella exatliorem Tatria legis cogmtionem Iud.Ub 13 fibi yendicans,&c. Hi Pharif&i vocantur , genus homwum aftutum, c??'24: arrogans,& inter dam re gibus quoque infeftum , ut eos etiam aperte
Iud lib rj*mP,i&fiare non VerealUY *?
*4*V ' 3- There is nothing alleadged which can grove the lawfulnefle
oithisFealtof the dedication.
It is
Chap.6 Cannot he grounded upon Scripture l©3
It is but barely and boldy affirmed by (e ) B.Lindfey, that the (e) ln°*fam Phanfes were not rebuked by Chriii for this feaft , becaufe we fra TaZ* reade not fo much in Scripture. For there were very many things I2'- Which Iefus did and faid,iha^ /; are not written in Scripture. And ( /)Jo,2i« whereas itfeemeth tofome , that Chrift did countenance and ap- 25. prove this feaft , becaufe < g ) he gave his prefence unto the fame, (g) ]o. \ol we muft remember, thai ihe circumftances only, of time and 22. 2j, place, are noted by the Euangeliit , for euidence to the ftorie , and not for any miftery. Chrift had come up to the feaft of Taberna- cles, Io. 7. and tarried ftil all thatwh-le, becaufe then there was a great confluence or people in Ierufalem. Whereupon hetooke occafionto fpread '.he net of the Gofpell for catching of many foules And whileas lohn faith, It was at Ierufalem the feaft of the Dedica- tion he gives a reaion , only of the confluence of many people at Ierufalem , and f heweth how it came to paiTe that Chrift had oc- calion to preach to fuch a great multitude. And whileas he ad- deth , Af.d it was Winter , he giveth areafon of Chrifts walking in Solomons porch , whether the Iewes refert was ; it was not thought befeeming to walk in the Temple it felfe, but in the porch men ufed to conveene either for talking ■ or walking , becaule in fummer the porch fhaddowed them frornthe heat of the funne , and in Winter it lay open to the funne fhine and to hear. Others thinke that while- as he fai:h , it was winter , importeth that there ':bre C hriit was the more frequently in the Temple , knowing that his time was ihort which he had then for his preaching, iorin the entry of the nex Spring he was to fuffer. Howloever , it is not certaine of what.? \ , , feaft of dedication Ichn fpeaketh ;(h) Bullinger leaves it Doubtfull :• * ' ' * and Mai don at fairh,that this opinion which taketh the dedication, ] ./_ ' of the Altar by Iudas Machabeus to be meant by lohn, jfeib feweft \y. .. omm> authors. But to let this paiTe , whereas the ( k) l(he>nifts alleadge \l\'A that Chrift approved this feaft , becaufe he was prefent at it p Cart- kg. nnot* wright and Fulkjt anfwere them that Chrifts being prefent at it pro- l * veth not his approving of it. Nonfftum proprie honor av it Chriftus , , > . . faith (/) lunius , fedecetumpiorum convenientum fefto: namomnes^ ,■ „ Z eiufmodi occafienes feminandi Euanzelii fui obfervabit '■& capiebat ma J1 e
Cbnftus. 6 co"tr- *;*':
t QuafAvero (faith (m) HoJpinian)Chriftus Encxniorum caufa Hiero* l ' 4" Ca$' folymam abierit. Nay, buthefaw he had a convenient occahon, *'* J*° a* ad inslitHendam hominnm rmiltitudinem , ad ill ad ftslnm con- , m \ 'D(f pteatinm, ong.Temp
Hven as Paul choofed to be prefeut at' certaine lewif h feafts , (n) lib. ^.capm not for any refpect to the feafts themfelves, nor for any honour 2. which he meant to give them , but for the multitudes caufe , who [n)Cah% reforted to the fame . among whom he had a more plentifuil occa- in at~l.i%9
fion 21 .
104 That the lattfulnefie of the Ceremonies Tarr.|.
fion tofpread theGofpellat thofe fefti vines , then at other times in the yeare. Sect.JI. * nac* bought here to clofe this chapter ; but finding that as the Parret which other while ufeththe forme of a mans voice , yet be- ing beaten and chaffed, returneth to its owne naturall voice ,fo ibme of our Oppolites , who haue beene but erlt piating lome what of the language of Canaan againft us , finding themfelves preffedand perplexed in iuc'h a way of rcafoning , have quickly changed their tune, and beginne to talk tons oi warrants of another nature nor the word of God .• I am therefore to digrelte with them. And I per- ceive ere we know well where they, are , they arc pafledlrom Scrip- ture to cuftome. For iiwe will liften , thus faith one of te grea- ., ^ teit note among hem, ( ^ ( B. Andrewes I trow they call him.
en -i r"' We d°s but make our f elves to be pittied other while , ( well faid ) ii. 16. * whwwe P^ni wringing the Scriptures , ( wellfaid ) to firaine that extofthem which is not in them (, well faid J and Jo can never come L:.cju>defnm th(m , ( well faid : ) when yet we have for the fame pom*- the Chmches cuslome , cieare enough. ^4nd that is enough by vert nc of this text 5 (meaning. 1. Cor. it. 16.) And after he faith, that we are taught by the Apoftles example in points of tins nature, , of Qeremony or Ctrcumft once , tvtr t& pitch uponbabe- mpts , or non habemm taltm confuetuditttm.
Jlnfiv.i. Ihe text gives , him no ground for thisdoctrine , that in matters of Ceremony weare to pitch upon 'habemtts or non h.ibz- nms talcm confuetudinem , io that he is wide away whilcas he fpen- deththe greateft part of his Sermon, in the prefling ofthis point, that the cuftome of 1 he Church fhould be enough to us in matters of Ceremony ,and particularly in the keeping ot Eafter : ior the cu- ftome. of the Church there ipoken of , is not. concerning a point of circumftance, but concerning a vefy fubftantiall and neceifary point, namely, not to be contentious : neither doth the Apoftle urge thote orders ofthe mens praying uncovered, and the womens praying veiled , from this ground , becaufe fo was the Churches cuftome, ( as the B. Would have it. ) but only he is warning the Corinthians not to be contentious aboutthofe matters , becaufe the Churches have no fuch cuftome as tebe contentious. So is the place expoun- ded by Chryjoftome , Ambrofe , Cateine f Martyr , Bullinger . iVdr- lor at 1 Bc$a , Fulcke , Cartwright , Pareus , and our owne Arch- bifchopvfSaintl Andr-ews in his fermon upon that text. And for this expofition itmaketh, that the Apoftle in the preceding part of the Chapter hath given fufficient reasons for that order of covering or veiling the women : wherefore if any would contend about the . spatter, he tells them they muft contend with themklves , for
they
C hap» 6 • can mt ^e grounded upon Scripture? 1 0/
they nor the Churches of God would nor contend with thetr^they had no iuch cuftome.But if we admit B.^Andrewes glofTe,then why doth the Apoftle,afcer he hath given good reafons for the veiling of Wo men, fubjoyne, If any manfeeme to be contentious , &c. The B. reiblveth us, that the Apoftle faw that a wrangling wit would elude thefe reafons which he had given , and he had no other rea- fons to give, therefore he refolves all into the Churches practice, enough of it felf to fuffice any that will be wife to fobriety . <
Anfm If any man feemeto be blafpHemous,we have nofuch civ- . Home, neither the Churches of God. What ? Pnal! a wrangling wit elude the reafons given by the Spirit of God , itvfuchfott, that he muft give fome other more fufficient proofe for that which he tea* ch.eth ?Then the whole Scriptures of God muft yet be-better pro- (q) 2«P^» ved, becaufe the unliable doe wreft then:, as (q) Pwrfpeakes. > 31 6-
2. The cuftome of the Church is not enough to pitch on , and Seel:, it is found oftentimes expedient to change a cuitome of the X 1 1 1.
?. (r) Bafilluf Magnus doth flatly refufe to admit the authority of (tfEptfl- cuftome: Confuetudo fmeveritate , faith {s) Cyprian , Vetuftas erro- So.adEx- rh eft. Fruftra enim qui ratione Vincunturrfahh(t)Jugufline,confuetudmemflatb* me- nobis objiciunt.'quaji' confuetudo major fit Veritate, &c. Nirflut fndor eft ad die* yuliora tranfires(m\\ («) *Ambro[e to the Emperour Valentinian: £u<e- (0 M, Ubtt confuetudo, (x ) faith Gratun, Veritati eft foft ponendt. Pompeium
A nd againe: ( y ) Corrigendum eft quod illkite admitthur , ant a prade- contra eefforibus admiffuminvenitur. {%)\ Politick Writer admonrfheth reti* Epift. $te- nereantiqua, only with this caution : Si froba. phani.
(aj Calvine ( fpeaking againft human Ceremonies) faith : Si oh- [t)DeBaff» iiciatur , <2c. Jft faith he , antiquity < be obj(3ed {albm they mho aretoo contra Do- much ad&Red to cuftome and to received fajhions , do boldly ufe this buckler, natifl. I. f. to defend alt their corruptions y) the refutation is ezfu : For the Attncienis C"P* \ '• alfo themfelves with heavie complaints , have aboundantly teftified, that they (u) fy- 3 x • did not approve of any thing which was devifed by the will of men. I n the ( x ) t>ecr. endof theEpiftle healleadgeth this teftimony of Cyprian. JfChrift ff*. I. alone be to be heard , then we ought not to give heed what any man before &ft.%* c Ji us hath thought fit to be done , but what Chrifl (who is before all) hath done, ()') Deer. for we muft not follow the cuftome of man , but thetrueth of God. part. 2.
W hat can be more plaine , then that antiquity cannot be a con- cauf* 3 5 • formation to errour, nor cuitome a prejudice to trueth ? ? 9 -*•?.
Wherefore (b) D.Forbeffe alfo delpifethfuch Arguments as are ta- U) I £//>/. ken from the cuftome or the Church. lib^ de una
r elfo. ad- Verf.Dialogiflam. (a)Iob.C*tv.Epift. #^.^484.485.(0) Irw.W.i.c.8.4.3.
3. There was a cuftome in the Churches of God , to give the Seel:. holy Communion to infans, & another cuftome to minifter Bap. X I V.
Opo tifme .
i o 6 That the lawfvllneffe of the Ceremonies > &c. Parr. ? .
tifmeoniy about Eafter andPentccoft: Sundry fu»:habufes got place in the Church.
If then it be enough to pitch upon cuftome, why ought notthofe cuftomes to have been commended & continued? But if they were commendably changed, thenoughtwe not to follow blindly the bare cuftome of the Church, but examine the equity of the lame, anddemaund grounds of reaion for it. {c)AmioU S. PauU(fcithic) D. Fulke>) doth give reafons for that order of co- sh i Cor. vering Womens heads : By wbofe example the Preachers are liketvije to il.l6» endeavour to fatisfy by reafon both men ©• women , that humbly defire thtir resolution for quiet of their conscience , 1ST not tobeate them down* with the club of cuftome only .
4. Whereas the cuftome of fome Churches is alleadged for the Ceremonies, wee have objected the cuftome of other Churches againft them : Neither fhall ever our Oppofitcs prove them to be the cuftomes of the Church univerfall:
5 . A great part of that Ecclefiafticall cuftome which is allead- ged for the Cetemonies, refolveth into that Idolatrous & fuperfti- tiousufeofthetib which hath long continued in the kingdome of Antichrift; But that fuch a cuftome maketh againft them , it hath (d) Supra been proved (d) before.
rap. t. 6. If it were fo that we ought to pitch upon the Churches cu-
ftome, yet (that I may fpeake, with Mr.Hooj^r)the Law of common indulgence permitteth us to think of our owne cuftomes, as half a thought better then the cuftomes of others.
But why was there fuch a change made in the Difcipline Policie
and Orders of the Church of Scotland^ which were agreable to the
Word of God,con firmed & ratified by .generall Aflemblies & Par-
1 liaments, ufed and enjoyed with fo great peace and purity f Oure,
• cuftome fhould have holdenthc Ceremonies out of Scotland^ hold
thejn in elfe-whereas it may.
CHAP.
Chap, 7* Of the Churches power to mak* Ltitott* , 1 07
CHAP. VIL
That the Lawfulneffe of the Ceremonies can not be warranted by any Eccle/ia/licall Law 5 nor by any power which the Church bath to put order to things belonging to 'Divine Worfbip.
E have proved that the Ceremonies cannot be warranted by Se&. I. the Law of God. It followeth to examine whether any Law of Man, or power upon Earth, can make them lawrull or warrantable unto us.
We will beginne with Lawes Ecclefiafticall : where fir ft of all jit muft be- considered well, what power the Church hath to make Jawes about things pertaining to Religion ccthe Worfh'pof God, and how farrethe fame doth extend it felf. D. Fields resolution , touching this Queftion.is as followeth. Thin, faith (e) he, we fee our (c) Of the ^Adverfaries cannot prove that the Church hath power to annex unto fuch Churco9 Ceremonies and obfervat ions as fhe devifeth , the remijjion of finnes, and the lib. 4. working of other Spiritual andfupernaturall ejfeBs , which k the only thing cap. 31. - queflioned between them and us about the power of the Church. So that all the power the Church hath^morethenby her power to publifhtheComman- dements of ChriH the Sonne of God , and by her cenfures to punifh the offenders against the fame ts only in preferring things that pert aine to come, lineffe and order. Co?nelinejferequiretbthat not only that gravity and mo- desly doe appearein the performance of the works of Gods fervicey that be- feemeth actions of that nature , but alfo that fuch Rites and Ceremonies bee ufed, as may caufe a due refpeH unto and regard of the things performed, and thereby fiirremen up to greater fervour and devotion.
And alter : Order requireththat there be fet houres for prayer, prea- ching, and miniflring the Sacraments, that there bejilence & attention when the things are performed , that Women befilent inthe Churchy that all things he adminifirate accordingto the rules of Difcipline.
fcThis his difcourie is but a bundle of vicongruities:For,i.he faith, that the Churches power to annex unto the Ceremonies which fhe devifeth the working of Spirituail and fupernaturall effects , is the onely thing queftioned between our adverfaries and us , about the power of the Church. Now, our Adverfaries contend with us alfo about the power of the Church to make new Articles of Faith ; and her power to make La Aes binding theconfeience: both which contioverfiesare touched by (/) him feife. {f)lib,4.
2. He lfath , that come lineffe requireth the ufe of fuch Cere- caj> *6><?
Ooo 2 monies caP- 34-
i oS Of the Churches power to wake LaWes, Part. 5,
monies, as may caufe a due refpedi unto , and regard of the works of Gods fervice, and thereby ftirre men up to greater fervour and {&) Supra devotion. But it hath been already (hewed , that \g) ihe comeli- €af.b.yft»\ nelTe which the A port! e requireth in the Church and fervice of God , cannot comprehend iuch Ceremonies under ir, and that it is no other then that very common external! decency, which is befeeming for all the AfTembliesof men, as well ci villas facred.
3. Whileas he is dtfeourfing of the Churches power to prefcribe things pertaining to order , contra-diftinguifhed from her power which (lie hathto publifhthe Commandements ofChrift, he rec- kons fotth, among his other examples, W omens (ilence in the Church, as if the Church did prefcribe this as a matter of order left to her determination, and not publifh itasthe Commande- ment ofChrift in his Word.
4, Whereas he faith , that the Church hath power to prefcribe fuch Rites & Ceremonies , as may caufe a due refpeel unto> & re- gard of the workes ofGodsfervicc, andthcreby ftirre men up to greater fervour and devotion: by his owne words fhall he be con- demned. For a little before, he reprehendeth the Romanifts fot maintaining that the Church hath power to annex unto the Ce- remonies which (he deyifeth, the working of Spirituall and fuper- natuiall effe&s. And a title after , he faith , that the Church hath no power to ordaine fuch Ceremonies as ferve to fignify, affure and convey unto men , fuch betiefites of favmg grace » as God in Chrift is pleafed to beftow on them. Now, to caufe a regard of, and arefpe&untothe works of Gods fer vice, 2nd thereby to ftirre up men to fervour anddevotion , what is it but the working of a Spirituall & fa per natural! effect, & trie conveying unto men fuch a benefit of faving grace , as God in Chrift is pleafed to beftow on them ?In like manner, whereas he holdeth , that the Church hath power to ordaine fuch Ceremonies , as ferve to expreffe thofe Spirituall and Heavenly affections , difpofitions , motions or de- fires , which are or fbould be in mm ■• In the very fame place he confuteth&mfetfe , whileas he affirmeth that the Church bath no power to ordaine fuch Ceremonies as ferve to fignifie unto men thofe benefites of faving gcace, which God in Chrift is pleafed to beftow on them.Now,:oexpreiTe fuch Heavenly & Spirituall af- fections, difpofitions, motions, or defires,3s fhould be in men; is (I fuppofe) to fignify unto men fuch benerites of" faving grace, as God in Chrift is pleafed to beftow on them. Who dare deny it?
Seel 2. (h)B. Lindfey's opinion touching this power of theCnurch,
whereof we dif pur^jis, that po\ver is given unto her to determine tbs fh) Epitt. riKumftancts t which are in the generaU necejptry to be ufed in Divine tvor- to the Pafi. ft*P' ^ut not defined particularly in the Word. 0/ the Church ofSco tland. I k n ow
Chap. 4> Of the [hutches power to m*ke Lawes. j 09
I know the Church can determine nothing, which is not of this kyndand quality. But the Prelats meaning (as may be feene in that fame Epiftle of his,) is,xhatwhatfoevcr rheChurchdetermineth,if it be (ucn a circumftance as is in the genera:! rieceiTary,but not par- ticularly defined inthe word,thenwecan notfay,thattheChurch had no power to determine & enioyne the fame, nor be led by the judgement of our owneconfciences,Iudging it not expedient, but that in this cafe we muft take the Churches Law to be the rule of our confeiences. Now, by this ground which the PreJat holdetb, the Church may prefcribe to the Minifters of the Gofpell, the whole habit & apparel oftheLevkicall higbPrieft, (which were to Iudaize.)Forapparrellis a circumftance in the generall necefTary, yet it is not particularly defined in the Word. By this ground,the Church may determine that I fhould ever pray with my face to the Eaft, preach kneeling on my knees, fing the Pfalmes lying on my backe , and heare Sermon ftanding only upon one foot. For in all thefe actions a gefture is necefTary ; but there is no gefture par- ticularly defined in the Word, to which wee are adftri&edinany of thefe exercifes.
And further, becaufe uno dbfurdo dato , milk fcquuntur : By this ground the Prelate muft fay , that the Church hath power to or- daine three or foure holy dayes every wee ke, ( which ordinance, as he himfetfe hath told us, could not ftaod with charity, the inf'e- parable companion of piety J for time is a circumftance in the ge- nerall necefTary in divine worfhip : yet in his Iudgement wee are not bound by the Word to any particulat time, for the perfor- mance of the daties of Gods worfhip.
By this ground we were to fey, that Pope Innocm the third held him within the bounds of Ecclefiafticall power, when in the great Lateran Councell, ^Anno 1 2 1 5 , he made a Dccree,that all the faith- ful 1 of both fexes fhould once in the yeareatleaft , to wit , upon Eafter-day, receive the Sacrament of the Eucharift. From whence it hath come to pafTe, that the common people in the Church of Hgmc receive the Sacrament only upon Eafter. Now, the time of receiving theSacrament is a circumftance in the generall neeffary, for a time it muft have, but it is not particularly defined in the Word, It is left indefinite 1. Cor. n.a6. yet the Church hath no power to determine Eafter- day , either as the onely time, or as the fitted time, for all the faith-full of both fexes to receive the Eucha- nft. What if faithfull men and women cannot have time to pre- pare themfelves(as becommeth, ) beingavocated 6x diffracted by the no lefTe necclTary then honeftadoes of their perticular callings? What if they cannot have theSacrament upon that day ad- ministered according to our Lotds inftitution ? What if they fee "Papifts confirming themleives in theiiEafter-fuperftition? by
O o o y our
no - Of the Churches power to make LaVoes. Part. 3 1!
our unneceflfary pra&ice ? Shall they fwallow thefe and fuch like fouledeftroying Camels, and all for draining cut thegnate of communicating precifely upon Eafter day? But fince time is a neceiTary circumftance, and no time is particularly defined , the B. rauft lay more aifo, that the Church may determine Eafter day , for the onely day whereupon wee may receive the Lords Supper.
Laftofall, if the Church have power to determine all circum- ftances in the generall neceffary , but not particularly defined in the Word, what could bee faid againft that auncient order of fo- lemne baptifing onely at the holy dayes of Eafter and Pentecoft , (i) Lih. 5. (whereby it cametopafle.that very many diedunbaptifed,as (i)So- cap. 11. crates wrireth ? ) Or what fhall be faid againftTt) Tertullian his opi- {k) Lib. de nion which alloweth laymen , yea women , to baptife. May the Baptifmo. Churches determination make all ihis good , for afmuch as thefe circumftances of the time when , and the perfons by whom bap- tifme fhould be miniftred , are in the generall neceflaiy 5 but not particularly defined in the W or d? It ehves nugx. Sect. 3. (I) Camero> as learned a Formalift as any 01 the former, expref-
{\)?rcel. feth his Iudgement coptoufly touching our prefent Queftion. torn, i.de He faith, that there are two forts of things which the Church com- potcft.Eccl. mandeth , to wit, either fuch as belong to Faith &; manners ; or contr.z. fuch as doe conduce to Faith and manners: that both are in Gods Word prefcribed exfme plainly ,but not oneway , becaufe fuch things as pertaine unto Faith and manners , are in the Word of God particularly commanded , whereas thofe things which con- duce to Faith and manners are but generally commended unto us. Of things that pertaine to Faith and manners, he faith, that they are moft conftant and certaine , and fuch as can admit no change , but as for things conducing to Faith and manners , hee faith , that they depend upon the circumftances of perfons, place and-time , which beeing almoft infinite , there could not be par- ticular precepts delivered unto us concerning fuch things. Onely this is from God commended untothe Church, that whatfoever is done publikely, bee done with order; and what privately, be decent.
Thefe things he 10 applieth to his purpofe, that he determineth, in neither of thefe kindes the Church hath power to make Lawes, becaufe in things pertaining to Faith and manners, the Law of our Lord Iefus Chrift is plainely expreded : and in thofe things, wherein neither Faith nor manners are placed, but which con- duce to Faith and manners , we have indeed a generall Law , not having further any particular Law , for that region alleadged, namely, becaufe this depends upon the circumftances.
There-
Chap. 7. Of ths Cbwchci poorer to make Lawer. 1 1 1
Thereafter he addeth. Quid fit fides, quid Jit pietas, quid fit chaptatj verba Dei demonftratur. Quid ad hac conducat , feu reputando rem in uni* Verfum ,fu reputando rem quatenusjtnguhs competit, pendet ex cognitione circumflantiarum. lam id defimre Dew voluit'ejj'e penes Ecclefiam, hac ta - men lege, ut quod definitEcclefiaconVeniat generaii definhioniDei.
The matter he illuftrates with this one Example : Gods Word do:h define in the generaii, that we are to h&, and that pub-likely, But in rhe particular wee could not have the definition of the Word,becaufe there are infinite occafions of a publike Fa ft, as it is « faid in the Schooles individua effeinfinha : fo that it is the Churches part,to looketo theoccafion, 5C tins depends upon the considera- tion of thecircumftances. This difcourfe of his cannot fatisfy the attentive Reader, but deferveth certaineanimadverfions.
Firft then, it is to be obferved, ho>v he is drawne into a manifeft Sect. I y • contradiction: for whereas he faith , that Gods Word doth ex fern St diferte commend unto us gentratirrrfiich things as conduce to Faith and maners, & thatconcermngthings of this nature we have a ge- neraii Law in Scripture, how can this ftand with that which he ad- deth,namely,that « is in the Churches power to define what things doe conduce to faith, piety, & charity y even reputando rem in mi- \erfum ?
i. Whereas he faith, that the Church hath no power to make Lawes , neither in things belonging to faith and maners, nor in things conducing to the fame ; I would alfo fee how this agreeth with that other pofition , namely, that it is in the power of the Church to define what things conduce to faith , piety and charity.
3.. What meanes he by his application of order to publike, 5c decency to private a&ions? As if the Apoftle did not require both thefe in the publike workes of Gods fetvice,performedin the Church.
4. Whereas he faith, that (uch things as conduce to Faith and maners, doe depend upon thecircumftances , and fo could not be particularly defined in the W ord,either he fpeakes of thofe things, as they are defined in the generator as they are defined in the par- ticular. Not the firft, for as they are defined in the generaii, they cannot depend upon changeable circumftances , and that becaufe according to his owne tenet.theWord defines them in the general, & this definition of the Word is mod certains & conftant, neither can any change happen untoit.Wherefore(withoutdoubt)he muft pronounce this , of the definition of fuch things in the particular. Now to fay ,tbat things conducing to faith & maners, as they are particularly defined , doe depend upon circumftances , is as much as to (ay that circumftances depend upon circumftances. For things conducing to Faith and manners , which the Church hath
power
in Of the Churches potyer to make LaWes. Part, j ;
power to determine particularly, what are they other then circum- ftances? Surely.he who taketh not Cameroes Iudgement to be, that the Church hath power co determine fomewhat more then the cir- cumftances (and by confequencea port of the (ubftance)of Gods worfhip, fhall give no fence to his words. Yet if one would take his meaning fo, I fee not how be can be faved from contradi&ing himfelf ; for as muchas he holdeth , that fuch things as pcrtaineto Faith cc manners are particularly defined in the Word. To fay no more, Ifmell fuchathingin Cameroes opinion as can neither ftand with reafon nor withhimfelfe.
5. Gods Word doth not onely define ihings pertaining to Faith and manners , but alfo things conducing to the fame, and that not onely generally but in fome reipe&s, and fometimes particularly. Andwe take for- example his owne Inftance of falling. Forthe Scripture defineth very many occafions of fafting, Ezra 8. 21. iChron. 20. lona $.1W z.^A&.i 3.3. I0/.7.6. hid. zo. i6.Efiher 4.16. E^ray. & 10. fych. 7. From which places we gather,thatthe Scrip- ture defineth fafting to beufed.
1 . For Supplication,when we want fome necelTary or expedient good thing.
2. For Deprecation, when we feare fome' evil].
3. FcrHumiliation,whenby ourfinneswc have provoked Gods wrath. Neither can there be any occafion of fafting , whereof I may not fay that either it is particularly defined in Scripture, or clfe that it may be by necelTary confequence defined out of Scrip- ture, orlaflly, that it is of that fort of things which were not de- terminable by Scripture , becaufe circurriftances are infinite , as
<; ft V ^4;wfronatn told us.
beet. V. Thus having faiied by thofe rockes of offence: I dirccl: my
courfe ftraight, to the defcrying of the true limits , within which
the Churches power of enacling Lawes about things pertaining to
theworfhip of Cod , is bounded and confined , and which it may
not overlea>pe nor tranfgreiTe.
Three conditions I findc neceiTarily requifite^nfuchathmg as
the Church hath power to prescribe- by her Lawcs.
1 . It muft be onely a circumftance of Divine Worfbipr no fub-
fiantiallpart of it,no facredfignifkant and efficacious Ceremonie.
Forthe order and decency left to the definition of the Church, as
concerning the particulars of it , comprehendeth no more, but
(mj Epift. merecircumftances. {m) B.Lindfey, doth but unskilfullv confound
to the Paft. t b i 11 g s different, when he ta keth of the Ceremonies and Circumftances
of the Uft to the determination of the Church. Now by his leave, though Cir-
Church of cumftances be left to the determination of the Church , yet Ce-
ScotUnd. rcm0nies (if we fpeake properlv) are nor.
J5 ^An-
Chap. 7. Of the Churches power to mtke tapes, nj
(«) B.jWrejr»e.f avoucheth , that Ceremonies pertaine to the nSerm.on Church only and to ifeis iervice of God, not to civill folemnities. But Fflher.y* fo much (I truff) he would not have iaidofcircumftances,whichhave $*• place in all morall actions and that to ihe iame end and purpofe,for which thev fcrve in religious actions , namely, for beaivti yingthem with that decent demeanour which the very ligh: and law of natural ' reafon requireth, as a thing befeeming all humane actions. For the Church of Chrilt being a lociety of men and women, muft cither ob- iervc order 6c decency in all the circumftances of their holy actions, time, place, pcrfon forme, &c. or elfe be deformed with that mif- order and and confulion , which common reafon and civility abhor- reth. Ceremonies therefore, which arc facred obfervances;andfervc only to a religious 6c holy ufe,and which may not withourSacrilcdgc be applied to anoiher ufe, muft be forted with things of another na- , . ture then circumftances. Qeremonia^Qeremonies (■s.\h.'o)D .Field) are ° , ' ! fo n<*med a* Livie thinkerh from a towne called (fde^e , in the which ... ' the Romas did hide their fie fed things when the G.iftles invadedRome, * u Other think* that Ceremonies are fo named a caren\doyof abstaining from certaine things, at the laves abftainedfiom Sw'mes flejh^nd (hn- $ry other things forbidden bjCjodas uncle ane .Ceremonies arc outward tils ofReltgion.&c. Jgua propter etiamfahh (p) Junius Ritus & Ce~ f ^eP^lt* yemomas inter fi difHnximustfuia in Jure politico fiiifunt imperati & °^'c *'7 (Uentics rttus: Ceremoniaveronon nififacra obfirvationes in cultu di~ ~ « ymo appeuantur.CeremoMa)\ailh{c])T>eilarmtneiproprte & jimpliciter y.amjty,2. fie vocatn^eft externa aclio qua non aliunde eft bona & laadabilis, nifi cat>.2<). quia fit ad Deum colendum. From which \vo\ds(r)Ar?iefius concludeth r Bell. againit him,that he 6c others with him doe ablurdly confound order, enerv.tv.f decency 6c the like, which haue the fame ufe 6c praife in civill things, lib. i . cap, which they have in the worf hip of God, with religious 6c facred Ce- $ . monies. Yetfj)D.B«r^ej?f rejedleth this diltinction betwixt ch cum- s Manu~ fiances and Ceremonies,asameere nicitie or fiction. And would ye dut~l. fag, know his reafon ? Fcr that faith he.,al! circumftances (Imeane cxtrin- 33. fccall) which incurre not thefubftance of the a£tion>tvhen they are once defrgned or obferved furpefely , in reference to fitch a matter .of trhofe fulft.ince they are not>they are then Qeremoyiies. If this be not anicitie or fief ion, I know not what is. For what meanes he here by a matter? An adion,fure,or elfe a nicitie. Well themwe f hall have now a world o-Ceremonies.Whe I appoint to meet with another man ztBarivicf^ upon the tenth day of May , becaufe the place and the day arc pur- pofely defigned in referece to fuch a mat:er,of whofe fubfrance they are not, namely,to my meeting with the other m?, for talking of our bufinefle,therefore the towne ofBanvichand the tenth day of May, muft be accounted Ceremonies. To me its nice , that the t). made ic not Kice,to let fuch a nicitie fall from his penne.
P p y When
rx4 Of the Churches pditter temakf LAttfes. Parr, J
When I put on my fhooes in reference to walking, or wafh my j hands in reference to eating , a:n I uling Ceremonies all rhe while ?
The Do :tou- could not choofe bat fay fo , for afmuch as thefe cir- eum tances are parpofely dehgned and obferved in reference to fuch mat ers,of whole (uoftance they are not. Sp&.G* 2. Tiiatwuch the Quire 1 may lawfully prefcribe by her Lawes
and ordinances, as a thing left :o her determination , mud be one of fuch things as were not determinable by Scripture , for that rea'on ' which Carnert hath given us , • namely ,'becaule Individua are [nfini- ta. We meane not in any wife to circum'cribe the infinite power &c wifdome of God : only welpeakeupon 'uppofition ot the bounds 8c limits which God did let to his written word, within which he would have it contained , and over which he thought fitt that it 1 hould not exceed. The cafe being thus put, as it is, we fay truely of thole feve- rall and changeable circumltances, which are left to the determina- tion of the Church, that being almoft infinite, they were not particu- larly determinable in Scripture^for the particular definition of" cho.e occurring circumltances , which were to be rightly ordered in the workesofGodsfervice, to the end of the World , and that ever ac- cording to the exigency o 'every prefent occafion and different ca<e, i hould have filled the whole world wirh bcokes. But as for other things pertaining to Gods worf hip, which are not to be reckoned a- mong the circumftances of it , they being neither in number many, nor in change various , were mo 3: eafily and conveniently determi- nable in Scripture. Now/ince God would have his word, ( which is our rule in the workes of his fcrvice) not zo be delivered by tradi- tion,but to be wri'.ten and fealed unto us , that by this meanes , for obviat'ng Satauicall fubti!ty,and faccouring humane imbecillity, we might have a more certame way forcon'ervation of true religion, and for the in'tauration o fit when it faileth among men : how can we bat allure our leWcs.that every inch acceptable thing pertaining any way to religion , wnich was particularly and conveniently de- terminable in Scripture, is indeed determined in ir;and confcque.nt- ly rhat no fuch t^'uv^ as is not a meere alterable circu.nltance,is lex to the determination of the Church? Sc£l.7. $. If the Church prefcribe any thing law lillyXothat fhe prefcribe
no more then fhe hath power given her to prefcribe, her ordinance malt be accompanied with fome good reafon and warrant , given ibr h? fatisfalfron of tender con ciences. This condition is (alas) too feldome looked unto by Law-makers , ol" whom oac fitly com- plained! thus :
Lex qu.tnvr) ratio Ciceroni fiimma vocetury lit bene Lutdetur lex qut ritione prMtHr ; Invenies inter fogi/ias raro lo%ift& '. Mori! i3 exempli ItgesfuntfurafueTempli.
But
Oap.7* Cf the thurchesftwcrte make Litres, uy
Eutthis fa: hie r, we leafctothem^l 6 Will have all i^eir Anona- lics taken or/ nalcgies. hi can ntih rot the peuic of Chrift endued w ith the Spirit of meekrtfhej'c ccmma&d any thing in pc- riouCy,ard without a reaion given.
£c(hfd ihiw eft- dnere prwuwjtw pnefenforefohk (t) frmtvo. (t)PralcB. Ar.dagainc: Nea $xi& dtrmhttm curu , ms agmptmtp qws fow.i^ t hip wit davit 9 «c fihon pojjtm ctpete quid fit rclgn fern , quid f«&<}67>
(vr) To tulliaxsTi ft. mowy isknowne. Nulla Lx ,&c. No (w)Inapo- /^#,laith hcycwa to iifeife alcrte the confetence of its e(jtiittey but to loget. tbtji fium whom it expitts etetiUKCe. Mortovey , it is ajnjpitted jL*w Vfhith will not bireu(tlf to be preved9tt*t a VPicked LaW^hrth w>t being proved yet beartthnilem
It iswell faid by our Diuines , ^jrhat in Rres and Ceremonies )x)Chcm~ the Church hath i o power to defirutiiin but to edificatun. And (y) nit. exam* that the cb ervauens ol cur fccclei aihtall I aroi *•,?> u5l carry bejorc part. 2. p. them a manifejl utility. (%) Vus vcro fratribus durum ifi, Jubjicere fe 121 . rebus lllu qua* nccrei:\a? (fie tec utiles driiwadvcrtuiit. ]i here it I e {yj Calv. objected , that leme things are convenient to be done , therefore irijlit. lib. becauie they are preienbed I y the Church, and icr nooherreaion. 4, caf, 10. For example, in two things which are ahkelawfull 2nd convenient f $% - in themielveSjl tijnbcund tc doe theone andnot he ether, 1 etauie (^j \oh. of tie Churches pieicnpt:on. Sothat inftchca'esit feemeth there iialv E- can be no otter reafon given for the ordrnarceoi the CI urch , but yift-t$ •nJy her owne power and authority , to put order to things of il S njp coL nature. ^g.
I anfwer , that even in fuch a cafe as this the cenveniency of the thing itlel; is anterior to the I hi. rchesdctei miration , anuiiorl lay de C0W£r*/0,though no^ def, tie t ar is to lay, before ever the ( hi rch preicril c it,it is ich a hmg & when ir alleih out to be doi t at all) may be done ccr\en,crT!\ j fici<g.hj be nor (tecieihi Chircbes prefcnlir.g of it, ,fuch a h 1 g asi he uldand Oight to te done as con- venient. W! ich beirg o, we doc Hill hold ,t hat the conveniei cyof a thing n mi\ alwayeseoe be ©re he CI meres pre critirg r ii,goe before 1 rr.eane , at leaf deccrgtuo. Neitler can rhe C Inch pre- scribe any thing law ully ,\i hch 1 he f heweth not 10 have Leen con- veniens even be ore her determination,
1 hefe things being permitted, I cone to extract my pre jedtior,& to make it evident, that the law nines o* the controverted Ceremo- nies, can not be warranted by any Ecclef afticall Law. And this I prove by three Arguments.
Firft,tho'e conditions which I have f hewed to berequired in that t>iing which the Church may lawfully prefer ibe by a Law , are not
Ppp Z qua-
il6 That the Church hath not poteer hit;?
quadrant nor competent to the Crofle, kneeling , Surplice , Holy- dayes&c.
¥ori. they are not meere ci:cumftances , ru€h as have place in all morall aitions.but 'acred, mifticall,hgnihcan- , efficacious C e- re non:e>,as hath '«eenaboJndantly fnewed in this di pute already. a JAinu- For example .- {i D. Burgs ft calleth the Surplice a religions or a- dn8, pag. cred Ceremony . And agame , (b he place:h in it a miiticall lignifi- $7 cation orthe pureneife of the mm iter of God. Where ore [c, the
/ b Of the replier-o D Mortons particular defence filth well/h. t ttiere is great katrf. of difference betw s: a grave civill habre and a ml icall garment. $ncel pag. ^ 2. It cannot be faid, thatt hefe Ceremonies are ofthat kynd of 2. thixigs, which were not determinable by Sc iprure ; neither will ou^r
c Cap. l. Opposes for very lhame, adventure to fay, that things of cbs kynd to which Croife, Kneeling, &c. doe belong, viz. facred fignificaritCe- remonies le i ( in r.heir lodgement J to the definition of the Church, are almoft infinite, and therefore could not be w- 11 and eafily deter- mined in Scripture.
Since then , fuch things as are not meere circamftancesof wor-
f hip, can neither be many nor various ( as J laid before,; it is mani-
feitthat all fuch things were eafily determinable in Scriprure.
3 • Our Ceremonial] Lawes are not backed with fuch grounds 8c
d Supra realons , as might be for the fatisfymg and quieting of tender con-
t*rt- l' A Sciences, but we are borne downe with will and authority : whereof
€Af\ &c 6 1 have laid enough 'd, el e-where.
Sect.}. 2. If the Ceremonies be law full to us, because the Law and Or-
dinance of the Church prefcribes theivnen either thj bare and na- ked prelcription olrh ■ Church , hiving no o~her warrant Then the Churches owne authority, makes them to be thus lawful' j or elie rhe Law of the Church, as grounded u. on and warranted . y the Law or e TrJun. God and nature. Koi the nrft ; or [e] Divines hold , legem huma- d: polit, nam ftrri ab ho minibus , cum rations proccduvL, ab illis alijs antegref* fthjlcap. x fit legibus. Nam legis bum in 1 *<eguli p'oxim 1 eft duplex. Una in* nata ijuam legem naturalem dieimus altera, in if*' am , cjttim dtvU nan*,&c. Ex bt* ergo fontibus Ux human* p-'oc-.dit : bac henna* f Apil. ^H'4 l^iUS> aqmbusfi aberra^jjex degener eft; mdigna legts nomine m tart. ? .' We have alio tie tettirnony of in .Adverfarv . For la:th no: rf) Paybody cap. 1. himfelfe : J grats-nt it is unlawful to doe tn Gods wvfbip any Sexl. 2 J. thing up?n the meere plea fare of man-j,
Jr hey rake "he n, as needs they maft, 'to the lafer part^hen lee t . tl either lay, that the Ceremonies are law full unto us.becau'e rhe Church judgech 'hem to be agreable to the Law of God & nature,or becaufe t icC lurch proveth unto us by evident ieafonsrhat they are indeed agreeable : 3 tkffe Lawes. If chey veeli us t'ie latter then it IsuoitheCuurchesLaw , but the Charch^s realons given for her
Law,
6hap./. 7 '9 enjoy ne Ceremonies. up
Law , wlv.ch can warrant the Iawfulnefle of them unto us : which doth elude and elide all that which they allead^e tor the Iawfulnefle of them from the power and authority of the Church.
And further, rf any fuch realons be to be given forth for the Cere- monies,why are they fo long kept up from us ? But if they h/>ld them at the former, thereupon it wdl follow, tha*- it 1 hall ::>e law mil for us to doe every t ling which the Church- 1 hall ludge to be agree- able to ne Law oi God and nature , and confequen.ly to ule all the Iewif h, P >pU h and Heat mil* h Ceremonies , yea to worfhip Ima- ges;lf it happen that the Church judge thefe things to be agreea le to the L"»w o^ God and nature.
It will be aniwered f I know ) that if the Church command any thing repugnanr to Gods Word , we are no" bound to doe it , nor to receive it as lawf, U,though the Church judge fo oi it : Bur other- wife, it" rhfar which the uhurchjudgeth to be agreeable to the Law o God and nature , ( and in that relpecl: prefcribeth) be not repug- nant .0 :he Word of God , but in irfelf indifferent, then are we im em ?race it as convenient , and confonan'' to the Law ot God and na- ture , neither ought we to call in Quettion the lawfulnelfe of it.
But I reply , that either we muft judge a thing to be repugnant or not repugnant to the Word , to be indifferent or not indifft re- 1 ia kfelf becaufe the Church judgeth fo of it,or elfe becaufe the ( hurch proverh un-o us by an evident reafun that it is (o. If the latter ; we have what we would. If the former; we are juft where we were; The argument is ftill fet a foot ; then we mud receive every thing (be it never ib bad J as indfferent , if only "he Church happen fo to judge of it. For quod competit alicui qua taliy($c. Sorhat if we re- ceive any thing as indifterei t, for this refpedt , becaufe the Church judgeth it to be fo , then f^all we receive every thing tor indiffe- rent; which the Church fh.ll o judee of.
$. The Church is forbidden to adde any thinp to the command e- Sedt.io. meU~s of God,wh;ch he nath qfwen unto us , concerning his worl hip andfervice. Deut. 4. 2. and 12 32. Prov. 30 6 there ore fhe may no- law ully precrijhe any t ing in the workes cf Divine wor- ' f hip, if it be not a mere circumftance , belonging to that kynd of things* which were not determinable 'w Scriirure.
Our Oppo'ircs have no o her di(tin£ti ~>ns , which they make any •feo against this argument, bit h: very fame which P.piftsu ein defence of their u uv itten dogrmticall traditions ■ namely that ad- ditio corru npens is forbidden ; hur nmadditio perfie'ens : that there is not : ahke reafon of the Chriftian Church and o* the Iewif h : that the Church mav no- adde to the eflen^iall parts of Gods worfhip, but to the accidentary fhe may adie.
Ppp 3 To
lit That the Church hath not fotrer Parr.}.
rJ o th« firft ofihofe diftin&ions we Anfw er , I. That the diftinc- tion itwii is an addition to the word,and ie do:h but begge the Qot- ition.
Z. It is blasphemous, for it argueth,thatthecommar,demeRtsof God are iniper edt,and that by addition ih:y are made pcrieefe.
3. Since our Q\ polires vrll fpeakc in thsdiakct , let them re- folve us , v hethcr irie wafhings 01 the Phari.es , condemned by Chii{l,were corrupting or pei feeling add. tens. Ti ty cannot fay, they were corrupting 5 or t ere was noccn rrar.demem of God, when iho e wat hir.gs chd corrupt or .defticy, except that comande- nent which orbiddeth mens additions. But tor ihis refpcd£,our Op- poiites dare not call z\ em corrupting additions , for io ihey 1 houi«L condemne all additions whaMoever. Except therefore, I hey can f hew us thai thofe waf hings were not added by the Phariles , for perfecting I m or corrupting the Law or Cod lei them consider how they rankt their cwne L eremoi iall addirions,w ith tho'e of the Piia- rife . We readc of no other reafon wherefore Chriltcodemned the, but becaufe they were Doclrines; which had no otl er warrant then thecommandemen s t 1 men. Jvlath. 15.9 For as the Law ordained diverle wa: hir.gs, for teaching and fignirying tha~ true hohneife and cieanelfe , which 01 ght to be among Gods people ; lo tie Pharifes would have per ccted the Law by adding other waiTings ( ard moe then Gcd had commanded , ) for the lame end and pur- pose, Sedt.i-x. lo thefeconddim'rjfljion , wefay that the Ch'iftian Chi.rcV hath . no more liberty to adae to the commandements 01 God h.nthe Iewifh Church had. For the fecond commandement is morail and / )l ft perpttuall, and rorbiddeth to us as well as to them the additions and II a ' t) inven^onsot n^611 m tne worlhipof God. Nay , as (gt Calvine no- 1 fii t^th, much more are we forbidden to adde untc Gees V ( rc.tht they (hi et't were* B fore the c twining of his wel-belovcd Sonne th ih- f Jh fa'nh to the I$e~ ty) John Kt.ox , feverely hepunifhed all fuck 04 dm si inurpufi to gent of alter or ihange his finneonies ana Statui&3as :*l (^S**/, (k ) V7^ Scotland. ias3 (I) N ad*b,Ahhu,is to be read. j4*d vr li he noyj , afttr that (i) 1.% he hMjj opened his Cornell to the Woild by his only Sonne, when. (#>) l(\,\atl r * he conwavttdeth to be hear d yd ttd after that(n)ly (is holy Spirit J fea- 7al.26. &**& h bis ^pofffei he he.th eftabhfhcd fije uiigh ru in which ht vpjII (l) Levit. his line wo'i {nippers abide to the end , ftillhc ntW / fay acwttt (0) 10. mens inventions in the matter of Religun^y &c. ? For this featevce
(m)Matb. he protest fsctvh : (p) A ot that which (ttmeth good in tly ej& 3 fit* It %7\ AB thou doe to the Lo> a iky (jid, hit that which th Loc lit 1 Guii*n* C l and 2. ' wwded thce> that dM then : jidde mthffig Knot tt , mmi* ft ttc- 2 Cor. II. thitt*
I Cft/. 2. (f. Deutt4< 12,
Chip.?' To enjsyne Ceremonies. r,jp
thiagfrm it* Which fe^lwg up his New Teftamentj be repeateth iftj tbeje words ; [q) Taat which ye hxvejiold nil I com^&c* r« j jpoc 2
Wherefore whileas ( r ) Booker faith , that Chrift ham not by po- rY) r,rrl fitivelawesfo farre defcendedimo particularities with vs,asM^/t\r pi Jib 2. with the lewes: Whileas ' s ) Camero fai:h,»ow efie difoutandum ita, fS/prccU tt, vt quoniam in vetcre Tsftamento, de rebus alioqui adiaphoris certafint \0m.i. lex,<3c.id in novo T eft ament oh there locum: And whiks (t ,B.Lindfey pa„. ^^t faith, that in the pa ticular cicumttances oL'perfons '"y who.n, place ttj Epift . where, time whm, andohhe forme and order how ths worf h:p and tn tjH, paat worke ofthe miniitery (herald be performed :h ; Church harh power 0f t}oc to define whatfoeuer is molt expedient, and that this is a preroga- Qlylrchof tive wherein the Chriftian Church differeth from the Iewil h Svna- Scotland* gogue : They doe bu<: :peake their pleafure in vaine , and cannot make it appeare , that the Chriftian Church hath any more power to adde to the coinminiernents of God , then the Svnac*o*ae had ofold. ' ° °
It is well laid by ( tv) one : There <vere mans points of fcrvice , as (lr>)Cottrfe Sacrifices, waJhin<Ts,anniverfiry dayes &;. ufhut ve have not: but the 0f confor- determination of fitch as we have, is as particular as theirs , except j:ormjtyy wherein the nationall cireunftances make impediment. For one ' ~ j -* place not be apporred for the worf hip o "" God , nor one Tribe for *■ the worke oft le miniftery, among us, as among them , not becaufe more power was left to the Chriftian Church, tor determining things char perraine to the wirfhip of God. then wasro rhe Iewilh, but becaufe the Chriftian Ch irch was to fpread it felf over the whole Earth, and not 1 3 be confined within the bounds o'i one nation as the Synagogue was.
Let us then here call to mynd the diftinition which ha"h been gg(^ fiiewed betwixc religious Ceremonies and morall circumstances: for as touching morall circamftmces which ferve for common or- der and decency in the worlhipo' God , they beeing io many and fo alterable, that they co dd not be particularly determined in Scrip- ture , for all the different and aim mc. infinite cares , which might occure,the Iewifh Synagogue had the lame power for determining things ofthis n vrure, which the church ofChrift now hath. For the law did not define, bat Ielt fhe be defined by the Sinagogue,the [et houres for all publike divine (ervice,whe it fhould begin, how long i: fhould laft,the order fhould be kept in the reading and expounding of rhe law.praying/inging, cirechilirig , excommunicating , cenfuring and abfolvingof Delinquent %3cc. the circamftancesof the celebrat'on of manage, of the education of youth in Schooles and Colledges, &c.
But as for Ceremonies which are prope-r to Gods holy worlhip, (x) fhall we fay, that the fidelity of Chrift the Sonne hath been ?x' Hebr. leffe,then the fidelity of Mofes theicrvantr which were to be fa id , if 3-2.
Chrift
I 20 That the Church kith n$t power Part. 3
Chrift had no: by as plaine, plentifull, and particolar directions and ordinances,provided for all the neceffnies of the Chiiftian Chinch in the matter of religi5,asMc/« or the lcwii h.Or if thekaft pinne," and the meaneft appurtenance of the Tabernacle, and all the fer- vice thereofbe' ooved to be ordered according to the expreffe iotfe- mandementof God by the hand or Mojes , how fhall we thir.ke, thatintherean:v.:,tramtn^orderir^;&beatui yingot the cjiurch rj e houfe of the liviagGod,he would have lefTc honor & prerogative give tohisownewell-b onne,by whom he hath l'poken 10 us in
thele laft dayes,&whom he hath eornmaded vs to heare in all things- Or that he will accept at our h-nds any facred Ceremony, which men have piefumed to bring into his holy and pure worf hip , with- out the appointment of his owne word and will revealed vnto us? Albeit the wor'hip of God and religion in the Church of the new .- Tefta.rnent,be accompanied without Ceremomes nutnero paucijfirr.is (y, Ebtft. objervatione facsHmfis Signification e fr&slantiffm;is / as fy) Aitgufiine Ho. lpeakern of our Sacraments ) yet we have in Scripture no lelTe particular determination and diftindt direction , for cur fevve , ealie and plaine Ceremonies , then the lewes had for their many heavy. and obfcore ones. Sevt.13. As tor the third diftinction.of adding to the sccidertary parts of it, I remeber,that J heard in the logicks,ofp«zrr efientialis or rbifica,dc pars integrals or mathematical* fait fituilarit;&. par s aijfijpiUrU^of ■pars cotmua 6c pars difcreta.Buto' pars accidetaria heard 1 never till now. There is ( I know) iucb a diftin&ion of Pan intcgralis, that it is ehher principalis and necejjaria , ortvinus fnncipalis andntn ncccjlana. Bur we cannot vnderftand their fars cultus acciden- tana , to be pars intcgralis nm nccejfaria, becaufe then their diftri- bution of worf hip into etfentiali 6c accidenrary parts, cculd not anf- wer to the rules of a juft diftributicn : of which one is;that diftrihutio debet exhaurire tot urn difiributum. Now , there are icme parts of worf hip , which cannot be comprehended in the forciaid diftri! u- tion,namely,p4mi integrates neccfiarifcWhat then: Shall we le' this vvilde Diftindtion pa{Fe,becaufe it cannot be well nor formally inter- preted ? Nay ,bnt we will cbferve their meaning who make ufe of it, For unto all Inch parts of worf hip as are not effentiall ( and which they aie pleafed to callaccidentarie ) they hold , the Church may- make addition. Wliereuntol anwer , 1. Let them makeusunder- ftand,what they meane by thofe effentiall parts to which the Church may adde nothing : and let them beware leaft they give us an iden- tical! defcriptioii of the fame.
2. There are many parts cf Gods worf hip, \\h'.ch are not efTen- tiall, yet iuch as will not fuffer any addition of the CI urch. For pre of vvhejeof, Jdemaund, were all the Ceremonies commanded to be li&d in the legal! Sacraments and Sacrifices , efientiali parts o; thofe
vvor-
Chap, o- loenjoyne^eremomef. }ll
worfhips ? No man will fay fo. Yet the Synagogue was tied to ob- letve thofc ( and no other then thofe) Ceremonies, which the Word prescribed. When Ifrael was agametokeepe the -PaiTeovcr,^) it'was (tf) Num. la:d5 In the fourteenth day of this moneth at even, yefoall keep it in hx appcin- 9 3 • ded feafon : according to all the Bjtes.of it and according to all the Ceremonies (r; *b • verf. of it , (hall ye keep it. And (r) againe : Accordingto all that the Lord com- s. manied Mofes , fo did the Children of Ifrael. R£tibus £T Ceremonijs divinitm (s) Com. in bislitutis* non licuit hominifuo arbitrlo aliquid adijeere ant detrahere, (s) i . Reg, 8* faith P. Martyr. , 65.
3. If thole accidentarie parts of worfhip , which are commanded Seel. 14. in the Word, be both necelTary to bcufedneceflitate pra>cepti,md like- wife fumcient meanes fully a'dequate and proportioned to that end, for which God hath deftinated fuch parts of his worfhip as are not efTentiall, ( which mutt be graunted by every one who will not ac- cufe theScripturc of fome defect and imperfection : ) then it followeth that other accidentarie parts of worfhip , which the Church addeth thereto, are but fuperfluous andfuperftitious.
4. I call to mind another Logicall maxime : SubUta una parte , tot~ Yitur totum. An clTentiall part being taken away , totum ejfentiah is ta- ken away alfo. In like mancr , an integrant part being t^ken away, totum integrum cannot remaine behinde. When a man huh loft his hand or is foot, though he be (till a man Phifkal!y , totum ejfentiale, yet he is not a man mathematically , he is no longer totum integrate. Iuit fo, if we reckon any additions ( as the CrolTe , Kneeling , Ho- ly-dayes, &c.) among the parts of Gods worfhip? then pur the cafe that thofe additions were taken away, ic followedi that all the wor- (hip which re maineth ftill, will not be the whole and entire worfhip of God 9 but only a part of it, or at the beft, a defective, wanting,
lame, and maimed worfhip. *
5. I have made it evident,, (0 that our Oppofites make the con- ' Supra troverted Ceremonies to be worfhip, in as properand peculiar fence £^"0 as any thing can be *, and that they are equalled ro the chiefeand * ■ principall parts of worfhip, not tanked among the fecondary or lefle principall parts of it.
6. Doenot our Divines condemne the addition of Rites & Cere- monies, to that worfhip which the Word prefcnbeth,as well as the addition of other things, which are thought more efTentiah ? Wee have heard Martyrs words to this purpofe.
(w) %anchius will. have us to learne from the fecond commande- (ar^Jnjt. ment , in externocultu qui Deo debetur , feu in Ceremoniis nihil nobis effe ex prae Col. noflro capite comminifcendum , wether in Sacraments or Sacrifices , or j^t other facred things, tuch as Temples , Altars, Clothes and VelTels , neccflary for the externallworlhip •, but that wee ought to be con.
Qqq tented
in Of the poWer of Trinces Parr* ^ I
tented with th.ofe Ceremonies which God hath prefcribed. . And in (x) another place, he conderaneth the addition of any o- (Xj lb. col. jjjgj riCe wiiatfcever, to thofe rites of every Sacrament which have S02. been ordained of Chrift. Si Ceremonijs cujufvfi Sacramenti, alios addas rim
\ A W*>&c'
n' r W D^wf** pronounceth even offignes aird rites, that w* mufl
owPnil. 2.* ^0ew Religion and Godsfcrvice , wof that which fcemethgood tow -> but that 10 ' only which he commandeth.Deut. 4. 2 c it. 32.
{\jfyV*' And (z) Calvine pronounceth generally, Ccenam Domini rem
adprotect, ajeo facrofanstam effe , W ullis hominum additamentis earn confpurcart **& funcf*. '
Sed. 1 s. And l^us ^ave we ma^e g00^ our Argument, that the lawfulnfle of the Ceremonies cannot be warranted by any Ecclefiafticall Law. If we had no more againft them, this were enough , that they are but humane additions, and want the warrant of the Word. When Nadah and Abihu offered ftrange fire before the Lord , and when thele^es burnt their Sonnes and their Daughters in the Valley of rhe Sonne of Hinnon ,howfoever manifold wickcdnette might 1 ave been chal- lenged in that which they did , yet if any would difpute with God upon the matter, he ftoppeth their mouthes with this one Anfwer, _ . (a) I commanded it not , neither came It into my heart. May we laft {a) Levit. of aU heare what lhe ^ Canon Law it feife decreeth ? 1/ qui ' ° ' * * fr<eefi)fi prater volimtatem Dei, vel prater quod in fanBis Scripturis eiiden - /tV V "r*" Uf pr£ectyitur > v^ fait aliqtiid, Velimperat ttanqu4m falfas tefiis Deit aut (b) Cauja. Sacruegm habeatur. 11. J. J.. *
p. lot.
CHAP. VI IF.
That tie UvvfuIneJJe of the Ceremonies cannot be war* ranted by any Ordinance of the CiviUCMagiJirate : vvhofe power in things Spiritual! or Ec- clefiajlicall 3. is explained*
§^8§§| 0'vV are wee fallen upon the ftrong hold of our Oppofltes,
Sc&.t. Sg^l which is the Kings Msjefties Supremacy in things Ecclefi-
• ?^^ afticall. If they did rneane in goodearneftro qualify the
lawfulncs of the Ceremonies from holy Scripture 3 why have'they
. not taken more paines and travel to deba:e riie matter from thence ?
And,
Chap. 8 . In things EcckfiaftkaU. 1 1 j
And if they meant to juftify them by the Lawes & Constitutions of the Church, why did they not ftudy to an orderly peaceable pro- ceeding,and to have things concluded in a lawfull National! Synode, after free reafoning and mature advifement ? Why did they carry matters to fa&ioufiy and violently ? The truth is , they would have us to acquiefce and to fay no more againft the Ceremonies, when once we hcare that they areenjoyned by his Majeftie , our only fu- preme Governour. What I am hereto fay, fnall not derogate any thing from his HighnefTe Supremacy , becaufe ic includeth no fuch thing as a nomotheticall power, to preicribe and appoint fuch facrcd and fignificant Ceremonies as he (hall thinke good.
The Arch-Bifhop of Armagh , in his Spcach which he delivered concerning the Kings Supremacy, (for which King lames returned him in a Letter his Princely and gratious thanfces, for that he had de- fended his juft & lawfull power, with fo much learning and reafon, ) whiles hetreateth of the Supremacy , and expoundeth that Title of The only Supreme Governour of all his Highnes Dominions and Countries, as well in all fpirituall or Ecclefiafticall things or caufes , as temporall ; mentioneth no luch thing> as any power to difpofe by his Lawes and ordi- nances, of things externall in the worfhip of God. Neither yet fhall this following Difcourfe tend to the cooling & abating of that care and zeale which Princes owe to theoverfight & promotion of Religion. For alas ! the corruptions which have ftept into Religion, and the decayes which it hath felt fince Princes beganne to take fmall thought of it , and to leave the care of it to Popes , Biftiops, Monkes, &c. can never be enough bewailed. Nihilmim,&c. For there is nothing (faith (c) %anch\m)more\pernitious , either to the Commonwealth (c) I«*. or to the Churchy then if a Prince doe all things by the judgement of others, prtc.Col. and he himfelf underfland not thofe things which are propounded to bee 79/. done.
Nor laftly , are we to' found an alarum of Rebellion. For to fay that Subje&s are not bound to obey fuch Lawes and Statutes of their Prince, as irapofe upon them a Yoke of Ceremonies , which hee hath no power toimpofe, is one thing; and to fay , that they are not bound to fubjeel: themfelves unto him faithfully and loyally , is another thing. 'ReBe Gerfon ; Qui abufui potefiatis refijlit , non refifiit ifoina ordinathni , laith ( d ) the Bifhop of Sarisburie. Subjection , faith (e ) D. Field , is required generally and absolutely , when obedience is («0 DeJud. not. If we have leave to fpeake with (/) Divines, the bond and figne control. of fubje&ion, is only Homage, or the oath of fidelity, whereby Sub- cat- **•
P>76 (*) Of the Church, lib. 4. t. 3 4. p. 400. (/)< Gerard, loc. theol. torn. <f. p. 1 280. Polan.Synt. lib. to. cap, 6 '2 .col. 960.
Qqq s je&s
i^4 OfthcpoWerofTrinces Tnt. %l
jecls binde themfelves to be faithful to their Prince. And we take the judge ofall flefh to witneue , before whole drcadfull Tnbunall we muft ftandatthat great day, how free we are of thoughts of Re- bellion^ how uprightly wemeaneto be his Majefties moft true and loyall Subjects to the end of our lives, and to devote our felves,our bodies, iives, goods andeftates, and all that wehave in the woild, to his Highneffe icrvice , and to the honour of his Royal Crowne. Sed. i. Now for thepurpofe in hand, we will firft examine what the Arch-
Bifhop of Spalato faith, for he difcourfech much of the jurifdi&ion and Office of Princes, in things and caufes EcclefiafticalL The Title of the firft Chapter of h's fixt Booke deRep Eccl. holdeth ; That it is the duty of Princes f up erEccleJiafika invigilare. But in the body of the Chapter, he labourethto prove, that the power of governing Eccle- fiafticali things belongeth to Princes ( which isfarre more then to watch carefully over them. ) This the Reader will eafily perceive. Nay, he himfelfe, Num. n$. & 174. profeffeth he hath been pro- ving,that Divine andEcclcfiafticall things,are to be ruled and gover- ned by the authority & Lawes of Princes. The Title prefixed to the fixt Chapter of that fame Booke , is this : Legibw C tdiBn Prmcipum Ldicorum\& Ecclefiajlka & Ecchfiaftkot gubcrnari . So that in both Chapters, he treateth of one and the fame office of Princes about things EcclefiafticalL <
Now , if we would learne what he meanes by thofe EccUJiaflica, (g) Lib <** which he will have to be governed by Princes, (g)he refolves us that Cap. s. he meanes not things internall, fuch as the deciding of controverfies num.3. inmattcrs of faith, feeding with the Word of God, binding &I00- C ^74. ' fing, and miniftrrng of the Sacraments : (fotinpurt fpirhualibtu, (as he fpeaketh in Summa Cap. 5 . ) he yeeldeth the not the power of judg- ing and defining: ) but onely things externall, which pertaine to the {h) OJlenf. externall worfhip of God, or which concerne externall Ecclefiaftical error. Fr. Difcipline. Such things {b) heacknowledgeth to be res Spirltuales, Suare^ But vera Spirituality he wili have to comprehend onely things inter- Op. 3. nail, which hee removeth from the power of Princes. Thus wee hlmu.^i. have his judgement as plaine as himfelfe hath delivered it unto us. Sed. 3. Butldemaund, 1. Why yeeldeth he the fame power to Princes in
governing Ecclefiaflka, which he yeldeth them in govemingEcck/w/- tkos? For Ecc'efiaftical! Perfons , being members of the common- wealth noleiTe then Laickes , have the farre King and Govemour (i) T)ti\ep. with them. For which reafonit is (as (i) theB. himfelf fheweth out Bed. Cap. of Molina) that they are bound to be fubjcc~t to their Princes Lawes, 4. Num. which pertaine to the whole common-weaith. But the like cannot 3*g. be aileadged for the power of Princes to governe Ecclejjajlica t for
the B. ( I trufx ) would not have faid , that things Ecclefialticall and things civil! doe equally and alike belong to their power and lunf- di&ion.
2. Why
Chap. S. /» things EcckfidJiicalL ^ 1 27
2. Why confoundeth he ihe governing ofihings and caufes Ec- clefiafticall, with watching over and taking care for,/ he fame ? Let us only call to mind ihe native fignificationofthe word: KvStpvcic* Guberno fignifteth properly to rule or governe the courfe of a b.v.p : And in a Ship there may be many watchfull and carefull eyes over her courfe, and yet but one Go vernour directing the lame.
3. Why ho Id eth he, that things externall in theworfhip of God are not V era famtualia ? For if they be Ecclefiafticall and facred Ce- remonies ( not flefhly and wordly ) why will he not alfo acknow- ledge them for true lpirituall things ? And if they be not \era {pin- tualiay why calls he them res fpjruuales ? Forare'not R?s and Verwn reciprocal^ as wei as Ens and Verum ?
4. Even as a Prince in his Sea-voyage is fupreme Governour of all which are in the Ship with him, end by confequenceof the Go- vemour,who dire&s her courfe, yet doth he not governe the action of governing or directing the courfe of the Ship : So though a Prince be the only fupremeGovernour of all his Dominions , & by confequence of Ecclefiafticall perfons in his Dominions, yet he can notbefaidto Governe all their Ecclefiafticall a&ions & caufes. And as the Governour of a Ship acknowledgeth his Prince for his only fupreme Governour , even then whiles he is governing & directing the courfe of the (hip, (otherwife whiles he is governing her courfe, hefhould not be his Princes Subject) yet he doth not thereby ac- knowledge that his Prince governeth, his action of directing the courfe of th.e Ship, (for then mould the Prince be the Pilot:) So when one hath acknowledged the Prince to be the only fupreme Governour uponEarm , of aU Ecclefiafticall perfonsin his Domi- nions, evenwhilesthey are ordering and determining Ecclefiafticall caufes; yet he hath not thereby acknowledged that the Prince go- verned the Ecclefiafticall caufes. Wherefore whiles (ft) the B. taketh (k)Ofienf. the Englifh Oath of Supremacy, to acknowledge the lame which he error Fr, teacheth touching thePrinces power, he giveth it another fence then Suarez* the words of it can beare. For it faith not that the Kings Majeftie is Cap. 3. the only fupreme Governour of all his Highnes Dominion^ and ». 23, OF all thing? and caufes therein, as well Ecclefiafticall or Spiricuall, as Temporall. But it faith, that he is the only Supreame Governour
of all his Highnes Dominions I N all things or caufeSj-cvc.Now,the fpirituall Guides of the Church fubftitutedby Chrift,as Deputies in his ftead, who is the moft fupreame Governour of his own Church, and(i) on whofe fhouider the Governement refteth as hisRoyall (2)Ifa.p&. prorogative j even then whiles they are governing and putting or- der to Ecclefiafticall or lpirituall caufes , they acknowledge their Prince to be their only fupreme Governour upon Earth: yet hereby they implienot that he governsth their Governing ofEcc'efiaitical! caufes, as-hath been fheved by that SbneU of governing a Ship*
Qqq 3 j, Where
\
n6 Oftbe power of Trinccs Part. 5
Sect. 4, T • Whereas the B. leaveth all things externall , which pertaine to
the worfhip of 0od,to be governed by Princes,I object that the ver- fion of the holy Scripture out of Hebrew and Greeke into the vul- gar tongue, is an externall thing, belonging to the worfhip of God, yet it cannot be governed by a Prince who is not learned in the ori- ginall tounges.
6. Whereas lie yeeldethto Princes the power of governing w/pi« rltualibw, but not in pure fpirituaUbus , I cannot comprehend this Di- fhn&ion. All facred and Ecclefiafticall things belonging to the worfhip of God are fpirituall things.
What then understands he by things purejy fpirituall ?If he meane things which are in fuch fort fpirituall , that they have nothing earthly nor externall in them ; in this fence the Sacraments are not purely fpirituall, becaufc they confift of two parts; one earthly, and another heavenly? as Irmw faith of the Eucharift. A nd lb the Sacraments not being things purely fpirituall , fhall be left to the power and government of Princes. If it be faidjthat by things pu- rely fpirituall, hemeanes things which concerne our Spirits onely, and not the outward man *, I ftill urge the fame Inftance : For the Sacraments are not in this fence fpirituall, becaufe a part of the Sa- craments , to wit , the Sacramentall Signes or Elements,concerne out externall & bodily fences of feeing, touching, and tafting. (m)Vth.6. 7. The B. alfo contradicteth him felfe unawares : For in(w»)one cap.s. place hec referveth and excepteth from the power of Princes, the
n. 1 74. judging and deciding of controverfies and queftions of faith. Yet in (n) Ibid. (■») another place hee exhorteth Kings and Princes , to compellthe www. 177. Divines of both fides ( of the Roman and Reformed Churches ) to come to a free conference , and to debate the matters controverted betwixt them;in which con£erence,hec requireth the Princes them- felves to bee Iudges.
It remaineth to trie what force of reafon the B. hath to baefcehis opinion. As for the ragged rabble of hum aneTeftimonies, which he raketh together,I fhould but weary my Reader,and fpend paper and Inke in vaine , iflfhould infift to anfwerthem one by one. Only thus much I fay of all thofe Sentences of the Fathers, andCon- ftitutions of Princes and Emperours about things Ecclefiafticall, to- gether with the Hiitoties , of the fubmiflion of fome Ecclefiafticall caufestoEmperours ; Let him who pleafeth read them ; And it fhall appeare ,
1. That fome of thofe thingswhereunto the power of Princes was applied, were unlawfull.
2. There were many of them things Temporall or Civilly not Ec- clefiafticall or Spirituall , nor fuch as pertaine to theworihippe of God.
3. There
Sea. 5
Chap. 8. In things Scckftafticatt* ti?
3 . There were Tome of them Ecclefiafticall or fpirituall things, buc then Princes did only ratify that which had beene determined by Councellsj and pun ifh with the civill fword fuch as did ftubbornly difobey the Churches lawful! constitutions. Neither were Princes allowed to doe anymore.
4. Sometimes they interpofed their authority and medled in cau- fes fpirituall or Ecclefiafticall , even before the definition of Coun- cils ryet did they not judge nor decide thofe matters , but did only convocate Councells , and urge the Cleargie to fee to the mifor- dered and troubled eftate of the Church, and by their wholefome Lawes & ordinances to provide the beft remedies for the fame which they could.
5 . At other times Princes have done fomewhat more in Eccle- Caft.call matters : but this was only in extraordinary cafes , when the Cleargy was fo corrupted, that either through ignorance they were unable, or through malice and perverfnelTe unwilling to doe their duty in deciding otcontvoverfies, making of Canons.ufing the keyesy and managing of other Ecclefiafticall mattersrin which cafe Princes might and did by their coa&ive temporali Iurifdi&ion , avoid dis- order , errour and fuperftition , and caufe a Reformation of the Church.
6. Princes havelikewife in rightly conftituted and well reformed Churches, by their owneRegall authority, ftraitly injoyned things pertainingto theworfhip ofGod:but thofe things werethe very fame which Gods owne written Word had expreflely commanded.
7. When Princes went beyond thele limits and bounds » they tooke upon them to judge and command more then God hath put within the compafle of their power
But as touching the pafTages of holy Sripture whichtheB. allead- Seel, .6, geth , I will anfwer thereto particularly. And firft , hee produceth that place Deut.CBap.17.vsrf* 19. where the King was appointed to have the Booke of the Law of God with him , that he might learne tofeare the Lord his God, and to keep all the words of this Lawand thefe Statutes to doe them. What Logicke ( I pray ) can1 from this place inferre that Princes havethe fupreme power of governing all Eccleiiafticall caufes ? Next, the B. tells us of Davids appointing of the offices of the Levites,and dividing of their courfes, 1 Qhron.zy. and his commending ofthe fame to Solomon, i.Chron -2*f.Bur he might have obferved , that David did not this as a Ktng , but as a Pro- phet or man of God. 2. Chron. 8. 14. yea thofe orders a'nd courfes of the Lcvites, were alio commanded by other Prophets of the Lord.- z.Chron 1 9. 2 5 ..As touching Solomons appointing ofthe courfes ancL eharges of the Priefts , Levitcs, & Porters , he did it not of himfelfe, nor by his owne Princely authority, but becaufe 0/iv^d.e man of God had. fo commanded, 2. Chron. 8 14. For Sokmoyi received
from.
n-iS Of the power ofTntices Part. $.
from David, a patternefor all that which he was to doe in the worke of the houle of the Lord, and alio for thecourfes of the Priefts and Levies, i. Chron. i%.n, ji ^3.
Se&. 7. The B. comes on and tells us that He^ekjab did applie his Regall
power to the Reformation of the Levices , and of the worfhipof
(0^-2. Chro God in rheir hands-, (0) hying-.Hearemeyee LeVhesyfanBify now your fd*
Z$ . 5 . V is and fantlify the koufe of the Lord God of your fathers , and carry forth the
filthineffe out of the holy place.
Anf. He exhorted them to no morethen Gods Law required of them. For the Law ordained them tofan&ify themfelves,andtodoe the ferviceof the houfe of the Lord, Num. 8. 6. 1 1. 15.0* 18.32. So that lletekiah did here conftitute nothing by his owne arbitrement and authority, but plainly fheweth his warrants \erf.11. TheLordhath chofen you to /land before him, tofervehim, and that you fhould minijler unto him. But the B, further alleadgeth out of 2 Chron.$i. that Hezekjab appointed the courfes of the Priefts and Levices, every man accor- ding to his fervice.
Anfw. He might have read *. C£ro». 29. 25. that Ueykjah did all this according to the comraandement of David(? of Gad the Kjngs Seer, and Nathan the Prophet: forfo was the commandement of the Lord by bis Prophets. And who doubteth but Kings may command fuch things as God hath commanded before them.
Seel;. 8. The next example which the B. alleadgeth, is out of 2. Chron. 35.
where we read thatlofias did fet the Priefts and Levitesagainein their charges. Which example cannot prove that Kings have the fupreme power of governing Ecclefiafticall caufes 5 unlcfle it be e- vi need that lofias changed thofe orders and courfes of the Levites & Priefts, which the Lord had commanded by his Prophets 2 Chron. 29. 15. and that he did inftitute other orders by his o wncRegall au- thority. Whereas thecontrary is manifeft from the Text. For Jojiat did only fet the Priefts and Levites thofe charges and courfes, which had been adigned unto them aftet the writing of David and Solomon verf. 4. and by the commandement of David, and ^Afaph, and Heman, and leduthun the Kings Seer, verf. 15. Neither did lofias command the Priefts and Levites, any other fervice then that which was wri- ten in the booke ofMofes verf. n. So that from his example it only followech , that when Princes fee the ftate of Ecclefiafticall perfons corrupted, they ought to interpofe their authority for reducing them to thofe orders and functions , which Gods Word comman- ded
Moreover, the B.objecleth the example of hash : who, while he
Chap . 3 . In things "EcchfiajlicdL s % y
the Keeper ofthe holy money , did both prefcribe how it was to be debourJed, and likewife take from good Ichojada the Preiffc the ad- ministration of the fame. Now, where he hath read that loafl) made himJelfe the keeper oi the money, and prescribed how it ihould be debourfed.alfo that he tooke the admimitrarion Irom Iehojada; 1 can not guet!e,for the Text hath no 'ucji thing in it ,but the contrary, viz. that the Kings Scribe , and the HiLih Freilts Officer, kecped the mo- ney anddebourfed the fame, as the King and Iehojada prescribed unto them. As to that which he truly alleadgcth out of the holyl cxt, I anfwer , i. The collection for repairing the houfe of the Lotd was no humane ordinance, for loafh iheweththe Commandement otMofesforiz , Verf;6> having reference to Exod. 30. 1 2. 13.14. No other collections did Ioafh impofe , (q) but thole quoe divine jure (a) J, dshebantur. Z. As for the taking of the charge of this collection TVolpb. in from the Priefts , he behooved so doe ib , becaufe they had ftill ne- 2-Bgg. 1 *. glected the worke,when the three 8c twentic yeare of his raigne was come. And fo fay we, that when the ministers of the Church faile to doe their duty, in providing that which is necefTary for the fervice of God 1 Princes ought by iome other meanes to caufe thele things be redrefled. 3. ]oajh did nothing with thcfemontyes without Iehojada, but (r)Pentifex eat frimum labor antibw tribuit , turn in atdis fierce re- (r) /#. [M jUurationcm maxim e convert ir. 4. And what if he had done this by yid. himfelfe ? I fuppofe no man will reckon the hiring of Mafbns and Carpenters. with fuch as wrought Iron and Brafle , or the gathering of money for this purpofe, among fpirituall things orcaufes. y . And if thefe employments about Selomons Temple were not to be called Spfrituall or Ecclefiaiticall,farre leffe about our materiail Churches which are not holy nor confecrated as Solomons was for a typicall life. Wherefore without all prejudice to our caufe, we may arid doe commend the building and repairing of Churches by Cliriftia* Princes.
But the B. remrneth to another Example in Solomon, which is the Sedt.ifr, putting ofAbjathar the chief Prieft from his Office, and furrogating of another in his place. Anfa. Abjathar was civilly dead , as the Lawyers ufe to fpeake,and it was oaly by accident or by confequcnt rhat Solomon put him from his Office: he fenr him away to Anathothy becaufe of his treafonable following and aiding ofAd$t?ijah , where- upon necefiarily followed his falling away from the honour , dignity and Office of the High-Prieft : whence it only followeth , that if a Minittci be found guilty of Ufe Majefy , the King may punifh him cither with banifhmcnr or proscription , or fome foeh civill punifh- jnent,whereupon by conference will follow his falling frcm his Fc- ' clefiafticall c*xe ar.d dignity. 2. As for Soltmons putting of %a- doj^ in the roome oi Abjathar, it maketh as litle againft us,fcr %adcl{ did fall to the place jure divine.
Rrr The
" *° Of the foyer &f Princes':
~ nr-nortr and office of the High-Prieft hood was given to Eelia- 4<*r the Elder Sonne o1 Aaron , and was to remame'in his family. Hpw it came to pafle that it was tranl^erred to Eli , who was of the family of/^r>«fr.weread not alwayes after that Abjather ■■., who was ot the family of U/^rfsr, anddefcended of Eli , had by a capirall crime fallen from it, it did of very right belong to T^adokt , who was the c'siefe of the family otBHa^tr. And ib all this riowednot from Sect, r ( Seiowonsbuz from Gods ovne authority 4
I he B remembreth anoth ;r example in Ih^ckjah >c , tc!lii«g us
that he removed the high places , and brake the Images , ana cut
downe th- groves and brake in peeees the brazen lerpent , when the
children ot iiarcl did burne incenfc vn~o .it. Now , w.e.w tin from
our hearrs. that Tom this exrnple all Chnitian King-; may learne
to remove and deltroy the monuments of Idolatry out of their
Dominions, And if it be faid that in lo doing , Kings take vpon
them to governe by t'ieir Princely authority , an Eccldialticall or
sExod Zli ^ri"tua^ ^au'e;It-is ealily anlwcred that when they deltroy ldola-
_ cw y ' trous monumenrsahey doe nothing by their rwne authority , but
1 1 ii ~ y tnC aiirho[il:y -°- Gocis Law/;, which commanded to abohfh luch
Dctit7 <* nionuments,andto root outt'ieveiy names oildolls : whichcom-
irT *>I „l mandement.is to be executed by the coaction of temporall
^'3° 22, power,
Sedt.i2.« Finally faith the B.the Kings ot tbt Iewes 7; have in the Temple t 1 . Kings propounded rhe Law of the Lord to the people, rcnucd the covenant 2j • & 2. ?ffel?gion,puHed downe" profane Altars,broken downe ldols3 flaine C&ftm.io. idolatrous Piiefts-liberared their Kingdome from abomination, pur- ip 2 Chord £ed tne TempIe^n'J proclaimed the keeping of the pafleover,and of 34. & 2f. t^ie Feaft of the Dedication, ty) and have alio inltituted new Feafts. xi(M//c. Eor all which things they are in (^) the Scriptures much' prailed, by cab 4. ?o. l he Holy Spirit,
- Eflb:r% Anfiv. True it is , jofias did read e the Law of the Lord to the 9 26 people in the Temple , and made a covenant before the Lord , but
X 2. Chro* I-. He prefcribed nothing at his owne pleature,cnly he required of 2Q.2 & tne people, to.walkc after the Lord,and to keepe . his commaunde- - 4. 2 J:, ments.
2 Neither yet did he this worke by himfelfe,but did convoeatea. • Council of the^rophersPricfrsand Elders of Urael, for the advan- cing of that reformation^. Kjngs. *2$..i* .
3 . And if he had done it by himlelfc , yet we are to remember. that the reformation of a Church generally , and greatly corrupted, craveihthe more immediate intermedling of Princes , and a great
t^tneb. "deale more then can be ordinarly. and orderly dene by them , in a ie 1 tie- Church already ref jrmed.- The Claying of the Idol ttrous Priefts yr^. 5"7<^. had alo the warrant and authority of the Law of .God., which ap- . 577* 578. feinted a capitall punifhrnent .Jbr.blafphemers , {a}, orfuch as m ,
c©n- .
Chap : 8 . hi things 'Ecclefiafl kail. j 3 1
coutempt of Cod, and to rub ibme ignominie upon his name , did traduce his docTrine and religion , and either deiracv from him and attribute to Idoll: t iat which appertained properly unto him, or el.e attributed uuto him either by enunciation or imprecation , fuck ,
rungs as could not -Hand with the glory of the Godhead. Con- cerning the abolif hihg or Idolatry and all the reliques thereof , we have aniwered that it was commaur.ded by God. The keeping of the pail-over was alio commaunded in the Law :fo that w hen He^c* Iqdh enjoy ned it , he did but puiuh Gods owne exprcife ordi- nance.
Laft ofall,touching the two remanent examples. 1. The Fcaft of the Dedication was not ordained by the fole authority ofludat but (b) by his brethren and by the whole Congregation of Ifarel.-and b \\Mac, the dayes of Purim [c] were efta. liihed by Merdecai a Prophet. 4.J9.
2. We have elfe-where made it evident, that the dayes of Purim f £// * by their hrftlnftitution were only dayes of civill joy and folemnity: * and that the Feaft of the Dedication was not lawfully inftitu- -. * T* ted.' dSuPT4
Thus having difmiifed the B.we will make us for clearing t'le pur- Ca?~°* pofe in hind. But before we come to f hew particularly what Prin- ces may doc, and what ih:y may nor-doe , in making Lawes about SccT. 1 3. things Eccleliafticaliwe wiH firft of all lay downe tkele Propoiiti- ons follow ing:
1. Whatsoever the power of Princes be in things and caufesEc- cleiiafticall , it is not ( fure ) abfolute nor uni ounded. Solius Dei- * P>owpt. iflAalth (e) Stapfct otu,iuxta[uamfanffijfimArx volant item, atlio- morali^n ties [vis omnes dir.gerti& omnia fitcere qu&cmque voltiit. And a- Domin.f* gaine : Vis tu»m vvlur>nittm 'ejje regnUrn U) urn omnium , ut om. 'p/tad'ag, ma fiantj pvottio beneplicito 1 Whether we refpect the perfons textoi$. or the places o Princes , their power is confined within certaine li- mits, fo that they may not enjoyne whatsoever they lilt. As tou- ching tneir per.'ons : Biihop Spotjivcod would doe nolclTe then war- rant the Articles o ?crthy by King lames his pergonal! qualities. .„ Hh perfrtu (j) faitb he,were he not aur Sowaigne, gives themjuf^ erm'm f&ent authority Jjeingrecw.mendtd by him : For he fyovpesthena-^'^+'f" ■ tne of things yand the conferences of thtm% what is fit for aQhurchfcm^ to have%and what notjoetttr then we doe alt,
I meane not to derogate any thing from King lames his due dc- ferved praifemor to oblcure his never dying memory .Only I&y that fuch a Prince as the B. fpeaketh of who knoweth what is hi for a Church to have ,and what not better then many learned and t>odta Paltors aliembled inaSynode,isi\4r4^/'j in terns nigroquefimillim* Cy£»c.For a Piince feeing but a man 'and 10 fubjedt to errour : bein»
Rir z bus
1 %t Of the fitter #/ Prince > Part.
but one inn*, and fo in the greater hazard of crrour , for plus vident oculityaam ocujus; and wee to}um that u alone, when he falleth , for b* (gtEcch± b ith not another tchjlp him 0£,faith gj the Wifett of mor all Rings : 10. feeing alio co.npaded 6c aifailed with io many and lb mighty tenta- tions/A hxh o her men ate tree of : andlattly,' ;eeing fo taken up and detracted with fecnlar affaires and cares , that very feldomeishe found well verfed or tingularly learned in the controverts of Reli- gion ; may not uchaone in th.1 common fence of i hriltians,be though: more like to fa le & mifcarry ,in ins judgement about things Ecclciiarhcall,:hena v\h ;le Synod , wherein "here are many of the lea -nedjucsicious and godly Mur.lters o. -he Chu c'a. Papifts teil us, QfjOnufbr *W ^'Y will not de'end the perfonall actions of die Pope,(/>; quafi- de vit. ipfefiltis omnibus korisjkpere potuent t id quod recle nemini cencefium- Badr.6. perhibetur. Their own iecords let the world know the abominable ; vices and impieties o: Popes. Wrncffj Platinayincoe lie of ](hn the io. Benedict the 4. ]ohn the 1$. Boniface the 7. lebn the 20 Iohn Hie 22. Paul the 2. &c. And farther when our Adverlaries difpute ofthePopej infailability , they graunt , fot hisowne perion, he may be an Heriticke.-only they h >ld that he cannot crre e Cathedra.
And .kail we now Idolize the per'bns o Princes more then Papifts doe the per fori St of Popes ? Or fnaU Papifts object to us, that we ex- toll the judgement or our Princes to a higher decree of authority 6c infallibility, then they yeeld to the judgement of their Popes? Alas, why would we put Weapons in the hands of our Adverfanes ? Sect. 14. But what (ay we of Princes in refpedt of their place and
calling ? Is not their power abfolute in that refpedt ? Beetle quidam, (i) Dcim- &iih(i)S4ravia9ilIibcralis & mverecundi cermet ejfe ingsni)>de Prwci* fer. aut. pumpoteftatc & rebut ge ft is qtte(fou?m mor ere 9 q it and* & Imperafr lib. 2. cap. foe nle glum ejje fcribit , de eoqmd * Principe fatlttm eft di$futare9 tt? (k.fc*™cro holdeth that in things pertaining to externail order in re-
(k. pralect. liglon,Kings may command what they will pre author it ate , and for- t&m.i.pa. biddc to feeke another realon befide the Majefty of their auhority : 37'0,37£« yea that when they command frivola9dura, & iniqua refpetlu noftrt, €9 tom. 2. 0ur consciences are bound by thole their fcivolous and unjult com- }*g-4** maundements,not oaly in re fpedl: o* the end,becaufe fcandall Should poifibly follow in ca e we obey them not , but alfb lubentis reftecluy becaufe the Apoitle bidde hus, obey the Magiftrare for c^n'cienee, fake. At the reading of thele Palfages in Sarauia & C*wn>:horrour and amazement have taken hold on me. O wifedome of God , by whom Kings doe raigne & Princesdecree Iuftice, upon v hofe thigh * & vefture is written Kjngof Kings & Lord of Lords; make1 the Kings ©rthe Earth to knotw that their Lawes are bur t\eguU regulata , and wenjuroe menfuratse. Be wife now therefore. O ye Kings: Be inftruc- tedyc Iudgejof the Earth* Serve the Lord with feaie,and rejorce
tii
Cbap.8. ]n things Ecclefiafticall. itf
with trembling. Rifle the Sonne,andlay downc your Crownes at he feete of the Lambe (/; that lies upon the Throne , difeite juftitiam (I) Cah*in moniti , and remember that rhis is the beginning o/wi'edone , by pj at. %. catting pride away ,to addict yourfelves to the Dominion of Chrift : Who albeit he hath given rheKingd >mes of this world unto your hands,and Son auferet mor'talU, Qjjiregna iat cghjlii; (m) yet hath/ . \pr i Q he kept the governem^rt of lis Church upon his ovvne fhoulder. So g 1**1 that Rex non eft proprie i\?:ior Ecclefid!, fed ^eipttblita : Eeclejia ve- ' * ro Defenfor eft. O all yee 3 jbjeCts of King* ana Pinces, underitand chat in things pertaaning to the Church and Kingdoms of Chrilt, (n) ye are not the Servants of men ; to doe what they lift , and that fn) %, Qor. for their lifting. T :e Apoitle t\)m. ij . (o) urgerh not obedience to 7.25. Magiltrates for conscience fake , but only iubjection for conscience (a, Taylor* fake. For (p) he concludcth his whole purpofe VerJ. 7. PKender on Tit. 3. therefore to all their dues ^tribute to whom tribute is dm > cttslome to 1. pag. whom enftome , fiire to whom feare , hmour to whom honour, 5*43. There is not in all thatChapter one word of obedience toMagiftrats. (fi P*tm*-
And astoucning the binding power of their Lawes, be they never in *^wm fojuft they cannot bind you any other way nor in refpect of the ge- locum* nerall end of them .-For per U they cannot bind more then the Chur- ches Lawes can. Which things (</) D.Forbefte alio haih told you out >*) iYeHt of Cdhine. \ty 2. cap*
Atid hence it followeth , that whenfbever yon may omit that 4,, 5 2, which Princes enjoyne, without violaring the Law of Charity , you are not holden to obey them, for the Majelty of Princely authority. Be afhamed O ye Formalifts o your afcribing to Princes a Innfdic- tion Co abfolute. Bury it in the grave of eternall filence. Tell it not in fyme : publil h it not among the Va( hals of Antkhrift , left the daughters ofBabylon rejoice , left the worfhippers of the Beaft triumph. O how fmall confidence have the Cardinals, I fay not now into the Popes perfon,but even into his chaire, when beei.ng entered in the Conclave, for tie election ct a new Pope, they fpend the whole day following in the making ofLawes, belonging to the admi- niftration & handling o': all things by him.who fbalbe advaced to the Popedome : which lawes every one of them fubferireth , and fwareth toobferve,ifhc be made Pope , as Onuphrius writeth. Though 1 ke Popes owne creatures the Iefuites in their Schooles and Bookes, muft difpute for his in allibilky e Cathedra, yet we fee what ;ruft the wife Cardinal!* fhur up in the Conclave, doe put ia bim,with whatbound they tie him & within what bounds they con- fine kis power. Albeit the Pope after he is cieated ob'ervcth not ftrittly thisoath,as<'r; that wire writer of the Hiftory of 'he Coun- /r) £,,£. J; cell or Trent noteth : vet let me fay once againe , ihall we fet up the power of Princes higher, or make their power leffe limited, then Papifts doe * ke power of Popes? Or f kail they fer bouads,to Popes, *nd we fet none %q Prince?. Kit 1 But
1 34 Of the piper of Princes Part. J
Se&.lf. ButlfmcFffty feif a little digrefled , after rhe roving abfurdities offomeoppolites.Now therefore to returne, the iccond Proportion Vkhich I am here to lay downe, before I fpeak particularly of the pow er ofPr;nces,isths,sVhatioever Princes can commendabiy ei her do by tiemtelves, or command to be done by others, in iuch matters as any way peitamcto the extern all worfhip of God , mult be both law ful .n the nature ofir,and expedient in the tile of it; which conditions f) Pareus if they be wanting,tneir commandemets cannot bind to obedience. tn Rom* F°r X l -The very ground and reafon w hereore we ought to obey ; the Magiftrate, is, for that he is ihe Miniiter of God or a*t)eputie fct r* . in Gods ftead to us. Now , he is the Miniiter of God , only for our
good Rjm.il 4. Neither were he Gods Minifter,but his owne Ma- iler , ifhe f hould rule at hispleafure » and command things which ferye not for the good of the Subjects. Since therefore the com - maundements of Princes bind only fo farre as they are the Mi- niftersofGud for our good : and Gods Minifters they are not , in commanding fuch things as are either in their nature unlawful!, or in ..t'ieirufe inconvenient .-it followeih thatluch commaundements of -theirs cannot bind.
2 . Princes cannot claime any greater power in matters Ecclefitti- call, then the Apoltle Paul had,or the Church her fel-e yet hath .-that is to fay , Princes may net by any Temporal! or Regall Iurifdiclion urgti any Ceremony or forrne of Eccleiiafticall Policy , which the A- poftle once might not , and the Church yet may not urge by a Spiri- tuall Iurifdi&ion. But neither had the Apftttie of old , nor hath the Church now powerto urge either a Ceremony or any thing cife, which is not profitable for edifying. Paul could doe nothing againft the truth, but for the truth , and his power was given him to edifica- tion and not to deftruclion?2.Cor. 1 $ . 8 1 0. Neither f hall JEcclefiafti- call perfons to the worlds end receive any other power, .betid e that v\ hich is for the perfecting of the Saints , and for the edifying o'f (c) *Z)» the body ofChriit. Epb.4. 1-2. Therefore as(j)the Churches power .Forb. isonly to prefenbe that which may edify. fo the power of Princes is Jren.lib, 2 *n l&e fort given to them for education ,, and not for deftrudtion,. cap - r neither can they doe ought againft the truth , but only for the
r**v* truth. #***• 1 . we are bound by the Law of God,to'doe notth'ng which is not
• good &. profitable foredifying^i.Cor. 6 il.cr. 14.26* This Law of Charity is of a higher and ftraiter bound then the JUw of any Prince in the world.
T»e general! rule sf all indifferent things , is\ let all things be done to edification; And Ro.if.i,*. lei every wik plea ft hit neighbonr ta edification. even as Chritt pleafednet himfelfybut others. Whatfo- ever then is of this ra%ke^kteh either muld wertkjw or net edify oat
Ckap.S. J* thing! Eccle/iajlicall. fjy
brother ybe it never fo lawf till , never fe profitable to our [elves] never p powerfully by earthly authority mjoyned{(^hr%slias who are not borne * Taytor ynto them[elvesybut vnto Chrifiyvnto hisChurch , and felfowe members on Vit. t nttift not dart to middle with U , faith (r) one well to our par- *?'?*$• pofe. 2Z5*
A third Propofition I premit , which is this. Since the power Sect.xo". of Princes to make Lawes about t'lMi^JEcclciiaiHcallyis not ablblute, but bound and adltri&ed vnto things lawiall and expedient , which •fort ofthings , and no other, we are allowed to doe tor their com- mandements : and iince Princes many times may and doe not only ttanfgrefTe thofe bounds and limits , but likevvife pretend that they are within the lame , wnen indeed'they are without them , and in- ioyne things vnlawfull and in convenient,vnder the name , title,and (hew of things lawfull and convcnienr.Thereforeitis mod necelfary as well for Princes to permit, as for Subjects to take liberty to trie and examine by the judgement of difcretion , everie thing which auctority en/oyeth whether it be agreeable or repugnant to the rules of the word,and if after triall it be found repuguant to abitaine from the doing of the fame.
For i. The word teacheth us , that the fpirituall man judgeth all ! things. i.Cor,2.22trieth the things that are diecrent. Phil. i. 10. hath his fences exercifedto difcerne both good and cvill.Htfo-f. 14, and that every one who would hold fait that which is good , and ab- ftainefrom all appearance of evill,muft firft prove all things. 1. rhefiaLf.li',
%. Whatfoever is not ori aithis m ne Rom, 14. 2£. But whatfb-r ever a man doeth without the triall, Knowledge , and perfuafion ofthelawfnllneffeof Lt,by the word of God ; that is not of faithu Ergo afinnc. It is the word of God , and not the arbitrement of Princes whereupon faith is grounded. And though the. word may be without faith yet faith can not be withont the word. By it therefore muft a man trie and know aifuredly the lawfullnefle of that. Which he doth, .
3 . Everie oneofvsfh all give account 0} himjelfto God- But as we cannot give an account to God of thofe actions which wee have done in obedience to our Prince , except we have examined, considered.; and vnderftood the lawfullneffeof the fame, i fo an account could not be required of us for them , if we were bound to obey and to keep all his ordinances, in fuch fort that we might not trie and examine them .* withfulJ liberty to refufe thofe which we jud^ out of the word to be vnlawfull or inconvenient .-for thcnPrinces ordinances were a moft fufficient warrant to us: we needed trie no . more; let him make an account to God of his command ; we have acourftto make of our obedience. 4,vItwcbeboun4 to receive and obey -the. lawes of Princes, ,
wkhavit :'.
*$6 Of examining the !d0cs «f Princes ^arM.
without making a free triall and examining of the equity of the lame,thtti wee could not be puniijied for doing unwillingly and in ignorance, things unlawfell prefenbed by them. Whereas every foule that iinneth 1 hall dye; and when the blind leads the blind , he who is ledde falls in :he ditch as well as his leader.
1 1\ r !4 ■ *' No man is permitted to doe every thing which feemeth right 6 d ln nls eyes,and to follow every conceit which takes him in the head : but every man is bound (f, to walke by a rule. -But the Law ofa Prince cannot be a rule.except it be examined , whether ir be con-lonant to the Word ofGod. Index fecundum legem ,and his Law is only fuch a rule as is ruled by a higher rule : In io farre asit is ruled by the owne rule of it, in as farre it is a rule to us: and in (b farre as it is not ruled by the owne rule of it , in as farre it is not a rule to us. Quid ergo? An no n Ucebit Cbnjliano cn'icjne cmvenicHtiamreguU & regHlati{ftt
^Jf"1' VoCaftt obfervare t faith (xv) luttiut*
K*V m ^' ^ ^e ru*e vvncreDy wc ought to walke in all our wayes,and ac-
l'h°m' cPrc^Ing ro which we ought to irame all our actions, is provided of
1 Z* God(*j a (table and fure rule,that it being obferued and taken heed
€aP* i o. unro, may guide and direct our pra&ife aright,about all thofe things 'X) ^fal. which it prefcribeth.'But the Law ofa Prince (if we fhould without 9 'T\ triall and examination take it for our rule, ) cannot be fuch a ftable and fure rule. For put the cafe that a Prince enjoyne two things 'which -bmetimes fall out to be incompatible , and cannot ftandto- ge therein that cafe his Law cannot direcl: our pra&ife,nor refolve us what to doe. Whereas God hath fo provided for us,that the cafe can never occurre, wherein we may not be refolved what to doe , if we obferve the rule which he hath appointed us to walke by.
7. Except this ludgement ofdilcretion which we plead for , be permitted unto us , it will follow that in the point ofobedience we ought to give no leffe,but as much honour unto Princes,as unto God himielfe : For when God publifheth his Commandements unto ns, what greater honour could we give him by our obedience , then to doe that which he commandeth, for his owne fole will and authority, without making further enquiry for any other reafon.
% . The A>poltle , 1 . Cor, 7 .2; . forbiddeth us to be the fervant of men,that is, to doe things for which we have no other warrant , be- fide the pleasure and will of men. Which interpretation is groun- ded upon other places of Scripture, that teach us, we are not boned t© obey men in any thing , which we know not to be according lo the will of God, £*>/?. 6 6. 7. that we ought not to li?e tothe.luftsofrn.cn but to the will of God , i.Ptt.+.Z. and that therefore we ought in every thing to prove what is acceptable unto the Lord , Efb+ S- 20. 9. They who eleaufe their way,muft take heed thereto tccprdm^
* 19
Chap. 8. by the judgement of difcretion* 137
to the Word , Pfal. 1 19.9. Therefore if wee take not heed to our way according to the Word , we doe not cleanfe it.They who would walke as the Children of light ? mufthave the Word for a lampe unto their feet, and a light unto their path, Pfal. 1 1 9. 105. Therefore ifwegoe in any path, without the light of the Word to direcl: us, wewalkeindarkenefleand (tumble , becaufe we fee not where wee goe. They who would not bee unwife, but walke circumfpe&ly, muftunderftand, what the will of the Lord is , Efh .5.17. There- fore, ifwe undcrftand not what the Willof the Lord is concerning that which we doe, we are unwife, and walke not circumfpe&Iy.
10. (y) Dona Dei inSanBisnon funt otiofa. Whatfoever Grace God (y) Zanch. givethus, it ought to be u fed and exercifed,and not to lie idle in us. iff Phil. 1. But (z) God giveth us aBionemcognofcendhTvi h&QipovTU, difcernen- l o. di , &c. acertainemeafure of the Spirit of Difcretion , to teach us (z) ld,ibid< what to choofe as good , and what to refufe as evill , 1 Job. z. 27. The fame anointing teachetbyou of all things , 1 Cor. 2. 1 5 . He that is Spirt* tualljudgetb all things. ThereforeGod would have us to exercife that rnealure of the gift of difcretion , which he hath beftowed on us , in difcerningof things which are propounded to us , whether they ought to be done or not.
Ii. Doe not our Divines plead for this judgement of private dif- cretion,which ought to be permitted to Chriftians, when any thing is propounded to bee believed or done by them ? And this theic judgement is to bee feene in their writings againft Papifts about the Contr over ties dcinterpretatione Scripture, defideimplicita, &c.
i2.TheBifhop oi Sarifburie in his Prele&ions de judice contra - Verfiarum , doth often and in many places commend unto Chri- ftians,the fame judgement of difcretion which wee {land upon ,& holdeth it necefTary for them totrie and examine whatfoever cither Princes or Pre'ates command them to doe. CoaBiva> &c. ThecoaBive Power of a Prince (a) faith he,doth not abfolutely bind the SubjeBy butonely (a\ w* j . with thh -condition 5 except he would compell him to that which is unlaw j ull. pa*7j[ therefore there is c\>er left unto Subjects a Power of proving and judging in their owne mind, whether that which is propounded be ungodly and unlawfull or not : and if it be ungodly , that which the King tbreatnetb jbould be fuffered, rather then that which he commanded: bee done. This Augufiine hath taught iS'c. And whereas it might be objeded , that this maketh a Subject to be his Princes ludge, (b) he anfwereth thus. Non fe dfc* Hemaketh (U\ jfcj Cm nothimfdfe anothers Judge ■> who ponder eth and txamineth a Sentence publi- z 6. 0,152. jhed by. another , info fane as it containeth fomething either to be done or to be bdieVed by him ; but ondyhee makjth himfelfe the Judge of hn owne ac- tions. For , howfoeVer he who playeth the Judge , is truly J aid to judge* yet every one who judgeth ts not properly fayd to play the ludge. Hteplayetb the Judge , who in a external! Court pronouncetb a Sentence, which\by force of
S s s Itf ri/-
1 3 8 What things Tmces mfly command Part. $ .
lurifditlion touch eth another : but he judgeth , who in tht wfaiour Court of bts owne private Confiience conceivctb fuch a Sentence of the things to be belie- ved or done ai pcrtaineth to himfelfe alone: This Utter way private men both may and ought to judge of the Sentences and Decrees of tiiagiflrates , neither by fo doing doe they conjlitute themf elves ludges of the Magijirates , but ludges of their owne a&ions. Se£l. Finally, there is none of our Oppofites , but faith fo much as in-
XVil. ferreth the neceflity of this Iudgcmentof private and pra&icall dif- cretion,for every fmatterer among them -'hath this much in his mouth , that if the King or the Church com mande any thing un- lawfull, then we ought to obey God rather then men: but when they commaund things indifferent and lawfull , then their Ordinance ought to be our Rule. But (goodmen) will they tell us , how wee (hall know, whether the things which the King , or the Church (as they fpeake) doe injoyne , are lawfull or unlawfull , indifferent, or not indifferent ; and fo we fhall be at a point. Dare they fay , tha: we muft judge thofe things indifferent which our Superiouis judge to be fuch, and thofe unlawfull , which our Superiours fo judge of? Nay, then they fhould deliver their diftin&ion in other tearmes, _ and fay thus: If our Superiours injoyne any thing which they judge to be unlawfull, and which they command us fo to account of, then we ought to obey God rather then men: but if they injoyne fuch things as they judge to be indifferent , and which they com- mand us fo to account of , then we ought to obey their Ordinance. Which diftin&ion me thinks , would have made Heracliw himfelfe to fall a lauging with Democritui. What then remaineth ? Surely our Oppofites muft either fay nothing, or elfe fay with us 9 that it is not onely a Liberty but a duty of Inferiours , not to receive for a thing lawfull that which is injoyned by Superiours , becaufe they account it and call k fuch, but by the judgement of their owne difcretion following the rules of the Word , to trie and examine , whether the fame be lawfull or unlawfull. Seel. ThztePrcscognha beeing now made good , come wee to fpeake
XVIIL more particularly of the Power of Princes to make La?/esand O.di. nances about things which concsrne thcWorfhip of God. The purpofe we will unfold in three diftinclions, 1. ofthings. 2. of times 3. of ties. Firft, let us diftinguifh two forts of things in the Worfhip ofGod, viz. things fubftantiaU, & thingscircumftantiall. To things fubftantial! we referre as well facred and Significant Ceremonies as the more neceiTaryandeffentiall parts of \Vor(hip,and in a word, all things which are not mere externall circumftances fuch as were not pariicularly determinable within thofe bounds which it pleafed God to fet to his written Word, and the right ordering whereof, as it is common to all humane ibeieties whether civill or facred, fo it is inveffigableby the very light and guidance of naiurall reafon.That
among
Chap. 8. concerning the Worfhip of God. M 9
among this kind of mere cuxum fiances , facredfignifiant Cere- monies can not be reckoned , we have otherwhere made it evident. Now therefore of things pertaining to the fubftance of Gods wor* ~fhip,whether they be f acred Ceremonics.or greater and more nec£f- fary duties, we fay that Princes have not power to injoyne any thing ofthis kynd , which hath not theplaine and particular Institution ofGodhimfelf in Scripture. They may indeed and ought to publifh Gods owne ordinances and commandements, and by their coa&ive temporall power urge and inforce the obfervation of the fame. Notwithftanding it is a Princes duty , (c) that in the worjtip of God , ( c )Dan*tts whether internal! or externalise move nothing, heprefcribe nothing, except thatpoL Cfayft. which is expreffely delivered in Gods owne written Word. We m u ft beware lib. 6,Cap.i we confou d not things which have the plaine warrant of Gods Word?with things deviled by the will of man. David,Iehofaphat>Heze- hiahjofiahy and other Kings among the people of God , did as well laudably as lawfully , iiijoyneandcommand that worfhip and forme ofReligion/vhich God in hisLawand by his Prophets commanded; and forbid? avoid,andabolifhfuch corruptions, as God had forbid- den before hem, and appointed to be abobiihed : whence it follow- eth not that Kings mayinjoyne things v<hichwant the warrant of the word, but only this much, wh ch we all commend) viz. (d) That {d)%tnch.in 4 Chriflian Princes office in Religion,*! diligently to take care that inhu Domi- 4. pnc. col. nion or kingdome, Religion out of the pure word of God, expounded by the word 791. Tolan. of God itfdf, andunderflood according to thefirfi Principles of faith ( which jynt. lib. 1 o . others call the analogy of faith) either be infiituted ; or beeing injlitutedbe kept cty* 6 5 . pure ; or beeing corrupted be rejiored and reformed: thatfalfe doBrines, abufes, Idolls^andfuperflitions > be taken away to the glory of God}andto }m owne and his Sub j eels falvation.
But in all the Scripture Princes have neither a commendable ex- se&. ample, nor any other warrantjforths making of any innovation in XIX. Religion, or for the prefcribing of facred (ignifcant Ceremonies of mens devifing. Jeroboam cauled a change to be made in the Cere- monies and forme of Gods worfhip. Whereas God ordained the Arke of the Covenant to be the figne of his prefence , and that his glory fhould dwell between the Cherubims.Ieroforfw fet up two Calves to be the fignes reprefentative of that God who brought lfraeloutof Egypt. And this he meanes while he lakh , (e) Behold thy Gods , &c. {e) I.King giving to the fignes the thing fignified. Whereas God ordained Ie- 12. 28. rufalem to be the place of worfhip and all the lacnfices to be brought to Lhe Temple ofjlolomon, Jeroboam made Van and Bethel to be places of worfhip , and built there Altars and hi^b places for the faenfices. Whereas God ordained the fonnes of Aaron onely to be his PrieftsV Icroboam madz Priefts of the lowed of the people, which were not of the fonnes of Levi. Whereas God orJained the feafl ofTabernacles to be kept on the fifteenth day ofthe feaventh monuh, Jeroboam ap-
S s s 2 pointed
140 Whit things Trinces may command Part . 5 2
pointed it on the fifteenth dayofthe eight moneth. Now, if any Prince in the world might have faire pretences for tie making of fuch innovations in Religion, Jeroboam much more. He might alledgc for his changing of the fignesof Gods prefence, and of the place of vvorfhip , thatflnce fyhoboams wrath was incenfed againft him , and againft the ten Tribes which adhered vnto him , ( as appeareth by (f) i.chron. ^f} the accounting ofthem to be rcbells, and by \g) the gathering of U) 1. Chron. a huge armie, for bringing the kingdome againe to Rehoboam) it was 11. i# no longer fafe for his iubjecls to goeup to hrufaiem to vvorfhip , in
which cafe God who required mercy more then (aenfice , would beare with their changing of a fewe Ceremonies., for the fafety of mens lives. For his putting downe of the Priefts and Levites,and his ordaining of other Priefts which were not of the fonnes of Levi : he (h) Martir. might pretend that they were rebellious to him>in that (&). hey would* in 1. Reg.' notalTentvntohisnewordmanceSjWhichhehadenadedforthe fafe- 8.31. tl& anc* fecur*tv of his Subje&s , and that they did not only limply
refufe obedience to thefe his ordinances , but in their refufall mew themfelves fo ftedfaftty minded,that they wolud refufe and withftand even to the fuflfering of deprivation and dcpofition;and not only fo, (i) a. Chron, but likewyfe(i)drew after them many others of the reft of the Tribes, 1 1. id. to be of their judgement, and to adhere to that manner of worfhip
which was retained in I«7<pto.Laftly,for the change which he made about the feafon of the feaft of Tabernacles , he might have this pretence , that as it was expedient for the ftrengthening ofhis king- (k) Martir. dome, ( kj) to drawe and allure as many as could be had , to aflbciat in i. Reg, and joyne themfelves with him in his forme ofworflrip, (which could 8.32. not be done if he fhould keep that feaft , at the fame time when it
was keeped at Terufalcm \ ) fo there was no lefTe ( if not more) order (/) Id, ibid. ancj decency in keeping it in the eight moneth, [I) when the fruits of the ground were perfectly gathered in(for thankefull remembrance whereof , that feaft was celebrated ) then in the feaventh , when they were notfo fully collected.
Thefe pretences he might have made yet more plauflble, by pro-
fefling and avouching,that he intended to worfhip no Idolls, but the
Lord only; that he had not fallen from any thing which was funda-
mentall and eflfentiall in divine Faith and Religion;that the changes
which hehad made , were only about fome alterable Ceremonies ,
which were not eflentiall to the worfhip of God; and that even in
thefe Ceremonies hehad not made any change for his owne will and
pleafurc,but for important rcafons which concerned the good ofhis
Kingdome and faffety of his Subjects* Notwithstanding of all this,
the innovations which he made about thefe Ceremonies offacrcd
Signes, facred Places, facred Perfons , facred Times, are condemned
(*) i.Kings coz ^^ very reafon, becaufefw) he devifedthem ofhis ownehearr,
li03* which
Chap. 8. concerning the Worfbip of God. 141
which was enough to convince him of horrible impiety in making lfraeltofinne. Moreover, when king Aha^tookca pauerne of the Altar of Oarnafcus ,and fent it to Vrijah the Prieft, though we can not gather from the Text , that he either intended or pretended any- other refped befide (w) the honouring and pleafuring ofhisPatrone (n) 2. Kings and Prote&ourthe king ofAjfyria- , (for ofhis appointing that new i^io.iS* altar, for his owne and all the peoples facrifices, there was nothing heard till after his reuirae from Damafcuc, at which time he beganne to fallbacke, from one degree of defection to a greater: ) yet this very innovation of taking the patterneofan Altar from Idolaters, is marked as a (inne and afnare. Laftofall , whereas manyofthe kings ofludah and Ifrad^did either themfelves worfhip in the groves ' and the high places>or elfe at leaft fuffer the people tadoe fo : hou- foever(o) they might have alledged fpecious reafons for excufing (o) Hoffmi themfelves, as namely, that they gave not this honour to any ftrange^or/g.T^/. Godsjbut to the Lord onlys that they choofedthefe places only to Ub.i. Cap. 1. worfhip in , wherein God was of olde feene and worlhipped by the io.Wtyb. in Patriarchs-,thatthe groves and thehigh places added a moil amiable 2.Reg.i2» fplendorand beauty.to the worfhip of God y and that they did con- 4, fecratethefe places for divine worfhip, in a good meaning,and with minds wholly devoted to the honour of God : yet notwithstan- ding, becaufe this thing was not commanded of God, neither came it in to his heart, he would admit no excufes, but ever challengeth it as a grievous fault in the governement of thofe Kings, that thehigh places were no: "'.ken away , and that the people Sill facrificed in the high places. From all which exam ples,welearne how higly God (p)H<$iW was and is difpleafed with men, (p) for adding any other facred Ce- tbid.pag* ii- ' rcmonics, to thofe which he himielfe hath appointed.
Now as touching the other fort of things which we conflder in Seel;* XXt the Worfhip of God , namely , things merely circumftantiall , and fuch as have the very fameufe andrefpecVincivill,wh£h they have in facred a&ions^ we hold , that whenfoever ithappeneth to be the duty and part of a Prince , to inftitute and injoyne any order or policy in thefe circumftances of Gods Worfhip , then he may onely injoyne fuch an order, as may ftand with the obferving and follow- ing of the Rules of the Word, whereunto wee are tied in theufe and practice of things which arc in their gcnerall nature indifferent.-
Of thefe Ruleslam to fpeake in the fourth part of the Difpute. And here -i fay no more bur this: Since the Word commandeth us^ (3) to doe aTl things to the Glory of God, (r) tG doe all things to edi«-(^{jcor»i^- fymg,&: (/) to doe all things in Faith, & full perfuafion of the law- 3»- fulneffe of that which we doe : therefore there is no Prince in the W xCoivM*- world who hath Power to command his Subjects, to doe that which' (/jRom.*^ fhould either difhonour God, or not honour him ; or that which 5v *3» fihould either offend their brother , or not edify him , or laftly , that'
Sss 3 which
«4l Wh&t things Trinces may command Part.}.'
which their conCcience either condemneih , or doubteth of. For how may a Prince command that which his Subjects may not doe? But a wonder it were, if any man mould fo farre refute to be afha- med , that he would dare to fay, .we are not bound to order whatsoe- ver wc doe accordingto thele Rules of the Word , but oneiyfuch matters of private adhon , wherein we are left at full liberty, there beeing no Ordinance of Saperioursco determine our pracli:< ; and that it iuchan Ordinance be publifhed and propounded unto us, we (hould take it alone for our Rule, and no longer thinkc to examine and order ourpra&ife by the Rules of ihe Word.
For.i.This were as much as to fay.thatin tie circuftances of Gods Worfhip , we are bound to take heed unto Gods Ru les , then onely and in that cafe, when men give us none, of their Rules , which if they doe, Gods Rules muft give place to mens Rules, and not theirs tohis.
2. If it were fo, then we (hould never make reckoning to God, whether that which wee have done in obedience to Superiours , was right or wrong, good or bad: and we fhould onely make recko- ning of fuch things done by us, as were not determined by a hu- mane Law.
3. The Law of Superiours is never the fupreame, but ever afub- ordinate Rule, and (as we faid before) it can never be a Rule to us, except in fo farre onely , as it is ruled by a higher Rule. Therefore we have ever another Rule to take heed unto , befide their Law.
4» The Scripture fpeaketh moil: generally, and admitteth no ex- ception from the Rules which it giveth. IVhatfoeverye r?o*fthough commanded by Superiours^ doe all to the Glory of God. Let all things (though commanded by Superiours ) be done to edifying. WhatfoeVtt ti not of Faith (though commanded by Superiours) ti finne.
5. We may doe nothing for the fole will and pleafure of men : {t)dejuftit. for this were^to be the Servants of men,as hath been fhewed. [t) The adualcap. Biftiop ofSarifburu a\Co afTenteth hereunto. Non emm (faith he) Dew 41. vult , uthomim alicujus voluntatem regulam nofir* voluntatis atque Vita
faciamus : fed hoc privilegium fibi ac verbo fuo refefvatum Voluit. And (u) dsjudice again e ,Pio itaque animohcec confideratio femper adejfe debet , utrumidquod controv. cap. praciphur Jit divino mandato contrarium , necne : atquene ex hac parte fal- z6.pag.iji lantur , adhibendum eft Mud judicium difcretionvs , quod nos tantoptre ur- gemus, Se&. Thefe things if (x) Saravia had confidered , he had not fo abfo-
XXI- lutely. pronounced that the Po\*cr of K\ng* may make Conslitutions of [x)de tm- the places and times , when and where the exercifes of Piety may bee con- per. author, veniemly had : alfowith what Order , what Rite , what Gefiure , what Ha- hb.i.c. 5 2. bite , the Myfteries fhallbee more decently celebrated. But what ? thougi t hee, this Power of Kings is not aftrided to the Rules of the Word ? have they any Power which is to deitrutUon , and not to edifi- cation ?
Chap. 3. concern:ngtheWoyJlupofCjod. I4j:
cation? Can they commaund their Subjects to doeany thing rn tbecircumftances of Divine VVorfnip , which is not tor the Glory of God , which is not profitable for edifying, and which they can not doe in Faith ? Nay , that all the Princes in the world have not llich Power as this , will eafily appearc to hitiY who attended] unto the reafons , which wee have propounded. And becau'e men doe eafily and ordinarily pretend, that their contentions are accor- ding to the Rules of the Word, when they are indeed repugnant to the fa me, therefore we have alfo proven , that Inferiours may & muft trie and examine every ordinance of their Supcriours,and that by the judgement of private difcretion , following the Rules of the Word. 1 i ay, following the Rttles of the Word , becaufe wee will never allowe a man to follow Anabaptifticall or Swenckfeldian-like en- thyfiafmesand infpirations.
Touching the application of what hath been faid , unto the con- Sect, troverted Ceremonies , there needs nothing now to be added. For XXIL that they belong not to that fort of things which may be applied to civill ufes,with the fame refped and account which they have, being applied to religious ufes , the account I meane of mere circumftan- ces , ferving onely for that common order and decency , which is and fhould be oblerved in civill, no lefTe then in facred actions ; but that they belong to the fubftance of Worfhip , as beeing facred fignificant Ceremonies, wherein both holincvle and neceffity are placed, and which may not without high facriledge beufedoutof the compare of Worfhip 3 wee have elfewhere plainly evinced. And this kinde of things , whensoever they are mens devices , and not Gods Ordinances, can not be lawfully injoyned by Princes? as hath beenfhewed.
Butifany manwill needs have thefe Ceremonies in queftion, to goeunder the name ofmerecircumftances , let us put the cafe they were no other , yet our conforming unto them3 which is urged, can not (land with the Rules of the Word.
It could not be for the Glory of God 5 not onely for that it isof- fenfivetomany ofChrifts litleones , butlikewiie for thatitmini- ftrcth occafion to the enemies of the Lord to blafphemejto Atheiftc, becaufe by ihefe naughty obfervancesihey leeihe Commandements of God made oflitle or noefTeft, and many godly both Perfons 6c Purpofes defpifed and deprefled , whereat they laugh in their fleeve, and fay , Aha , fo would we have it; to Papifts , becaufe as by this our Conformity, they confrme themfelvesin fun dry of their errors and luperflirions , To perceiving us fo litle to abhorre thePompe & Bravery of their Mother of Harlots , that we care not to borrow from her (omcofher meretricious trinckets, they promife to them - fe ves.thatin the end we fnall take as great a draught of the Cup of the Wine of her Fornications, as they themfelves
"Neither
144 ?n ^at cafe Princes may by themfelvts Part. 3^
Neither yet can our conforming unto the Ceremonies prefied on us , be profitable for edifying, for we have given Sufficient demon- stration of manifold hurts and inconveniences enfuing thereon.
Noriaftiy can weconforme to them in Faith , for as our Con- fciencescan not frnde, fo the Word can not afford any warrant for them. Of all which things *now L onely make mention , becaufe I have fpoken of them enough otherwhere. Se&. The feconddiftin&ion , which may help our light in this quef-
XXILI. tion about the Power of Princes, is of times : for, when the Church and Minifters thereof are corrupted and muft be reformed, Princes may doe much more in making Lawes about things Ecclefiafticall , then regularly they may, when Ecclefiafticall Per Ion's are bo th able and willing to doe their duty , in rightly taking care of all things, which ought to be provided for the good of the Charch, and con- /y\ M\maA, fervation or purgation of Religion. For (faith (y) lunitts) both th<L> tn Bell. CQtr. Church , when the joyning of the Magijlrate faileth , may extraordinarily do* 4. Ub, i, cap. pwttb'mg* which ordinarily fhee cannot', andagaine, when t he Church fai- 12 & 1 8 ' ^ °f ^)tY &uih the Magijlrate may extraordinarily procure, that the Church veturne to her duty: thac is , in fuch a cafe extraordinarily happcningstht fe ■ ( Ecclejiajlicali Perfons)andthofe(Magi/Irates) may extraordinarily doefeme- thmgtvvhich ordinarily they can not. For this belongeth to common Law and Equity , that unto extraordinary evils , txtraordinarj remedies mult alfo te (z)Cattwr, applied. We aknowledge, that it belongeth to Princes , (z) to reforme ,on Math, things in the Church as often as the Ecclefiafticall Perfons fhall either through ii. feci. 3. ignorance or dif order of the ajfeStion of covetoufnejfe or ambition , defile the Lords SanBuary . At fuch extraordinary times, Princes by their coa&ive temporall Power, ought to procured caufe a Reformation ofabufes , and the avoiding of miforders in tta Church, though with the difcontent of the Cleargie : for which end and purpofe tbey may notonely injoyneand command the Profeffion of that Faith, and the Pra&ife of that Religion which Gods Word appointeth , but alfo prefcri be fuch an order and policy in the circumftances of Divine Worfhip, as they in their judgement ofChriftian Dis- cretion, obfervingand following the Rules of the Word,lTiall judge and trie to'be convenientior ti e prefent time and cafe, and ail this under the commination of fuch temporall lofles , paines , orpunifh- ments , as they fhall deprehend to be reafonable. But at other or- dinary times, when Ecclefiafticall Perfons are neither through igno- rance unable, nor through malice and perverfeneiTe of afTe&ion un- willing, to put order to whatfoever requireth any mutation to bee made in the Church and Service of God , in that cafe without their advice and confent , Princes may not make an innovation of any Ecclefiafticall Rite, nor publifn any Ecclefiafticall Law.
When
Chap.S* nuke ZxtWi thuuUngs ScclcfcftkaH* IAS
When(rt) D.F/c/^fpeakethof the Power cf Princes, to prefenbe vm* and make Lawes about things fpirituall or Eccleiiafticai), he faith, Xj Mv . That the Prince may with the ad vice and direction of his Cleargie 3 (Ocfjr, command things pertaining to Gods Worfhip and Service, both Cbunb. ho. for Profeflion of Faith , Miniftration of the Sacraments , and con- 5 f*M3* verfation fitting to Chriflians in generall , or men of Ecclefiafticall order in particular, under the panics of Death, Imprifonemcnt, Ba- nifhment, Confiscation ofgood?, and the like : and by his Princely Power eftablifh things formerly defined and decreed againft ^hat- foe ver error, and contrary illcuftome and obiervation. In all this the D. faith very right : but I demaund farther thefc two things. I. What if the thing have net been decreed before ? and what if the free afTeni of the Cieargie be not had for it ? would he D . have faid , that infuchacafe, the Prince hath not Power by himfelfe & by hisowne fole Authority , toinjoyne it , and to eftablifh a Law concerning it. For example, that K. lames had not Power by him- felfe to impofe the controverted Ceremonies upon the Church of Scotland , at that time , v hen as no free affent (much leffe the direc- tion)oftheCIeargie , was had for them.fo neither had they been formerly decreed , but Lawcs and Decrees were formerly made a- gainft them. If the D. would have anfwered affirmatively , that he had this Power , then why did hein a fcornefull didimulation , fo circumfcribe and limit the Power of Princes , by requiring a former decree , and the free aiTent of theCleargie? If he would have anfwe* ted negatively, that he had not fuchPower, wee fhould have rcn- dred him ihankes for his anfwer. 2. Whether may theCleargie make any lawes about things pertaining to the Service of God which the Prince may not aswellby himfelfe and without them , constitute and authorize ? If the affirmative part bee grauntedunto us, we gladly take it* But we fuppofeD. Field did 9 and our Op- poses yet doe hold the negative. Whereupon it followeth, that the Prince hath as much, yea the very fame Power of making lav\es in all Ecclefiafticall things which the Cleargie themfelves have when they are conveened in a lawfull and free Affembly 5 yet I guefTe from the D. words , whathee would have replied, namely, that the difference is great betwixt the Power of making Lawes about things Ecclcfiafticall, in the Prince, and the fame Power in the Cleargie af* fcmbledrogither: for hedefcribeth the making of a Law?to be the prefcribing of fomething > under fomc paineor punimment, which he that fo prekribe'.h hath Power to inflid. Whereby hee would wakeit appeare , that he yceldeth not unto Princes, the fame power of Spirituail Iurifdiclion , in making of Ecclefiailicall Lawes, v.hich agrceih to the Cleargie : becauie whereas a Councell of the Cleargie may frame Canons about things which concerne the Worfhip of God , and ptefcribe thern under the paine ofexcommunication and
T t c other
: 40 Of the T&Vvet of Trincet ] Part.* ;
other Ecclefiaiticallccnfures* the Ordinance of Princes about fuch matters , is onely under the paine of fome external! or bodily pu- nifhment. But I anfwer Poteftas ota,TUKTtM\ is one thing, and Potefta
%%JT>w\ is another thing. When the making of a Law is joyned eiticrwich the intention , or with the comminacion of a Punifh- meat , in cafe of tranfgreflion , this is but accidentall and adventi- tious to t! e Law , not naturally or neceflarily belonging to theef- fence oftlie fame. For many Lawes there hath been , and may be f which prefenbe not that which tley containe under the fame painc (bjdtcr. or punifhment. (b) Grat'un diftinguifheth three forts of Lawc?» part. 1. dtfl OmnisO'c. Fvery Law faith he , either permits fometbing, for example, let 3 .$.4. a valorous man feeke a reward : or forbids, for example, let it be law full to rny
man to feckj the marriage of holy Virgins : or punifbeth , for example > Hee who commhteth Murther , let him bee capitally punifhed. And in this third kindeoney, there is fometbing prefcribed under a paine or (c) Aquin. punifhment. It is likewise holdcn by (c) Schoolemen, that it is a ]4 2* q. Law which permirteth fome indifferent thing, as well , as it which 92. art. 1. commandeth fome venue* or forbiddeth fome vice. When a Prince doth ftatute andordainei that whofoever out of a generous and magnanimous Spirit , will adventure to imbarke and hazard in a certaine military exploit, againft a forraine enemy whom he inten- dcth to fubdue , fhall be allowed to take for himfclfe impropriety* all che rich fpoile which he can lay hold on:, there is nothing here prefenbed underfome painc or punifhment , yet is it aLaw;and properly fo tearmed* And might not the name of a Law be given unto that Edi£t of King Darhu , whereby (d) hee decreed that all ,,a D 6t they of his Dominions , mould fear the God of Daniel , forafmuch as he is ;he living and eternal! GoJ, whoraigneth forever : yet it prefcribed nothing under fome paine or punifhment to be inflicted by him who fo prefcribed Wherefore thqugh the Princ* publifh- eth Ecclefiafticail Lawcs under other painesandpunifhments , then the Cleargiedoch, this fheweth onely that PoteftaiKt/TM*} is not the fame, but different indie one and in the other : yet if it be granted , thatwhatfocver EcclefiafticaliLaw ,aSynode of theCleargie hath Power to make and publifh,the Prince hath Power to make and publifli without them, byhisowne fole Auctority, itfolloweth, that that Power of the Church to make Lawes which is called Potejlm
aiid,7UK7twi t doth agree as much, as properly, and as directly to the
Prince, as to a whole Synode of the Church. S"e&. Now therefore we firmly hold> i.That the Prince may not inno-
XXV. vate any Cu&ome or Rite of the Church , norpublifhany Eccle-
fiafticalllaw , without the free affent 01 theCleargie , they beeing
neither unable for, nor unwilling unto theirEcclefiafticall functions
and
C ap. $• to make Lawes about things Ecclefa^ calk, 1 47
and duties: yea further,that fofarre as is potfible,the confenc of the whole Church ought to be had , whenlbever any change is to be made of fome order or cuftome in the Church. For that which toucheth the whole Church , and is to be uied by the whole Church {e) ab omnibus etiammerito curatur. Therefore (/) when there is any 0) Bald d$ change to be made in the Rites of the Church,?wemo fit hoc cum omnium caf.confc lib. trdinumEccleJiteconfenfu. Neither was there ever a rightly reformed 4- cap. 1 1. Church^whtchwashelpedandnothurtjbyfuchRitcsand Cuftomes, caf.i. as to their grief and mifcontentment Princes did impofe upon them. {f)lde»ibidt Whence, it was, that (g) they who were orthodox? did frer whhfiandfuch fc)lbid%caf,z a Magiftrate , as would have by his commandments tied the Church , to that- Which VVai burden fome to their conferences . That fuch inconveniencies may be fhunned, it is fit, that when any change is to be made in the Policy of a Church , not the Clcargy alone, but the Elders alio, and men of underftanding among the Laytie, in a lawfull AfTem- bly, freely give their voices, and content thereunto. Goodreafon have our Writers to holdeagainft Papifts, that Laymen ought to have place in Councells , wherein things which concerne the whole Church are to be deliberated upon. 2. Left itbe thought enough that Princes devyfe, frame , andeftablifhEcclefiaiticall lawes , as them be ft liketh.and then for more mew of orderly proceeding/ome fecrete and finiftrous way extort and procure the a (Tent of the Synod of the Church ; therefore we adde , that it belongeth to the Synods ( the Gleargie having the chiefe place therein to give direction and advice,)not to receave and approve thedefinition of the Prince, in things which concerne theworfhipof God, but it felfe to define and determine what orders and cuftomes are fitted to bee obferved , in fuch things, that thereafter the Prince may approve and ratify the fame , and prefle them upon his Subjects by his regail coa&ive Power. To me 5 it is no lefTe then a matter of admiration ; how (h) Camero could fofarre forget himfelfasto fay, that in things per- (h) Vrdeft* taming unto Religion, dirigere atque difponere penes magijlratum eft pro- torn. 2. pa^ prierfenes Ecclejiafiicos miniflmwn atque executioproprie^cMmg us further, 5 o. . that the directing and difpohng of fuch things , doth then only be- long to Ecclefiafticall Perfons , when the Church fuffereth perfec- tion, or when the Magiftrate permitteth, that the matter be judged by the Church.
Our Writers have faid muchof the power of the Church to make laAes. But this man ( I perceive) will correct them all, and will not aknowledge,that the Church hath any power of making lawes,about things pertaining to Religon, (except by accident, becaufe ofpeife- cution, or permifiion ) but only a power of executing what Princes pleafe to dired. More fully to deliver our minde,we fay ; that in the making of Lawes about things which concerne the worfhip of God, the Prince may doe much peraftus impemos7 but nothing per afltis d? «
Ttt a cms.
14S That it pertain eth mot to the 'TrinceJjM to the Part. $1
citos. For the more full explanation of which difunction, I liken the rnncetothe will of man: the Minifters of the Church, to mans par- ticular fences: a Synod of ihe Church, to that internall fence which is called Sinfus communis ,the fohtaine & originall of all theexternall : things and actions Jtcdefiafticall , or fuch as concerne thewoifhip ofGod , to the objects and actions of the particular fences ; ami i he power of making Ecclefiaftkalllawcs , to that power and venue of the common fence, whereby it perceiveth, difccrr.eth>andjudgeihof the objects and actions of all the particular lances. Now as the will commande h the common fence todiilerne and judge of the actions and objects of all the particular fences , thereafter commandeth the eye to fee , the eare to heare , the nofe to fmell, &c yet it hath not power by it felfe toexercice or bring forth anyofthde actions- for the will can neither fee.nor yet judge of the object and action of fjghr, &c.So the Prince may command a Synode oft! e Church, to judge of Ecclefiafticall things and actions , and to define what order and. -forme of policy is molt- convenient to be obferved , in things per- taining o divine worfnip, and thereafter he may command ihe par- ticular Minifters of the Church to excrcife the workes of their Mini- ftpy , andtoapphe themfelves unto that forme of Church regi- ment and policy, which the Synode haih prescribed, yet he may not byhirnfelfe define and direct fuc.h matters , nor make any lawes t-bereanenr. v v'r/ ^or Proo^^tne^e things Iadde,i . Politicke govern tnent yerfaw ^V Y'F '""** rts terrenas &■ hominem externum (faith [i) one of our Writers) Ma - yi)Til. [ynu gi/fydtM'fanhik) another) influuti funt a Deo rerun: hum Antrum qua bomi- fart t-.eijp nuinfocietaunccetfarice fiunt refi$eB,H,<$ adearumcuram. But ihey are £c- 3 z.th. 33. clefiafticali M milters, who are (/) ordained for men in thing pertaining to (k) D4»«e»*. q0^ that is , in things which pertaine unto Godsworfhip. It Dc- fcl. cbtift. Jopgeth not therefore to Princes to governeand direct things ofihis lib. 6. cap. 1. nature , even as'it belongeth not to Paftors to governe and direct (1) Hcbt- earthly things, which. are'neceiTary for theexternall, and civill focie- 5*1* tie of men. lmeane, ordinarly and regularly, for of extraordinary
cafes we have fpoken other vsife. But acccrdingto the common order and regular forme, we are ever to put this difference, betwixt (•rrOFr lun* civill and Ecclefiafticall governement ? which (m) one of our belt "EcchjiafUib. |earne(j Divines hath exec i'cntly conceived after this manner tAltira 3 •"■?, 4« differentia 3 &C The other difference ( faith he ) ta^enfrcm the matter ar.d fubjeB of the admmiflrations. For we haVcput in our definition humane thir>gs to be the fubjefl of civill adminifl ration : but the fubjetl of Ecclefiafticall ad- mit, ifirat ion, we have taught to be things divine andfiacred Things divine and facredwecall\ both thofe which God commandeth fir the fanBificaticnofour minde and confidence, dithivgs neceffary • avdalfio thofe which the decency ar.d order of the Church requinth to be ordained and ob fiery ed->f or t he profitable and Wft.emcnt. ufie of tbe.tb'wgs which are mceffary. Eor example, Prayers . the.
adminl*
Chap. 5. Synod of the £hwch>to wake Lawes EcclefiAfticall. 14$
ddm'miflration of the Word and Sacraments , EccUfiaJlicaU cenfure ; are things mceffarjy and ejfent tally belonging to the Communion ofSainBs: butfttdayes, fet houres,fet places, fafts, and if (here beany fuch like , they belong to the de- cency and order of the Church 'without which the Church cannot be well edified, nor any particular member thereof rightly fafoioncd , and fitly fet in the body . But humane things, we call, fuch duties as touch the lifejhe body, goods , and good name,as they are expounded in tbefeconde table of the Decalogue : for thefe are the things in which thewholle civid adminijiration fiandeth. Behold, how the very circum (lances, which pertaine to Eccleliafticall order and decency , ate exempted from th~ compare of civ ill governe-
xnent- j>
z. Katurall reafon ( faith (n) the Biftiop o£ Sarifburie ) telleth, that to {n)deludtcc
judge of every thing , and to infiruB others Jelongeth to them who before others controv.cn^
%Akzpaines &Jiudy to the care and knowledge of the fame. So Phijit ions judge, Hp.70*
which meat V wholUfime, which noyfome : Lawyers declare, what n jufi, what
unjufl: and in aUArts and Sciences, they who prof efjedly place their labour and
Jiudy in the policing andpmclhfmg of the fametbotb ufe and ought to direB the
-judgements of others. Since there tore (o)the Minifters of the Church (o) Gerard.
are th o(e quibus Ecclefi^e cura incumbitvel maxime -3 fince they doe above locor. theoL
and before che civill Magiftrate , devote themielves to the care and torn. 6. fag,
knowledge of things pertainingto God & his worfhip , whereabout 840.
they profciTe to bellow their ordinary ftudy and paincfulltravell ;
vvereit not mod repugnantto the law ofnaturall reafon, toi"ay,t:hat
they ought not to dired, but be directed by the Magiftrate in fuch
matters ?
3. The Minifters of the Church are appointed to be Watchmen in tie City of God , Mich 7.4. and OVerfecrs of the Flockj , JBs. 10. v, 28. But when Princes doe without the direction and definition of Minifters eftablifhcertaine Lawes to beobferved in things pertai- ning to Religion, M.inifters are not then Watchmen and Over- feers, becaufe they have not the nrit fight , and 10 can not give the iirft warning of the change which is to be madein the Church, The Watchmen are upon the walles : the Prince is within the City. Shall the Prince now view andconfider the breaches and defects of the City, better and fooner then the Watchmen themfelves?Or,fhalI one within th?City tell what fhould be righted and helped therein, be-- forethem who areupon thewalles? A gaine, the Prince is one of the flocke, and is committed among the reft to the care, attendance, and guidance of the Overfeers. And I pray, (hall one of the fheep dircd the Overfeers how to governe and leade the whole flocke, or prefcribero them what orders and cuftomes they fhallobferve for preventing or avoiding any hurt and inconvenience, which may happen to the flocke ?
4. Chrifthath ordained men of Ecclefiafiicall order, (p) not one- (?)%*™hjtr: ly fntbt tvorfo of th(Minijleryf that is, for pleaching the Wordand %"• 4*1 *
Xc t v mini-
>7»
i ; o That it perta'weth not to the Trince, but t o the Pair. $
miniftring the Sacraments , for warning and rebuking them who finne , for comforting the affli&ed , for confirming the weake, &c. but alfo for provyding whatsoever concerncth enher the private fpirituall good of any member of the Church, which the Apoftic c alleth the perfeEling of theSaMs , orthej>ublike fpirituall good of the whole Church , which he calleth the edifying of the body of Chrift, Eph.4.. 1 a. Since therefore the making of Lawes, about iuch things without which theworfhip of God can not be orderly nor decently (and fo not rightly) performed , concerneih the fpirituall good and benefit of the whole Church., and of all the members thereof •, ic followeth,that Chrift hath committed thepowsrof judging, defin- ing, and making lawes about thofe matters , not to Magiftrats, (q) Hcbr.13. but to the Minifters of the Church.
5.(^)The Apoftlefpeakingofthe Church Minifters, faith,0£^>fotfi that have the rule over you , and fubmh your fdves : for they watch for pur Joules as they that mutt give account. Whence we gather , that in things pertaining to God, & which touch the fpirituall benefit of the foule , the Minifters of the Church ought to give/direction, & to be obeyed, as thofe who in things of this nature have the rule over all others in the Church , (and by confequencc over Princes alfo , ) fo that ic bee in the Lord. And left this place and, power which is given to Minifters, fhould either be abufed by thefelves to the com- manding of what they will , or envied by others, as too great ho- nour & preeminence , the Apoftle fheweth what a painefuil charge lieth on tl era , and what a great reckoning they have to make. They watch for your foules faith he , not ojily by preaching & war- ning every one, and by offering up their earneft prayers to God for you, butlikewife by taking fuch care of Ecclefiafticall difcipli- "ne, order, and policy , that they muft provide and procure whatfo- ever fhall be expedient for your fpirituall good, anddireel you in what convenient and befeeming manner, you are toperforme the workesof Godsworfhip , as alio to avoid and ftiunne every fcan- dalland inconveniency , which may hinder your fpirituall good. And of thele things , whether they have done them or not, they maft make account before the judgement feat of the great Bifnop of your foules. Surely, if it belong to Princes to define and ordaine, what order & policy mould be obferved in the Church, what formes andfafhiones fhould be ufed , for the orderly and right managing of the exercifes of Gods worfliip , how fcandalls and miforders are to befhunned,how the Church may be moft edified, and t^e fpiri- tuall good of tie Saincts beft helped and advanced, by whollefome &'proitablela ve; , concerning things which pertaine to Religion; then muft Princes take alfo upon ahem a great part of that charge of Paftors , to watch for the foules of men, and muft liberat them from beeing lieable to a reckoning for the fame*
*. Con-
Chap; 3 . Synod of the Churchy to make Lawes Ecckftafticdh i J I
6. Canf amine the great1, Thcodofm both the one and the other, Se&. biartianus, Charles the great , and other Chriftian Princes , when XX VI L there was any change to be made of Ecclefiafticall rites , did not by
their owneau&ority imperioufly injoyne the change , but convo- cate Synods for deliberate upon the matter, as (r) Balduine noteth. (r) /ec»f. The great Counfeli of Nice was alTcmbled by Conftantir.e , not only confc. lib, *6. becauieof the Arrian hercfie, but alfo (as (s) Socrates whncffcth) c.i itC*f. z, becaufe of the difference about the keeping of Eafter. And though (s) lib. i, the Bifhops , when they were aiTembled did put up to him libells of cap. 8. accufation , one againft another , fo that there could bee no great hope of their agreement upon fit and convenient Lawes; yet not- wirhftanding> he did not interpone his owne definition and decree, for taking up that difference about Eafter , only he exhorted the Bifhops conveened in the Councell to peace, and fo commended the whole matter to be judged by them.
7. We have for us the judgment of worthie Divines. A notable Teftimonyof lunm we have allready cited. (t)DaniWts will not allowe (t) p0f. Princes by thefelves to]makeLawes about Ecclefiafticall rites,butthis cbrifl. 1&. he will have done by zSynod.Porro quodad riw.&c. Furthermore faith 6. cap. 3, he for Rites & Ceremonies, & that ext email order which tsneceffary in the ad- mimHration of the Church , let a Synod of the Church cortveene ; the fupreme
find Godly Magislrat both giving commandement for the concerning of it, and heeing prefent in it. *And let that Synod of the Church lawfully affembled, define what fltould be the order and external! regiment of the Church. This decree of the Ecclefiafticall Synod , fhall the godly and fupreame Magislrat afterward con firme, fiablffh, and ratify by Imeditl. [u) loh,Wolphm ob- (u\ jn 2 ierveth of King loafh, that he did not by him felf take order for the Rce.iz.S reparation of the Temple,nor define what was to be done unto eve- ry breach therein, but committed this matter to be dire&edand ca- red for by the Priefts , whom it chiefly concerned , commanding them to takecourfe for the reparation of the breaches of the houfe, wherefoever any breach fhould be found, and allowing them money fortheworke. Whereupon he further noteth, that as the fuperioc part of mans foule, doth not it felf, heare, fee, touch, walke,fpeake, but commandeth the eares, eyes, hands, feet, and tounge, to doe the fame , fo the Magiftrat fhould not himfelfe either teach , or mak e lawes, but command that thefe things be done by the Doctors and Teachers. Cartwright and ?arem upon Hebr. 13. 17. tell thePapifts, that we aknowledge , Princes are holden to be obedient unto Pa- ftors, in things that belong unto God , if they rule according to the Word.«Whichcould not be fo, if the making of Lawes about things pettainingto God and his worfhip,did not of right anddue belong unto Paftors , but unto Princes therafelves.. Our fecound Booke of Difcipline Chap. 1 2. ordainerh. That Eccltfiaslicall Affemblies baVetbeir (lac e ; vyith power to the K*rke to appoint times and placet convenient fot
" \ tbt
I /i That U ]erU ineth not to the Trine** httfo the Parr. 5 .
the fame , and all men at well Magiflrats , <# inferiours , to be fitbjeSI to tfa fg)ubi ft- judgement of the fame in Ecclefiaslkall caufts. \x) Baiduine hoideth, tha* pr4. a Prince m<iy not by hunielt' injoyne any new Ecclefiafticall rite, but mud convocat a Synod', for the deliberation and definition of (y) Perk.on finch things. And what meane {y) our Writers , when they fay , that Revel. 3. Kings have no fpirituall, but only acivill power in the Church? As 7. actions are difcerned by the objects, fo ate powers by the adions : If
therefote Kings doe commendably by themfelves make lawes, about things pertaining to Gods worfhip , which is an fpirituall action, then have they alio a fpirituall power in the Church, But if they have no fpirituall power, that is, no power of fpirituall jurifdidion, how can they actually exerce fpirituall jurifdidion ? That the making of Lawes about things pertarning to Gods worfhip , is an action of fpirituall jurifdidion, it needeth not great demonftration. [For, 1. When a Synod of the Church maketh Lawes, about fuch things, all men know that this is an action of fpirituall jurifdidion , flowing from that power of fpirituall jurifdidion which is; called poteftas ty&l&KlfKq* And how then can the Princes making of fucb lawes, be called an action of civill,notof fpirituall jurifdidion? I fee not what can beanfwered , except it be faid , that the making of thofb lawes by a Synod is an action of fpirituall jurifdidion 5 becaufethcy are made and publifhed with the commination of fpirituall and Ec- clefiafticall punifhments, in cafe of tranfgreflion ; but the making of them by the Prince,is an adion of civill jurifdidion only>becaufc he prefcribeth andcommandeth, under the paine of fome temporall lofTeorpunifhment. But I have allreac'y confuted thisanfwere; be- caufe notwithftanding of the different punifhments which the one and the other hath power to threaten and inflid, yet at leaft that part of fpitituall jurifdidion which we call' f Msla* O^g-TUKTiKYi rema:- neththefamein both , which power of making Lawes mult not (as Ifhew) be confounded with that other power of judging &punifh- ing offenders. 2. Adions take their fpecies or kynd from the ob- ject and the end, when other circumftances hinder not. Nowa Prince his making of Lawes about things pertaining to Religion, is fuch an adion of Iunfdidion 9 as hath both a fpirituall end , which is the edification of the Church and fpirituall good of Chriftians, andhkewife a fpirituall obj ed , for that all things pertaining to di- vine worfhip , even the very externall circumftances of the fame, are rightly called things fpirituall and divine , not civill or human, ourOppofites cannotdenie, except they fay, not only that fuch things touch the lives , bodies , eftates , or names of men , and are not ordained for the fpirituall benefit of their louies , but alfo that the Synod of the Church , whofe power reacheth only to things fpi- rituall, not civiil or human, can never make Law es about thofe cir-
cumftan-
Chap. S. Synod of ibe Chunk, to wake Lawes Ecctefiafllcdl. i / 3
cumftances which are applied unto and ufed in the worfhip of God/ And as the Prince his making of Lawes about things of this nature, is inrefpect of the object and end, an action of fpirituall jurifdiction, fothereis no circumftance at all , which varieth the kind > orma- keth it an action of civill -jurifdiction only. If it be faid that the circumftance of the perfon changeth the kynd of the action, fo that the making of Lav^es about things pertaining to Religion, if they be made by EccleGafticall perfons , is an action of fpirituall jurif- diction,but if bythecivill Magiftrat, an action of civill jurifdiction: this were a mod excreamely unadvifed diftinction: for fo might (z) Vzuah the King have anlweredforhimfelf , that in burning in- fc)2.Chro. cenfe he did not take upon him to execute the Priefts office, becaufe 26. 18. he was only a civill petfon : f o may the Pope fay, that he taketh not upon him the power of Emperouts and Monarchs, becaufe he is an Ecclefiafticall perfon. Many things men may doe de faEio , which they can not de jure, Civili perfons may exerce a fpirituall jutifdic- tion and office, and againe Ecclefiafticall perfons may exerce a civil! jurifdiction , de fa&o, thought not dt jure. Wherefore the Prince his making of Lawes about things fpiritnall , remaineth ftill an action of fpirituall jurifdiction , except fome other thing can be alledged to the contrary , befide the circumftance of the Perfon. Butfome man pcradventuie will object , that a Prince by his civill power may injoyne and command , not only the obfervation of thole Ecclefia- fticall rites which a Synod of the Church prefcribeth , but alfo that a Synod (when need is ) prefribe new orders and rites, all which are things fpirituall and divine : And why then may he not by the fame civill power,make lawes about the Rites and circumftanccs of Gods worfhip, notwithftanding that they are ( in their ufe and application to the actions of worfhip,) things fpirituall, not civill. iAnf.(A)The Schoolmen fay.that an action proceedethfrom charity (a)Aqufo. two wayes, either elichive, or imperative: and that thofe actions which 3^. 85. areimmediatly produced and wrought out by charity , belong not art, a. to other vertues diftinct from charity, butare comprehended under the effects of charity it felf, fuch as are the loving of good, and re- joycingfor it: other actions fay they , which are only commanded by charity , belong to other fpeciali vertues diftinct from charity ; So fay I , an action may proceed from a civill power either elicitivc\ otimperanve. Elicitive a civill power can only make Lawes about thingscivill or human : but imperative , it may command theEc- clefiafticall power to make Lawes about things fpirituall, which Lawes thereafter it may command to be obkrved by all who are in Sect.' the Church. XXVIII.
8. Our Oppofites themfelves aknowledae no !e(Te , then that [b)*pnd which I have beene pleading for. To de>ife new rhes and Ceremonies Ptrker. of faith (b) D, Bilfcn,f}nottbe Princes vocation , but to receive and allow e fuch thurcfie,
Vvu *tfthi ctyfiiit6»
i j 4 That it pertaineth net to the "Tr'mce, hut to the Part. $ .
Hi the Scriptures and Canons commend, and fuch at the Bifoops and Pafiors of hSdeJudu the place f}<a!l advife. And faiih not (c)the Bifhop ot Sarisburh, Ceremo- cecontrov. nias utiles (ST decora* excogitare , adEcclefiafticos pertinet , tamen eafdem cap 1 6. comprobare , & toti populo obfervanda$h»ponerc\,adReges fpedat. (d) Ca- pav 91. mtro faith, that it is ihepartofa Prince to-takecave lor the health ot LViprtUB. i^eils fouler, even as he doth for the health of their bodies , and that torn. i» as he provideih not for the curing or preveming of bodily dd'eafes p4g. 2 5 • directly and by himfelf , but indirectly and by the Phifitions , fo he fhouldnot by himfelf prefenbe cures & remedies for mens fpirituall maladies. Permde Principji eft curare falutem animarum, ac ejufdem eslfa- luti corporum profpicere: non eft autem Principts provider e ne morbi graffentur direBe , ejfet enim MedictH , at in direth tamen Princeps id Jludere debet. Whence it followech, that even as when fome bodily fickneiTe fprea- deth , a Princes part is not to prefcribeacure , but to command the Phifitions to doe it: juft fo, when any abufe , miforder, confufion, orfcandall in the Church, requireth or makerh it ncecfTary that a mutation be made of fome rite or order in the fame, & thatwhole- fome Lawcs be ena&cd, which may ferve for the order, decency., & edification of the Church , a Prince may not doe this by himfelf, but may only command the Paftors and Guides of the Church, who watch for the foules of men , as they whom n ft give account, to fee to the exigency of the prefentftate of matters EccleGafticall, and to provide fuch Lawesasthey beeingmettogitherin the name of the Lord , fhall after due and free deliberation , find to be conve- nient, and which being once prefcribed by them, hee fhail by his royall audoriy conftrme, eftablifh, and prefle. Seclr. Needs now it muft bemanifeft,that the lawfullnefte of our con-
yXlX. forming unto the Ceremonies in queftion , can be no way warran- ted by any ordinance of the Supreame Magiftrat , or any power which he hath in things fpirituall or Ecclefiafticall. And if our Op- pofites would ponder the reafons we have given, they fhould be quickely quieted , understanding that before the Princes ordinance about the Ceremonicscan befaid to bind us, it muft firft befhewed that they have beene lawfully prefcribed by a Synod of the Church. So that they muft retire and hoM them at the Churches ordi- nance. And what needeth any more ? let us once fee any lawfull or- dinance of the Synod or Church reprefentative for them , wefhall without any more adoe aknowledge it to be ou: of all doubt * that his Majefty may well urge Conformity unto the fame.
Now of c! e Churches power we have fpoken in the former Cha- pter. And n we had not , yet that which hath beene faid in this Chapter, makethout our point. For it hath beene prover3that nei- ther King nor Church hath power to command any thing, which is not according to the rules of the Word , that is , which -iervcih not for the glory of God, which is not profitable for edifying , & which
may
Chap. 3. Synod of the Church, to make Laws Ec cleft aflicall. iff
may not be done in faith, unto which rules whether the things which are commanded us, be agreeable or not , we muft: trie and examine by the privat judgement of Chriftian discretion , following the light of Gods Word.
Reiteth the third diftin&ion, whereof Ipromifed tofpeakc,& that Se&. was of Tics or Bonds. Qujedam obligatio &C. Some bond (faith (e) Ge- X X X. rard) is abfolute , when the Law b'mdeth the confeience (imply , f0 that in no (el locor. refpeel, nor in no cafe, without the offence of God , and Wound of confeience, theol, torn, one may depart from the prefcript thereof : but another bond is hy pot het kail, 6,p 963, when itbindeth not fimply, but under a condition , to wit , if ttie tranfgref* fun of the Law be done of contempt \ if for the caufe of lucre or fome other Vinous end; if it have fcandalljoyned With it. The former way he faith thatth^ Law of God and Nature bindeth? and that the Lavv of the civill Magiftrat bindeth the latter way. And with him we hoi J, that whatfoevcr a Prince commandeth hisSubje&sin things anyway pertaining to Religion, it bindet'n only this latter way, an d that hce hath never power to make Lawes , binding the former way. For confirmation wherefore wee fay,
1 .The Lawes of an Ecclefiafticall Synod, to the obedience where- of in things belonging to the worfhip of God , we are fane more (iri&Iy tied, then to the obedience of any Prince in the world, who (as hath beene (hewed) in this fort of things , hach not fuch a voca- tion nor power to make Lawes: the Lawes ( I fay ) of a Synod can not bind abfolutely, but only conditionally, or in cafe they can not be tranfgrefled without violating the Law of Charity, by contempt fhewed, or fcandall given. Which as I have made good inthefirft part of this Difpute5 fo let me now produce for it a plaine teftimony of (/J reBifliop of Sarisburie> who holdeth that the Churches rites (f)deludi- and ordinances , doe only bind in fuch fort.wf fi extra, &c. That if out ce control. 0/ the cafe of fcandaU or contempt, through imprudence, oblivion, or fome ret- c . 16. pag. finable caufe inforcing , they be omitted, no mortall finne is incurred before 8<5. 87. Cod. For as touching thefe confutations , I judge the opinion of Ger (on to be mott true, to VVK-, that they remaine unviolated, fo long at the Law of Cha- rity it not hymen violated about the fame. Much lefle then, can the Lawes of Princes about things Spiritual! or Ecclefjaiticall , bind abfolutely , and out of the cafe of violating the Law of Cha- rity.
z. If we be not bound to receive andaknowledge the Lawes of Princes as good and equitable , except only in fo farre , as they are warranted by the Law of God and Nature , then we are not bound in confeience to obey them , except only conditionally , in cafe the violating of them includethe violating of the LawofGod and Na- ture. But the former is true. Therefore the latter. It isGodspecu- culiarfoveraignety , that his will is a rule ruling but not ruled , and that therefore a thing is good, becaufe God will have it to be good.
Vvu 2 Mans
i ; <> How the LaVoes of Princes Part. 3 .
Mans will is on'y fuch a rule, as is ruled by higher rules, and it mud be knowne to be normarefta, before it can be to us norma reEli.
3 . If we be bound tc trie and examine by the judgement of dis- cretion (following the rules of the Word , ) whether the things which Princes command be right , and Such as ought to be done , and if we find them not to be fuch, to negled them ^ then their Lawes can not bind absolutely and by themf elves , ( cite what need were there of fuch triall and examination ? ) but only conditio-' nally , and in cafe they can not be negleded without violating fomc other Law , which is of a Superior bond. But the former wee have proven by ftrong reafons. Therefore the latter ftandeth Sure.
4. If neither Princes may command, nor wee doe any thing, which is not lawful! and expedient , and according to the other rules of the Word, then the Lawes of Princes bind not abfolutely, but only in cafe the neglecting of them can not ftand with the Law of Charity,and the rules of the Word. But the former hath beene evinced and made good. Therefore the latter neceiTariiy follo- weth.
5. If the Lawes of Princes could bind absolutely and fimply , (o that in no cafe without offending God & wounding our conference, we could neglect them , this bond Should arife either from their owne audonty , or from the matter and thing it felf which is com- manded. But from neither of thefe it can arife. Therefore from nothing. It can not arifefrom any audority which they have, for if by their audority we meane their Princely preeminence & dignity, they are Princes, when they command things unlawfull , 'as well, as when they command things lawful 1, and fo if becaufe of their pre- eminence their Lawes doe bind, then their unlawfull ordinances doe bind, no leffe then if they were lawfull: but if by their audority, we meane the power whicnthey have of God to make Lawes , this power is not abfolute , (, as hath beene Said , ) but limited : therefore from it no abSolute bond can arife , but this much at the mod , that
(g) Perkins (g) Kings on earth mufl he obeyed , fo f am at they command m ChriFt. *n Rev. 1. Neither yet can the bond be abfolute in refped of the thing it Self 5. which is commanded.
When Princes publilKthecommandemenrsofGod.the things them felves binde, whether they Should command them or not : but we fpeake of fuch things as Gods Wo d hath left in their nature indiffe- rent,3c of fuch things we fay,thatif being injoyned by Princes they did absolutely binde, then they Should be in themlelves immuta- bly necefTary, even Secluding , as well the Lawes of Princes which (h)lren. injoynethem , as the end of order , decency , and edification, lib. z. cap. whereuuto they are referred. To fay no more > hath not {b)D.Far» 4- il* b(J].e
Chap. 8.' can be [aid to bind. IJ7
hfe told us in Cahines words , Notatudignum , #<?• Ifr is Worth) of o£- fi'rvation that human LaWes , whether they be made by tbeMagtslrat or by the Church, hovvfoever they be necefiary to be obferved , ( I fpeake of fuch as are good ($ juff, ) yet they doe not therefore by themfehes b'mde the confcience , becaufe the whole necefftty of obf erring them , loo\eth to the generail end f but tonftslethnot in the things commanded.
6. Whatfoever bond of confcience, is not confirmed and war- ranted by the Word, is before God no bond at all. But the abfolute bond , wherewith confcience is bound to the obedience of the Lawes of Princes , is not confirmed nor warranted by the Word. Ergo, The Propofitionnomancan denie whoaknowledgeth , tnaCni nonecan have power or dominion over our conferences, butGodw a,4*12* only, (i) the great Lawgiver, who alone can fave and deftroy . Nei- ther doth any Writer whom 1 have feenc,hold that princes have any power over mens confeiences , but only that confcience is bound by the Lawes of Princes, for this refpe&.becaufe God who hath power over our confeiences , hathtied us to their Lawes. Asto theaiTum- ption , he who denieth it , muft give inftance to the contrary, jf <k- *oro* 2> (lb) thofe words of the Apoftle be objected-, Yee muft needs be fubjetl, not only for wrath > but alfo for ton fcience fake.
1 ,Anf i. The Apoftle faith not.that we muft obey,but that we muft be iubj eel:, for confcience fake. And how oft fhall we need retell our Oppofi es, that fubje&ionis one thing, & obedience another?
%. If he had faid, that we muft obey for confcience fake,yetth-is could not have beene expounded of an abfolute bond of con- fcience, but only of an hypothetical! bond , in cafe that which the Magiftratcommandeth, cannot be omitted , without breaking the Law of Charity. If itbefaid againethatwe are not only bidden .. .
befubje#,(J) butlikewife to obey Magiftrats. Anf. Andwho de- {) l*itJ* nieththis ? But ftill I aske , are we abfolutely andallwayes bound to obey Magiftrats ? Nay , but only when they command fuch things asare according tothe rules of the Word, fo that either they muft be obeyed, or the Law of Charity (hall be broken: in this cafe, and no other, we are bidden obey.
Thus have we gained a principall point , Vi% , That the lawes of Seel. Princes bind not abfolutely but conditionally , nor propter fe , but XXXI. propter aWud Whereupon it followeth , that except the breach of thole cerer oniall Ordinances wherewith we are prefied, include the breach of the law of Charity, which is ofafuperiorbond, we are not holden to obey them-Now that it is not the breachybut the obedien- ce of thofe ordinances, which violateth the law of Charity , weftave heretofore made manifeft , and in this place we will adde only one general!. Whenfocver the lawes of Princes about things Ecclefiafti- call,doebnd t! e confcience conditionally, St becaufe of fome other law of a fuperior bond , which cannot be obferved if they betranf-
Y vu j grefted >
3/8. That the confer vathn and purgation of fyligio* Part, $ }
grefied; (which is the only refped for which they bind , when they bind at all; ) then the things which they pcrfcnbe belong either to theconfervation, or purgation of Religion. But the controverted Ceremonies belong to neither oftbefe. Therefore the lawes made thereanetubind not , becaule of feme other law which isofafupe- rior bond. As to the Propofition,wiU any man fay that Princes have any more power , then that which is ^xprefled in the 25 Article of the Confefiion of Faith.rat.fied in the firft Parliament of -King lames the 6. which faith thus ,Moreover,to Kings tPrinces>Riilers,and Magiflrats ', weaflrmethat chiefly and mo ft principally > the conferVation and the purgation of the Religion appertains > fo that not only they are appointod for civill policy , but alfo for maintenance of the true Religion, and for fupprejfmgof Idolatry ( m ) InJUib, and fuperfiition whatfoever. Hoc nomine {faith{m)Cahinejmaxime laudantur 4 . c ap . 2 o . fan&i Reges in Script lira , quod Dei cultum corrup turn VeleV erfum refiituerint , £. 9. Vet curam gejferint Religionis a ut fub iUis pura & incolumts florereu.
The 21. Parliament of Kingl4w^holden at Edinburgh 161 2. in the ratification of the Ads and Conclufions of thegenerall Aflembly, keepedin Clafgove' 1610. did innovate and change fome words of that Oath of Allegiance, which the generall Aflembly in reference to the conference keeped 157 1. ordained to be given to the Perfon provided to any benefice with cure , in the time of his admiflTion by theOrdinare. For the forme of the Oath fa dovvneby thead of the Aflembly, beginneth thus. J. %A* B. now mminai And admitted to tht KjrJ^ ofD , Ytterly teftify and declare in my confeiencejhat the right excellent, right high , and mighty Prince, James 6 , by the grace of God Kjng of Scots , H the onlylawfuUfupreme GoVemourof thu Realme , rtwell in things temporal!* a* in the confirmation and purgation of Religion , &c. But the rormc of the Oath fet downe by the Ad of Parliament, beginneth thus* I. A. B. nownominat and admitted to the KJrf^of D,tefiify and declare in my confeience, that the right excellent &c. is the only lawfull fupreme Governour of this Realme, 06 well in matters Spiritual! and EcclefiaflicaU , as in things tem* porall <$c. Yet I demand, whether or not doe ihoCeMatters Spiritual! and Ecclefia/ticall , of which the Ad of Parliament fpcaketh, or thofe . AH Spiritual or Ecclejiaflicall things or caufes ,of which the Englifh Oath of Supremacie fpeaketh , comprehend any other thing then is com- prehended under theconfervation and purgation of Religion > whereof the Ad of Aflembly fpeaketh ? If it be anfwered affirmatively , ti will followe that Princes have power to deftrud;on, and not to edifica- tion on!y,forwhatfoever may edify or profit the Church,pertaineth either to theconfervation , or the purgation of Religion. If nega- tively , then it can not be denied that the confervation and purga- tion of Religion doe comprehend all the power which Princes have in things Ecclefiafticall. Sed. Now to the Aflumption. And firft.that the controverted Ceremo-
XXXII. niespertame not to theconfervation of Religion, but contrary wife to
C hap. S . doe confine all the fomr ofTrinces, &c. t$^
the hurt and prejudice of the Tame , experience hath (alas) made it too manifeft.For , 6 what a doleful 1 decay of Religion have they drawnewith them in this Land ! Let them vshohave feene Scotland in her firft glory, tell how it was then>an dhow it is now. \jn) Idle and (n) Cartw. idole-iike Bifhopping hath fhut to the doorepainefull and profna- on del. 8. bleCatechiting. The keeping of iome Feftivall dayes, is fet up in ftcl.-j . ftead ofthethankefull commemoration of Godsineitimable bene- fites: howbeit (o) the feftivity ofChriftmaffe hath hitherto ferved, (o) G. Bu- moretoBachanalian lafcivioufneiTe , then to the remembrance of (h4n.hifi.rer. the birth of Chrift.The kneeling downe upon the knees of the body, Scot. lib. 5 .p. hath now come in place of that humiliation of the foule, wherwith Un- worthy communicants addretfedihcrnielves unto the holy Table of the Lord. And generally , the externall fhew ofthefe fruitleiTeob- fervances9 hath worne out the very life and power of Religion. Neither have fuch effecls enfued upon fuch Ceremonies among us only, but let it be obferved every where elfe ,if there be not leaft iub- ftance and power ofgodlinefte, among tbem who have moft Cere- monies,v\herc unto men have at thdr pleasure given fome facred ufe and fignification in the Woritepof God,and ra 0 ft fub {lance among them, who have feweft fliewes of extern all rites. No man of found judgementffaith (p) Baza)wi\\d€t\ie , Jefum Chriftum quo nudior^c. (p) Confejf. that 1ESVS CHBJST , tbemoreuakedhe bi, is made themoremanifeftto cap. 5 . art. us. whereas contrary wife aUfalfe rdigionstufe by certaine external! gefiurings to 20 . turneatvay men from divine things . {q) %anchitK faith well of the Surplice ( q) epift. ad and other popifh Ceremonies , quod h<ec nihil ad pietat em accenden- Regin Ehfab. dam , multum autem ad reflinguendam \aleant. (r) Bellarmine indeed tptjlolar lib. pleadeth for the vtility of Ceremonies , as things belonging to the i.p. 112. confervation of Religion. His reafon is, becaufc they fet before our (r) de effect '. fences fuch an externall majefty and fplendor , whereby they caufe/*fr. cap. 11 , the more reverence. This hee ailed gethfos the utility of the Cere- monies of the Church of Rome. And I would know,what better reafon can be alledged for the utility of ours. But if this be all , we throwe backethe Argument, becaufe the externall majefty and fplendor of Ceremonies c'oth greatly prejudge and obfeure the fpirit and life of the worlhipofGod, and diverteth the minds ofmen from adver- t:n gvnto the famerwhich we have offered to be tried by common ex- perience. Durand himfelf » for as much as he hath written in the de- fence of Ceremonies, L«tks unreafonablej^fiowdfc,yet(/")be makerh ( f)J^/ lib. this plaine confeflion. Sane in primhiva Ecclefia,Sacrificiumfiebat in vafis 1 tit de pis- tigntPs <s> Veslibuscommunibw: tunc enim erant lignei cal'ices ty aurei Sacerdo* tm.& coram tes.nunc Vero econtraesl. Behold what followeth upon the majefty and fplendor which Ceremonies carry with them,and how Religion at it's beft and firft eftate was without the fame!
Neitberyet doethe Ceremonies in queflion belong tothepurga- Seer. tion of Relig;on. Foi vvherefoever Religion isto be purged in a XXXIII,.
corrarted
itfo Of the Or fori. Part. 3.
corrupted Church, all men know that purgation ftandcth in putting fome thing away, not in keeping it (till, in voiding fome what , not in retaining it : To that a Church is not purged , but left unpurged , when the unnecetTary monuments of by paft fuperftition are ftiU preferved and kept in the fame. And as for the Church of Scotland , lead of all could there be any purgation of it intended , by there- fuming of thofe Ceremonies , forfuch was the moft glorious and ever memorable reformation of Scotland, that it was farre better purged then any other nighbour Church. And of Mr. Hoo^rxjeft we may make good earncft , for in verv deed as the reformation of Genevah diapatTe the reformation of Germany , fo the reformation _ - of Scotland didpalTe that of GeneVab. Y™ Now hitherto we have difcouried of the power of Princes, in ma-
AAAlv, king oflawea about things which concerne the worfhip of God ;for this power it is,Which our Oppofites alledge for warrant of the con- troverted Ceremonies : wherefore to have fpoken of it is fuflicient for our prefent purpofe. NeverthelefTe, becauie there are alio other forts of Ecclefiafticall things, befidethe making of lawes, fuchas the vocation of menofEcclefiafticaftorder, the convocation and moderation of Councells,the judging and deciding of controverfies about faith, and the ufe of the keyes, in all which Princes have fome place and power of intermeddling , and a miftaking in one , may pofSbly breed a miftaking in all: Therefore I thought good here to digtefle, andofthefealfo to adde fome what,fo farre as Princes have power and intereft in the fame.
DIGRESSION L
Of the vocation of men ofEcclefiaJlicall order.
>N the vocation and calling of Ecclefiafticall perfons, a Prince Jought to carry himfelf ad modum procurantfi Jpeciem , nondejig- ^Jnantis indhiduum. Which (hall be more plainly and particu- larly vnderftood>in thefe Proportions which followe.
PR o p o s . I . Princes may and ought to provide and take caret that men of thofe Ecclefiafticall orders, and thofe only , which are inftituted in the nev Teflament, by divine auctor\ty> have Vocation and office in the Church.
Now befiderhe A poftles, Prophets, and Evangelifts, which were not ordained to be ordinary and perpetuall offices in the Church, (t) (z) Tr lun. there are but two Ecclefiafticall orders or degrees inftituted by Chrift animzd. in in the new Teftament, vix. Elders and Deacons. Excellcnter Canones BcU. cont 5. duos tantum facros crdines appelUri cenfent, Diaconatusfcilicet <$ Prefbytt* 1 \ . f. 1 1 . fAM^u'ia hos folos primitiva JLecUfidUgiturhabuiffe}(2r dehv> join practptum
jipofioli
Chap.8. efEcclefiafiicallperfons. 161
Jpojlli Jta£c>»tff1faith(rt'Jche Matter of Sentences. As for tVe orderand ( vv )Ub. 4. dc<*reeof Bifhops, (uperior to that of Elders , that there is no divine Hft. 24. Ordinance nor institution xor it, it is not only holdenby CalvweyBeza* Bucer, Martyr, Sadeel, Luther, Chemnitw:Gerard Balduine^he Magdibur- ghns, Mu [cuius, Pifcator, Hemmingim^ncbiw, Polanw, lunim ; Parens , FmncY'isDanceus, Morney , Whittakers , TVillets, Perkins, Cartwrighh the Profeffours ofXfiiwjand the farregreateit pare or Written in refor- med Churches , but alio by Hierome , who uponTi*. I. and in his Epiftleto Fvagrius fpeakerhibplainly,tha»(#) the Archbifhop of Spa- ( x ) derep. Uto is driven to (ay , Deferimwin hac parte Hieronymum , neque eiin kit E(cM, 2. ;. dltlfs ajjentimur : alfo by ^Ambrofe on 1 . Tim. yjuguft'me in ins booke 3 '»-47- of questions out of bothTeftamenrs quest. loi.Chryfoftome on i.Tim. l.lfidore dift. 21. cap. 1. The Canon La.vditf. 93 c 24. # din.9f.c5. Lombard, lib ^disl.zd.. And after him by many Schoolemen , fuch as Aquinaiy Alenjis, Albertm , BonaVentura, Bjcbardut , and Dominic fa Soto , all mentioned by the Archbifliopoftyd/<?fo//'&.2.cdp. 4 0.25; (y) Ge- (y)hcjheol yard citeth for the fame judgement J-iw/k/ww , Sedul'w , Primajiits , torn. 6. $«g- TbeopbytaBm, Oecumenim , the Counceil ofBafiU Ardatenfis ; Io/;. P<w- 3 74- 3 7 /• JienJis,'ErafmHs Medina ,and Cajfander. All which Authors have groun- 376. ded that which they fay upon Scripture: for befide that Scripture rnaketh no difference of order and degree betwixt Bifhops and El- ders , itfheweth alfo that they are one and the fame order. For in Ephefus and Crete > they who were made Eiders were likewife made Bifhops, iAB. 10. 17. with 2S.Hh.us. with 7. And the ApoftlePM. i.i.divideththe wholle miniftery in the Church of Pbilippi into two orders, Bifhops and Deacons. Moreover, 1. Tim. 3.hegivethorder only for Bifhops and Deacons , but faith nothing of a third order. Wherefore it is manifeft, that befide thofe two orders of Elders and Deacons, there is no other Ecclcfiafticall order which hath any divi- ne inftitntion , or necefTaryufe in the Church. And Princes fhould doe well to applie their power and authority tothe extirpation and rooting out of Popes,Cardinals,Patriarches,Primats, Archbifhops, Bifhops, Suffragans, Abbots, Deanes? Vice-Deans, Priors, Arch- deacons, Subdeacons , Chancellours ,Chantours , Subchantours , Exorcifts, Monkes, Eremits, Acoluths, and all the whole rabble of Popifh orders, which undoe the Church , and worke more mifchief in the earth, then can be either foone feene or fhortly told.
But contrarywife, Princes ought to eftablifh andmantainein the ChurchjEldersand Deacons, according tothe A poftolicall initia- tion. Now Elders are either fuch as labour in the Word and Doc- trine , or elfe fuch as are appointed for Difcipline only. They who labour in the Word and Dodtrine, are either fuch as doe only teach, and are ordained for confervingin Schooles and Seminaries of lear- ning,'he purity of Chriftian Dodrine,andtl"e true interpretation of Scripture,and for detecting and confuting the contrary herefies and
Xxx " errors >
i6i Of the Order; of Ecclefiaflicailperfons. Part. £#
errors, whom the ApoftlecallethDoclours or Teachers : Orelfe theyarefuehasdoe not only teach ,- but alio have a more particular charge to watch over the rlocke.to feck that which is loft , to bring horoe that which wandereth, to healerhat which is diieafed,to bind up that which is broken, to vi(i:e every family, to warne every per- fon, to rebuke, to comfort ,&c, whom the Apoftjecallethfometines Pa (tors , and (ometimes Bifhops ,orOver(*eers. The other fort of Elders are ordained only for Difcipune and Church governement, and for adifting of the PaftorSjin ruling the people , overfeeing their manners, and cenfuring their faults. Thar this fort of Elders is initi- aled by the Apoftle, it is put out of doubt.not alone by Calvine,Be%at and the Divines ofGenevab, but alio by Cbemnitw, exam.part. z.pag, 1 1 8. Gerard loc. theol.tom.6.pag. ^6:).T,6^.^anchmm^.prac.coL 727. Martyr in 1 . Cor. 1 z . 2 8 . Bullinger m 1 . Tim, j . 1 7 . lunitts animad. in Bell. contr.lJib. 1. cap. i. Polanus Synt. lib. 7. c*j>. 11, P*r win Rom. 12. 8. O* 1 . Cor. 1 2. 2$. Cartwrigbton l.Tim. 5. 17. The ProfeiTours of Leiden Syn.pur. Theol. difp.4i1Tbef.zo. And many moe of our Divines? who teachthatthe Apoftle i.Tim. 5. 17. directly implieth that there were fo me Elders who ruled well, and yet laboured not in the Word and Do&rine, and thofe Elders he meanethby them that rule.Rpra. 12.8. £c by Governments i.Cor. 12. 28. where the Apoftle^aith nothelps hnGoVernements , asournew EnglifhjTranflation corruptly readeth, but helps, governments , &c. plainly putting Goveruements fora dif- ferent order from Helps or Deacons. *K Of thefe Elders fpeaketh itTertuUtan ^ jtofafr , ( as (a) Jt, Fulke alfo under ftandeth him ) mewing that alfo maketri wjth all nations Elderlhip is honourable , wherefore the Synagoge mention of aUo> and afterward the Church , hath had fome Eiders of the Con - iherr^Apolo- gregation , without whofecounfell and advice nothing was doae in get c.ia.and thVchurch : and that he knew not by what negligence this had Ckmnsepijt. growne out of uie, except it had beenethroughxhe fluggimneffeof 1. ad Ucob. tke Xeachers, or rather their prute^hilesthey teemed to themfelvea (z) In 1. to [yg fomething, andfo did arrogatthe doing of all by themfelvos. Tim. j.i. Deacons were inftitute*! by the A poftles^) for collect ng,recci- ja)oni. ving, keeping, anddittributing of Eccleuafticallgoods, which were Tim. 5. 17. giren and dedicated for the maintenance of Minifters , Churches, (b)Zznch w 5ch00}£s , arKj for the help and relief of the poote? the irranger,the 4. fnc. col. [\Z^Q andthe weak?»alfo(<:; for furnifhing otfuch thingsas are rrecef- 766.767. farytoihe miniilration of the Sacraments. Befidc which eaiploy- c) \xn.an\m r^ents,the .Scripture hath ailigned neither .Preaching, nor Baptrfing, %n Bell. nor any other Ecclefiafticail function to ordinary Deacons. cir.t. $ , / 1 . J
c ■ 1 3 • T} ROPO?. II. Princes in their Dominions, ought to procure and eifeB,
A that there beemvtr w anting men qualified and fit for thofe Eccltfufiic.iW jknBim\ and charges , which Chrijl hatb ordained, and that fitch men only bit * raliedychofen jmd ftt apart for tot fame .
There
Chap. S. Uf the vocation of Ministers. \c^
There are two things contained in this Propofition. i. That Princes ought to procure, that the Church never want men quali^ Hfiedand gifted for the workeand fervice of the holy Minhtery, for which end and purpofe they ought to provide and mantaine Schooles and Colledgcs? intruded and committed to the rule and owrfightof onhodoxe, learned, godly, faithfull, and diligent Ma- tters, that fo qualified and able men may be dill furnifhed and fenc forth for the Miniftery and fervice of the Church. They ought alfo to take care that the Minifters of the Church neither want due reve- rence i.Tiw.5.17. Bebr. 1 3. 17. Nor fufficient maintenance i.Cor.o. that fomen be notskafred from the fervice of the Miniftery,buc rather ineouraged unto the fame 2. Chron, 31.4.
2. That Princes ought alfo to take order and courfe, that well qualified men, and no others , be advanced and called to beare charge and office intheChurch: foe which purpofe, they fhouid caufe, notonedifdainfuliPrelat, but a whole Pref by tery or com- pany of Elders , to take criallof him who is to be taken into the number of preaching Elders, and to examine well the piety of ^
his life , the verity of his Doctrine , and his fitnefle to teach. And further, thai due trial! may be continually had of the growth or decay of the graces and utterance of every Paftor : it is the part of Princes to injoyne the vifitation of particular Churches , and the keeping of other Pref byteriall meetings,Iikevvife the aiTembling of Provincial! and Nationall Synods* for putting order to fuch things as have not beene helped in the particular Prefbyteries. And as for the other fort of Elders , togither with Deacons , we judge the aun- cient order of this Church , to have beene moft convenient for provyding of well qualified men for thofe functions and offices. For the eight head of the firft booke of Difcipline,touching the ejec- tion of Elders and Deacons , ordaineth that men of belt know- ledge and cleaned: life, be nominat to be in Election , and that their names be publikely read to the whole Church by the Minifter , gi- ving them advertifement,that from among them muft be chofen Elders and Deacons : that if any of thefe nominat be noted with publike infamie, heeoughtto be repelled : And that if any man know others of better qualities within the Church, then thefe that be nominat , they mould be put in election , that the Church may have (c) lun. ubi the choice. fup.cap.y.
If thefe courfes whereof we have fpoken , be followed by Chri- *•?• 17. ftian Princes , they fhall by the bleffing of God procure , that the Ba*d decaf. Church fhail be ferved with able and fit Minifters. But though thus covf.Iib. 4. they may procurare fpechm , yet they may not deJignarcindividuum9caP*5>'*f.f4 which now I am to demon ftrat. Ger. be.
Propos .III Nevenhs!efp(c) Princes may not dejjgne nor appoint , fuch or tbeol.tom.6. fuch particular men, to the charge, of fuch or fuch particular Churches , or to p*g> 83 y.
Xxx z the 13s.
p
i G\ Of the vocation and election Part. 3.
the exercingof fuch or fuch Ecclefia flic all functions : but ought to provide that fuel) an order c/ forme be keeped in the eletlion and ordination of the Minijlcrs of the Church , as is warranted by the example of the Apo files, and p rimitive Church.
The vocation of a Minifter in the Churchjis either inward cr cut- ward. Themward calling which one mud have , in finding himfelf by the grace of God, made both able and willing to ferve God and his Church faithfully , in the holy Mimftery , lteth not open to the vieu of men , and is only manifcit to him from whom nothing can be hid. The outward calling is made up of Election & Ordina- tion: that, fignified in Scripture by xtyojovia, : this, by x{poJi(riet,»
(d) In. 4; Concerning which things, we fay with (d) ZgnchWiMagiflratw, &c.' pm. col. Jt pertaineth to a Chrifiian Magiflrat and Prince , to fee for Minijlers unto
794. kts Churches. But how f not out of his owne arbitrement , but as Gods Word
teacheth. Therefore let the kABs of the Apoflles , and the Epi files of Paul be read , how Mini Hers were eleBed and ordained , and let them follow e that forme.
The right of Election pertaincth to the whole Church: which as it is mantained by forraine Divines, who write of the controver- sies with Papifts ; and as it was the order which this Church prefcri- bedin the bookes of Difcipline ; fo it is commended unto us by the example of the Apoftles, and of the Churches planted by themTj Jo feph and Matthias were chofen & offered to Chrift by the whole Church, being about. 120. perfons. AB. 1. 15. 23. The Apoftles required the whole Church and multitude of Difciples,tochoofe out from among them feavenmen to be Deacons *AB. 6.z.$. The holy Ghoft faid to the whole Church at Antioch , beeing aflembled togither to minifter unto the Lord, Separate me Barnabas and Saul,A8. 13. 1. 2. The whole Church choofed Judas and Silas to bee fent to \Ant\och. xAB. 15. 22. The brethren who travailed in the Chur- ches affaires, were chofen by the Church , and are called the Chur- ches MefTengers. 2. Cor. 8. 19. 23. Such men only were ordained Elders by Paul and Barnabas , as were chofen and approven by the whole Church , their iuffrages beeing fignified by the lifting up of their hands. *A&. 14. 23. Albeit Cbryfofiome and other Ecclefiafticall Writers ufe the word %feo7dVt* for ordination by impofitionof hands , yet when they take it in this fence , they fpeake figuratively
(e) mum .in anc* fynegdochically , as (t) Iawwtffheweth.For thefe two , Election Bell. cont. 5. by moft voices, and Ordination by laying on of hands, were joy ned lib. i.e. 7. togither, and did cohere, as an antecedent and an confequent.whence Win. 59. the ufe obtained , thatthe whole action mould be fignified by one
word, per modumintcUeBus , collecting the antecedent from the confe- quent , & the confequent from the antecedent. Neverthelefte accor- ding to the proper & native fignificatio of the word,it notcth the fig-
nifying
Chap. 8- Of minifies* X*J
nify ing of a fufFrage or election by the lifting up of the hand/or yjr pojoveiy is no other thing, nor yji{ai.t.~w{v or civ&Teiv{v , to lift or hold up ihe hacis in Gjjne of a luffragc. And io Chryfojlome himfeif u- ieth the word, when he Ipeaketh properiy,for be iaitn.that the Senate o£R$me, tooke upon him xi^viiv ^V, that is ^as (/) D. Potter {{)Ch.vky turnethhis words) to make Gods by mod voices. *?$****'
(g)BeHarmine icckoneth out three fignificatios of the word x4^l°v^v» L' \\< i.Tochoofeby fuffrages. 2. Simply to choofe, which way (bever (g\^j^ it be. 3. To ordaine by impofition of hands, (h) Junius anl'wereth nl.ucap,7\ him, that the fir ft only is the proper fignification ; thefecondis me- ^ ^- j^ taphoricall: the third fynegdochicall. trunotn.
Our Englifh Translators , 2. Cor. 1. 19. have followed themeta- f
phoricall fignification , and in this place *>*# . 1 4. 2 3 . the fynegdo- chicalL But what had they adoe either with a Metaphore or a Sy- negdoche , when the Text may beare the proper fence ? Now? that: Luke in this place ufeth the word in the proper fence, andnocin the fynegdochicall , (i) Gerard proveth from the words which he (\)hc.theoh fubjoynech, to fignify the ordaining of thofe Elders by the laying torn. 6. fag. on of hands: for he faish that they prayed andfafted andcommen- iji. dedthem to the Lord, in which words he implieth the laying on of hands upon them, as may be learned from. **#. 6.6. When they had prayed they laid their hands on them. AB. 13.3. When they had fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them. So Aft. 8. 15. 17. Prayer and laying on of hands went togither. Wherefore by x4fSlwf,Qa#l*S Luke pointeth at the election of thole Elders by voices , being in the fol- lowing words to make mention of their ordination by impofition of hands.
(*) Cartwr'ight hath for the fame point, et^erwaighty reafons.fra f\^m a#, abfurd ^faith be) to imagine , that the holy GhoFt by Luke , fpeaking with the 1 4. 2 5 . tongues of men, that is to fay, to their underffanding, Jhould ufe a word in that fignification, in which it wot never ufed before his time h any Writer, Holy or Prophane. For how could he then be understood-, if ufing the note and name they ufed 3 he fhould have fled from the fignification whereunto they ufed it f unhjfe therefore hvs purpofe was to write that which none fi.ouldread, itmusl needs be that as he wrote, fo he meant the elefiionby vcices.And if Demofthe- nes, for Iqiowledge in the tongue would have beene ashamed, to have noted the 9 layingdowne of hands by avvord that fignifieth the lifting of them up : they doe the holy Ghofiyuvhich taught Demofthenes tofpeakj) great in\ury-fm im- fing this unpropriety and firangeneffe of [peach unto himfeif : which nyet more abfurd , confiderir.g that there were both proper Words to utter the lay ing on of bands by , & the fame alfou fid in the tranfiation of the 70 : Which Luke for the Gentiles fake did as it may fieme [Where he conveniently could) mofi follows. sAnd it if yet mofi of all abfurd, that Luke which fimttmth him-
Xxx 3 ' fiff
j 66 Of the tkttion Part. 5 ,
/*/f to fc«f> fk VVoyix of ffo 70. Interpreters , Wfe <tf fc^ott/i have other- Vvife uttered things in better tearmes then they did, fhculd here forfal^e the phrafe vvherevvitb theynoted the laying on of hands , beeing mojl proper and natural! to Jignify the fame. The Greece Scholiajl alfo , and the Greekelgna* tins, doe plainly referre this Word to the choice of the Church by voices.
But it is objected that Luke faith not of the whole Church , .but only of Paulsind Barnabas , that they made them by voices Elders in every citty.
Anf. B-uthowcanonc imagine that betwixt them two alone the matter went to fuffrages ? election by moft voices , or the lifting up of the hand in token of a fuffrage , had place only among a multi- {\)ubi fupra tudeaffembledtogither.Whereforewefay with {I) lunmtiha.t 73 xi* Wf, 63.6ft pojcvsiv is both a common , and a particular adton, whereby a man choofeth by his owne fuffrage in particular , & hkewife with others in commone , fo that in one and the fame adion we can not divide rhofe things , which are fo joyned togither.
From that which hath beenefaid, it plainly appeareth , that the
eledion of Mmiftcrs, according to the Apoftolicke inftkution, per-
taineth to the whole body of that Church , where they are to ferve;
AndthatthiswastheApoftolicke& primitive Pradice.it is-aknowl
ledged even by fome of the Papi£ts,£uch as Lorimts} Sa!meron,and Gaf-
(m)B par Sanfim, aft upon. A8,i 4.2 $.(m)Thc Canon Law it felf commen-
t t £i ^ l^lS torme^ arK* ^{[hyEleBio Clerteornm eft pttitio plehn. And was
far . . tjt. k£ not a Popifh Archbifhop, (n) who condescended that the Citty of
<n)il Maglehurg flaould have jut vocandi ae conftituendi Ecclefi* Mint"
hisl l^Tx firos * Neither would the Citty accept of peace , without this con-
I J 9c dition. fag. 05 .
That in the auncient Church, for a long time, the eledion of Mi- nifters remained in the power of the whole Church or Congrega- tion, it is evident from CM*, lib. 1. eptft. 4 & 6$. lAuguft. cpijl. 100. Leo. 1. epifl.95' Socrat. lib. 4.. cap. 30. & Ub. 6. cap. z. PoQIdon.in \ita w/C/<g. tap. 4. The Testimonies and examples themfelves for brevities caufe I omit. As for the 13. Canon of theCouncell of Laodicea which forbuFdeth to permirto the people thecbedionof { o) hill. *u(*k as were Co Mnrifter at the Altarrwe fay with {o)OJiander that this ml. cent, a. Canon cannot be appraven, except only in this refped, thathow- hb.\.ai$. ^Clt the peoples election and confent be neceflary, yet the eledion (p)7» Ad." *s RGt wholy and folly to be committed to them, excluding the 14. 1?. judgement and voice of the Oeargie. And that this is all which the fa) uU'fu- Counccl! meant , we judge with {f) Calvine 8c (q) Gerard. That this prapM. is the true interpretation of the Canon , (r) lunlns prove h both by j 78, the words o^Xcig Sth^ITpIv 3 permittee twbis , for S^kl^Mi
(r) ubifupr* figntfieth to quit and leave the whole matter to the fidelity and will nota. 16. of otheisj and likewise by the common end and purpofe of that
Coun-
Chap. 8. OfMtniBm. 2 c7
Councell, which was to reprefle.certaine faults ofthePeop!e,which had prevailed through cuftome ; JliiBeed, if the whoole matter were" alkogither left to the people , contentions and confufions might be feared. But whiles wee plead for the ele&ion of people \^ec adde.
i. Let the Cieargie of the adjacent bounds in their Prefbyteriall AlTembly , trie and judge who are fit for the Mini ftery ; thereafter letacertaine number of thole who are by them approven as fit, be offered and propounded tothevacand Church, thata free eje- ction may be made of fome one of that number , provyding al- waycs that if the Church or Congregation have any reall reafon for refufmgthe perfons nominat and offered unto them , and for choo* fingofothers, their lawtulidefires be herein yeelded unto, cs.-
2. Even when it comes to the election, yztpopuktt mn Joins judicata (s) lun. uH jcdpraeunte <$ moderantest&wnemClero & Preslyterh , Jet the Elders offitpra nota, the Congregation , togither with fome of the Cieargie concurring 24. with them,, moderat the action, and goe before the hody of the people.
Would to God that thefe things were obferved by all who de- fire the worthy office of a Pallor ! For neither the Patrons Prefen- tation; nor the Clergies Nomination , Examination, and Rccom.' mendation, nor the Bifhops laying on of hands , and giving of In- ftkution , nor all thefe put togither , can make up to a man his cal- ling to be a Paftor to fuch or. fuch a particular Flocks , with-^ out their owne free election. Even as in thofe places where Princes are elected , the ele&ion gives them jus ad rm ( as ' .they fpeake ) without which., the inauguration can never give :
tliem jus in y*. : Co a man hath from his election power to bee a Paftor , fbfatTe.aseoncerneth /«J^rf^w , and Ordination onlyap- pliethhim to the a&uallexercing ofhirpa&orall office , which Or- dination ought to be given to him only who is elected, and that becaufehe is elected. And of him who as obtruded and thru.fi: upon a people , without their owae.ela&icui^ius well faid by (t) %anehtus, that be can neither with a good confeience exercife his Mnnftery , noryet.be profitable to tjar People., becaufe they will not willingly heare him, nor iubmit themfelves unto him.
Furthermore, becaufe Patronages and Prefeniations^to Bcne- *- fices , doe often prejudge the free and lawfull eleel ion which Gods Word'Craveth, therefore, the fecond booke of DifciplineChap. 1 a. albeit it permitteth and alloweththe auncient Patrones of Preben- daries and fuch Benefices as have not curam anmanim , to refer ve their Patronages, and to difpone thereupon to Schollers and Sur- fers, yet it craveth rightly that pr-efentations to Benefices that have turam ammarum , may have noplace in this light of Reformation. Not that we thinke , a man prefemedto a Benefice ;bat hwh enram
am*
1 6 8 Of the vrdination Part. 3 .
nmmarum, can not bo lawfully elected : But becaufe of the often and ordinary abuie of thisunnecelfary cuftome, we could wifh it aboli- / v fhed by Princes.
v fjn u It followed to fpeake of Ordination , wherein with ( V ) Calvin ,
lirn.4.14. jjg j Immmm; (y)Gerfomus Bucgrus, md other learned men, we diftinguifh
(X) ua ju- 5CtWixt tiieacl: ofit , and the rite of it. The ad of Ordination ftan-
pra C*P-1- derh in the miflion or the deputation of a man to an Ecclefiafticall
i y ) e I14- fundion , with power and audorky to performs the fame. And
eri**Mc . thus are Paftors ordained when they are fent to a people with power
\y i^003' to preach the Word , mintfterthe Sacraments , and exerce Eccle-
• °'l>m fiafticall Difcipline among them. For (z)Hotv fhall they Preach except
they bee fent ? unto which minion or ordination , neither ptaier nor
j \j b iuipofuion of hands, nor any other of the Churches rites , isefTentiall
lib an nece^ary» as W tne Archbifhop of5/?4^ofhewech,who placeth
' l ' Z' the effentiall a 61: of Ordination in mifliom potefiativa , or a (implc
C* XnHbm' deputation and application of a Minifterto his Minifteriallfunc-
54..0>cap.4 gQn^j^ power to performe it. This may be done faith he by word
lb I'1 & " alone^withouc any other Ceremony3in fuch fort, that the fad fhould
.$.cap.$. hold, and the ordination thus given fhould be valid enough. When
lb\ b' r b a man !S e^ec^ed bythefuffragesof the Church, then his Ordination
V )H liu?r^[s QuafifolmnHrmfjioinpcJfelJionembonoMiUM^^
£%L . 7. no a ^cfamnjPfcs noteth,thatwhenChrift afterhe had chofen his twelve k9' Apoftles , ordained them to preach the Gofpell,to caft out Divells,
V c jexam. apcjto jlca|e Jifeales 9 we read 0£no Ceremony ufed in this Ordina- pm.i.pag. t^Qn^ \yUton\y^t Chrift garcthem power to preach,tohcale , and
to caft out Divells ,and fo fent -them away to the worke. Andhow- foeverthe Church hath for order and decency ufed fome rite in Or- dination , yet there is no fuch rite to be ufed with opinion ofnecef- fity> oras appointed by Chrift or his Apoftles When our Writers prove againft Papifts, that Order is no Sacrament, this is one of their Arguments, that there is no rite inftituted in the new Teftament,to to be ufed in the giving of Orders. Yet becaufe impofition of hands wasufed.in Ordination, not only by the Apoftles who had powerto give extraordinary the gifts of the holy Ghoft, buthkewife by the Presbytery or company of Elders , andTfraoffydid not only receive
,'d) i.Tim. thegift that was in him, (d) by the laying on of Pauls hands, asthe 1 , 6. meane, but alfo [e] with the laying on otthe hands of the Presbyte-
(e) i.Tim.ry, as the rite and figneof his Ordination; therefore the Church in 4.14. the after ages hath Aril kept and ufed the fame rite in Ordination. Which rite fhall with our leave be yet retained in the Church , prowding, 1. It be not ufed with opinion of necedity , forthatthc Church hath full liberty either to ufe any other decent rite (not beeing determined by the Word to anyone ) or elfetoufe no rite at all, befide a publike declaration , that the perfon there prefented , is called and appointed to ferve the Church in the Paftorall office,
togither
Chap .5 . of v^tinifiers. i ^
togithcr with exhortation to the faid perfon,and the commending of him to the grace of God.the Church not beeingtiedby the Word to ufe any meat all in the giving of Ordination, z. That it be not ufed as a facred fignificant Ceremony to reprefent and (ignify,eithcr the delivering to the perfon ordained, authority to Preach and to Minifter the Sacraments , or the confecration and mancipation of him to the holy Miniftery , or laftly Gods beftowing of the gifts of his Spirit upon him, tGgither withhis po^erfull protection and gracious prefervation in the performing of the workes of hiscal- ing j but only as a morall Hgne,folemnely to defigne and point out the perfon ordained: which alfo was one ofche ends and ufes, whe- reunto this rite of laying on of hands was applyed by the Apoftles themfelves,as(/)Ctenmwjrmeweth. And fo lojhua was defigned and (/) uhifit- knowen to the people of Ifrael , as the man appointed to be the fuc- pra celTor ofMofes , by that very fignc , (g) that Mofes laid his hands W °eut 34. on him. .
As a facred fignificant Ceremony we may notufeit. t, Becaufe \») W™ \J)) it hath beene proven, that men may never at their pleafure afcribe caP-$* to any rite whatfoever,a holy fignification of fome miftery of Faith or duty of Piety. The Apoftles indeed by the laying on ofiheir hands>did fignify their giving of the gift of the holy Ghoft:butnow as the miracle fo the miftery hath ceafed, and the Church not having fuch power to makethe fignification anfwere to the figne , if now a £acred or mifticall fignification be placed in the rite,it is but an emp- tie and void figne.and rather minicall then mifticall. 2. Allfuch facred rites, as have beene notorioufly abufed to fuperftition, if they # have no necefTary ufe , ought to be abolifhed , as (i) we have alio (?) fift* proven. Therefore if impofition of hands inOrdination.be accoun- cap,z. ted and ufed as a facred rite , and as having a facred fignification , (the ufe of it not beeingnecetTary ,) it bccommethunlawfull , by reafonof the by-gone and prefent luperftitious abufeof the fame in Poperie.
Now the right and power of giving Ordination to the Minifters of the Church, belongeth primarly and wholly to Chrift, who com- (k)animad. raunicateth the fame with his Bride the Church. Both the Bride- in Bell. groomefbrhis part, and the Bride for her part, have delivered this cont.^Ui, power of Ordination to the Prelbytery jure Divino. Afterward cap 3. the Prefbytry conferred, jure bumano , this power upon them, who (|) Ger.loc. were fpecially called Bifhops. Whence the tyrannicall ufurpationof theol, torn. Bifhops, hath in procefle of time followed , claiming the proper 6.pag 135^ right and the ordinary porTeflion of that , which at firft they had Bald dz only by free concefiion. And thus that great Divine (k) Francifau Caf. confe. Jimiw , deriveththefpower of Ordination. All which, that it may be lib. ^t c. 6. p'aine unto us , let usobferve foure feverall paflages. caf, 4.
1. {I) The wholle Church hath the power of Ordination com -
Y y y muni-
1 7 o Of the Ordination Pare. 5
municatedto her from Chrift, to whom iewholy pcrtaineth For.r.
It is moft a name (and among our Writers agreed upon,) that to the
whole Church coile&ively taken , Chrift 'rvt.h delivered the keyes of
the Kingdome of Heaven, with power to ufe the lame 9 promifing
{]) Math. 18. / that whatiocver the Church bindcih on Earth 3 (hall be bound in
Heaven, 5c whatibever fhee loofeth on Earth, (hall be loofedin
Heaven. Therfore he hath alfo delivered unto the whole Church,
power to call & ordaine Minifters for ufing the keyes •. otherwife
the proraife might be made void , becaufe the Minifters which fhee
now hath , may faile. 2. Chrift hath appointed a certaineanda
ordinary way , how the Church may provide her felfe of Minifters,
and fo may nave ever in her felfe the meanes of grace and comfort
?°*£W?W* fufficienttoher felf, according to that of (m) the by oQd^^M things
*** " art yours , whether Paul, or Apollo, &c. But if fhee had not the power
of ordaining Minifters unto her felf, when fhee neede:h,then might
fhee fome times be deprived of fuch an ordinary & certaine way of
provyding her felf. 3 . When the Miniftery of the Church faileth
or is wanting, Chriftian people have power toexerce that act of or-
(nJ on dination, which is neceflary to the making of a Minifter. (n) D;
Rom. 10. fui]^e fheweth out of JtyfjinM and Theodore*, that /EdefitK and Frmen-
1 S ' t'm, being but nrivat men, by preaching of the Gofpeil , converted
a grea: Nation of the J»foww. And that the Nation of the Iberians
being converted by a captive woman , the King and the Queene
became Teachers of the Gofpeil to the people. And might not
then the Church in thofe places, both eled and ordaine Minifters ?
2. The Church hath by Divine inftitution delivered the Power of ordaining ordinary Minifters, to the Prefbitery , whereof the (o)I«R6. Church confiftzth reprefentative . And fo faith (0) Parous , that the 10.M. pQAerof million (which is Ordination) belongeth to tbe Presbirery. (p ubi fit- Scriptura faith (p) Balduhi 5 ordinathnsm tribuit tot] Preshyterio , no* f«»r* pra. fimEpifcopo. With whom fay (q) the ProfefTours oi Leiden in like
(q) Syn, manner. Now when the Divines of Germany, and Belgia, fpcake- of pur. Thiol, a Presbirery , they underftand fuch a company as hath in it both <&/}?. 42. thofe two forts of Elders , which we fpake of, Viz. fome, wholabour thtf 1 2. in the Word and Do&rine, whom the Apoftle caileth BtfhopSi and 37. others, who labour oncly in Difciplme. The Apoftolicke and Pri-
mitive times knew neither Parifnionall nor Dioexfan Churches. Chriftians lived then , in Cities onely , not in Villages becaufe of the perfecution. And it is to be remembred , thatin Hprney Corinth * Epbefus, Colojfe , PLilipph Thtffalonka , and fuch other Cities inhabited (r)K^io.i? by ChriftianSjthere were moe Paftors then one.(V)The Apoftle cal- <jj Phi ..1.1. iedumohlm tHe Elders (not Elder) of the Church ofEphefus.(f}He (t\ 2 Thtff.5. wr»cetn to the Bishops (not Bifhop) of the Church r. Philippi \t) He 11. biddeth the Thejfalonians know them (not him) whicn laboured
among them. Now that number of Paftors or Bifhcps which w^s
in
Chap.8. OfMiniftetSi 17 1
in one City , did in common governe all the Churches within that City , and there was not any one Paftor , who by himfelfe gover- ned a certaine part of the City, peculiarly afEgne'd to his charge : to which purpofe («) the Apoftle exhorteih the Elders of the K) kCt.i*, Church ofEpbefus , to take heed to all the flocke, vrcwri rod &&ft~ 28* noa. And to the fame purpofe it is faid by (x) Hierome , thar before fx) Cent. fchifmes and divifions were by the Dive's inftigat;on made inReli- to Tit. i» gio n iComrmm Presbiterorum conjilio Ecclefi<e gubernabantttr.
This number of PreachingEldersin one City, togither with thofe Elders which in the fame City laboured, for Difcipline onely , {y) made up that company which the Apoftle , 1 1^4. 14. callerh (v) Gerard a Presbytery , and which gave Ordination to the Minifters of the loc. Tbeol. Church. Tothe whole Presbitery , made up of thofe two forts oftom.e.pag. Elders, belonged the a& of Ordination, which is million , {z) hdw- 134 364. beit the Rite, which was imposition of hands , belonged to thole (z) lun.ubi Elders alone which laboiired in the Word and Do&rme. And fo fup not. 5. wee are to underftand that which the Apoftle there faith, of the 1 z.Synpur. Presbiteries laying on of hands upon Timothy. As for (*);D. Downams Theol difp. two glofles upon that place, which heborroweth fr0m.Be//4nwiwe, 42. thef. and whereby he thinketh to elude our Argument, we thanke(fc) D. 37. Forbejfe for confuting them. Quod autem9 &c. But whereat faith hee , (z)Serm.on fome have expounded the Presbitery in this place , to be a company ofBifhops, A poc . 1 - except by Bifhops thou would under flandfimple Pres biters, it is a, violent inter- 20. pretationy and a infolent meaning. And whereas others have underfiood the (b)Jren.lib. degree it felfe of Elder f hip > thts can not /land, for the degree hath not hands , 2. cap. 1 1 . but hands are mens. Wherefore the D. himfelfe, by the Presbitery p. 161. whereof the Apoftle fpeaketh , underftandeth, (as we doe) -confeffus Fresbiterorum.
But fince we can not find in the Apoftles times, any other Pres- biterie or Aflernbly of Elders , befide that which hath been fpoken of, how commeth it, may fome fay , that the Church of Scotland* and other reformed Churches , did appoint two forts of Presbitenali Aflemblies , one (which here we call Seflions) wherein the Paftor of the Parifn, togither with thofe Elders within the fame, whom the Apoftle callethGovernements and Presidents , put order to the Governeraent of that Congregation ; another (which here we call Presbiteries) wherein the Paftors of fun dry Churches lying neare togither, doe aftemble themfelves ? Which difficulty yet more m- creafeth, if it be objedted, that neither ofthefe two,dotb in all points anfwer or conforme it felf , unto that primitive forme of Presbite- ry^ whereof we fpake. Anf. The divifion and multiplication of Parifhes , and the appointment ofjparticular Paftors to the peculiar overfight of particular flockes, togither with the Plantation of Churches in Villages, as well as in Cities , hath made it impoflible
Vvy 2 for
171 Of the Ordination Partr $«
for us to be ferved, with that onely one forme of a Prcsbitery , which was conftitute in the A potties times. But this difference of the times beeing (as it ought to be) admitted, for a inevitable caufe of the dif- ference of the former , both thofe two formes of Presbyteriall mee- tings appointed by the Church of Scotland? doe not onely necefla- rily relulc from that one Apoftolicke forme, but likewife (the actions of them both beeing laid togither) doe a^complifh ail thefe ordinary Ecclefiafticall functions , which were by it performed.
And firft ?Seflions have aneceffary ufe , becaufethePaftors and thofe Elders who aflift them in the governing of their Flcckes, mutt as well conjunctly as fcverally 5 as well pubhkely and private* ty> govcrne, admonifh, rebuke, cenfure, &c. As for Presbiterics, becaufe the Parifhes becing divided , in moll places there is but one Paftor in a Parifh , excepc there fhould be a meeting of a number of Paftors out of divers Parifhes , neither could triali be well had of the groweth or decay ofthe Gifts , Graces, and utterance ofcve- ry Paftor , for which purpofe the ninth ftead of the firft Booke of Difcipline, appointed the Mmifters of adjacent Churches , to meet togither at convenient times inTownes and publike places, for the exercife of Prophecying and interpreting of Scripture , according to that forme commended to the Church of Corinth. 1 Cor. 14.29. 30. 31. 3 2. Nor yet could the Churches bee governed by the common counfelland advice of Presbiters, which beeing necefTary by Apo- ftolicke institution , and beeing the foundation and ground of out Presbiteries,it maketh them necefTary too.
3. A fter that the golden age of the Apoftles was fpent and away, Presbyteries finding themfelves difturbed with emulations , conten- tions, and fadions ; for unities fake, choofed one of their number* to prefide among them, and to conferre, in name of ihe reft, the rite 2c figne of initiation (which was imposition of hands) on them whom they ordained Mmifters. This honour did the Presbytery yeeld to him whowjs fpecially and peculiarly called Bifhop , jure humano : yet the aft of Ordination they ftill reierved in their owne power. And- wherefoever the a 61; doth thus remains in the power of the whole Presbytery , the conferring of the outward figne or rite by one in name ofthe reft , none of us condemneth , asmaybefeene in Beza , Didoclaviw, and GerfonttsBucerw, Neither is there any more (^'EfiH.ad meant by (c) Hierome ; whiles he faith. What doth a Bifhop, (ordination "Ev&gr. hieing excepted,) which a Presbyter mx) not doe? For, 1 . He ipeaketh not (d)lun ubi of the act of ordination , which remained in the power of the hp.nota. Presbytery, but of the outward figne or rite, {d) which fyneg- 22. dochically he calles Ordination. 2. Hefpeakethonly of thecuftome
of that time, and not of any Divine inftitution : for that the impofi- (e) ilid. tion of hands pertained to the Bifhop alone , not by Divine inftitu- notA* 10. tion,butonly by Ecclefiafticall cuftome,(0 Jww/wprovethoutof Ter- tylthn, Hierome, and Ambroft. 4. After-
Chap. S. of Miniften. 17 j
4. Afarward Bifhops begannetoappropriat to themfelves , that power which pertained unto them jure devoluto , as if it had beene their owne jure proprio. Yet To , that force veftigies of tKe auncient order have itill remained. For both Auguftine and ^Ambrofe (whofe words moil plaine tothispurpofe , are cited by (f)D. Forbeffe)tQ- (f) Iren. ftify,that in their time, in Alexandria, and all iSigyp: , the Presbyters lib. 1 c. nl gave Ordination, when a Bifnop was not preient. (g) The Canon pag. 165. L 3fV ordaineth , that in giving of Ordination , Presoyters lay on (g)dili.z^, their hands , togither with the Bifhops hinds. And it is holden by cap. 8. many Papifts , (of whom (h) D.torbeffe alledgeth fome for the (h)uhifup* fame point) that any fimple Prefbyter , ( whom they call a Prieft) pag 175, . may with the Popes comroandement or concedion, give valid Or- C fe£. dination. That which maketh them graunt fo much , is, becaufc they dare not deniethat Pref byters have the power of ordination , jureDhino Yea faith (/) Panormitanus OlimPrefbyteri in communi re- (») apud gebam Ecclefiam, & ordinabanP Sacerdotes. The Doctor himfelfholdeth, torbef. ubi that one umple Prefbyter, howfoever having, by vertue of his fup.p.i 77* Prelbyreriall order , power to give Ordination , quoadaBum primum five apthudinem, yet quo adexercitium can not validly give Ordination, without a commiflion from the Bifhop, or from the Presbytery , if* cither there be no Bifhop, or elfehe beaHeteticke and Wolfe, But I would learne , why may not the Pref by tery validly Ordaine , ei- ther by themfelves , or by any one Prefbyter witTTcommiflion and power from them , even where there is a Bifhop ( and he no Here- tickej who confenteih not thereto: for (fc)theD. acknowledged, W Mid.p. that not only quo ad aptitud'inem , but even quo ad plenariam ordinations J 94- * 95 • txecutionem, the fame power pertaineth to the Pre! by tery coUegialitery 19&* which healledoeth, (but provcth notjl thai the Apoftles gave to Bifhops perfonaliur.
Nowrrom all thefe things, Trinces may learne low to rerorme their owne and the Preiats ufurpation, and how to reduce the orders and vocation of Ecclefiafticall perfons , unto conformity with the Apoftolicke & Primitive patterne , fromvshichif they goe on ei- ther to injoyne, or to permitadeparting.we leave them to be judged' by the King of terrours.
DISGRESSION II,
Of the convocation and moderation of Synods
Ouching the convocation of Synods , wee refolve with /nn„r [I) the Profe (Tours of Ladert\ that if a Prince doe fo much as (Uj?vM9*- tollcrat the order and regiment of th; Church to be pub- *W- **°> Yyy 3. like^
174 0/ convoc&mg Councells. Part. ^
publike, his confent and au&oruy mould be craved, &hemayalfo
(m)Ibi deligne the time, place > and other urcumftances. {m) But much
Thef 1 1. more, if be be a Chriftian and Orihodoxe Prince , fhould his con*
fent, au&otity,help, prote&ion , & fafTegUard be fought &graun-
{n)Thef.ii. ted. («) And that according to the example , both of godly Kings
in the oldTeftament , and of Chriftian Emperours andKingsm
(©)T/;^.23. the New.(oj Chiefly then, and juftly , the Magiftrat may and ought
to urge and require Synodes, wiien they of the Ecclefia.ticail order
(p ) Thef. ceafe from doing their duty . {j>J Veruntamen fi contra t- <$c. NeVerthe*
24. lejfe fay th ey 5 if contrary wife , tbeMagi&rat be an enemy and per f cuter of
tie Church , and of true Religion, or ceafe to doe his duty , that it to wit 3 in a
manifefl danger of the Church , the Church notwithstanding ought not to be
wanting to her felf , but ought to ufe the right and autlority of convocation >
which ftrfl and foremoft remaineth with the ruhrs of the Church , a& may be
feeneAct. 15.
Bucthauhis bee not thought a Tenet of Antiepifcopall Writters (o) M alone, let us heare what is (aia,b>' (q_) one of our greaLeft Oppofites* \/int de Neque defendimm ita, c^c. Neither doe wee fo defend , that thvi right of con- T)om de locating Councells,pertaineth to Princes, as that the EccleJiafticaU Prelats may rei> eccl. no way > tlt^er aJfe^e thmfclves togitber by mutuaU confmt. or be connotated lib 6. cap, ty *he "uBority °f *he Metropolitan 3 Primat, or Patriarch For the ^ApoflU: num\q did celehrat Councdls , without any conVoca. ion of Princes So many-Coun* "" cells as were celebrate before the firfi Uicxne , were Without all doubt gathered togither,by the meanes alone of EccleJiajlicaU Perfons : for to Whom dire&ly the Church « fully committed , they ought to beare the care of the Church Yep Princes in fomerefpeft, indireHly , for help and aide , chiefly then when the Prelats negleB to convocat CounceUs , or are deflitute of power for doing of the fame, of duty may t& ufetoconVocatthem. Where *e fee his judge- ment to be, that the power of convocating CounceUs » pertaineth dire&Iy to Ecclefiafticall perfons , and to Princes only indirectly, for that they ought to give help and aide , to the convocation of the fame , efpecially when Church men either will not , or can not af- iemblethernfelvestogither. His reafons whereupon he groundeth his judgement, are two, and thofeftronge ones.
1. The ApoftolkallCouncells,^3. 6. 2. & 15. 6. andfo many as were aflembled before the fit ft Councell of N/ce, werenotcon- vocated by Princes , but by Ecclefiafticall perfons , without the leave of Princes. Therefore in the like cafes, the Church ought to ufe the like liberty , that is3 when there is need of Synods , either for pre- venting , or reforming fome corruptions in the Doctrine or Po- licy of the Church •, and for avoiding fuch inconvefriencies as may impede the courfe of the Gofpell , (Princes in the meane time beeinghoftileOppofites to the truethof God , and to the pu- rity of Religion,) then to convocat the fame, without their auclonty and leave.
2. The
Chap. 3. Of cmvoc*tmg[oMicefo. 17;
2. The Church is fully committed , ( 2nd that directly ) to the Ministers whom Chrift hath fet to rule over the fame. Therefore they ought to take care and to provyde for all her necefficies , as thefe who mult give a count, & beanfwerableto God for any hurt which fhee receiveth, in things Spirituall or Ecclefiafticail?for which (when they might) they did not provyde a remedie: Which beeingfo, it follower h,that when Princes will neither convocat Synods, nor con- fent to the convocating of the,yet if the convocating of a Synod, be a ncceiTary meanc for healing of the Churches hurt , and Eccle- fiafticall Perfons be able, (through the happy occafion of a fit op- portunity,) fynodically to atfemble themfelves , in that cafe they ought by themfelves to come togither , unlelTe one would fay, that Princes alone , and not Paftors, muft give a counttoGod, hovv it hath gone with the Church , in matters Spirituall and Ecclc- fiafticalU
If it be objected, that our Divines mantaine again ft Papifts , that the right and power of convocating Synods pertaineth to Princes. Anf And fo fay I , but for making the purpofe more plaine I adde three di ft inct ions. 1. In ordinary cafes , and when Princes are not enemies to the trueth and purity of the Gofpell , Ecclefiafticall Per- fons (hould not doe well to alTemble themfelves togither in a Synod,, except they be convocate with the authority or confent of Princes. Yet as (r) Jjimts fheweth, in extraordinary cafes-, and when the Ma- (r)ammad. giftratwill not concurre nor joyne with the Church, the Church mBeU.cont. may well affemble and come togither befide his knowledge j and 4. lib. 1. without his confent , for that extraordinary evills muft have cap. 12. extraordinary remedies. 2. Ecclefiafticall perfons may convo- wo*. 4. 18; cat Councells , (imply and by a fpirituall power and junfdi&ion: but to convocat them by a tern porall and coac"hve power, pertai- neth to Princes onely. EtclefaftitafEPotver ((aith {s) the Archb. of Spa- (s) deptp. lato) , may appoint and conVocate Councils : but yet the Ecclefiafticall Power j?ccl Ufa & it felfe cannot with any ejfeH or working, compell Bifhops , efpecidlly if the cap <,num Bifhops of another Province , or Kjngdome, or Patriarch J hip , be to be con- l $ ' located, tor becaufe the Church cAn works by her cm furs s and deprive them who refufe of hey Communion }if they come not; yet they f hall not therefore come to the CounceU if they contemne thecenfure. Therefore that no man may bcabh to refjly it fi mceffary that they be calkdby 4 coa&ive auBorityywhich can con - ftraine them who gainefiand, both'^wubbamfhrnents, and 'bodily punt foment /y cr compell the Bifhops , not onely of om Province, but alfo of the whole Kjng- domior Empire, to conveene. 3 . In the maine and fu bftantiall refpe&s , the convocation of Counce's pertaineth to the Miniftcrs of the Church , that i$p as Councels are Ecclefiafticall meetings , for put- ting order to Ecclefiafticall matters , they ought to be aitembled by the Spirituall Power of the Minifters , whofe part it is , toefpieand note all the mifordeis and abufes in the Church , which muft bee
righted:
ij6 OfTreftdettce in Cometh. Part. 5^
righted. But becaufe Councels are fuch meetings , ras muft have a certaine place defignedfor them, in the Dominions andTerrito- ries of Princes, needing further. , for their fafe affembling, acerufi- . cation of their Princely protection j and finally , it beeirg expedient for the better fuccefle of Councels,that Chriilian Princes be prefent therein, either perfonally, or by their Commiflioners, that they may underftand ihe Councels, Conclufions, and Decrees , & atfenting unto the fame, ratify and eftabhih them by their Regall and Royall A u&ority; becaufe ofthefe circumftances itis,^attheconfent and au&ority of Chriftian Princes $ is , and ought to be fought andex- fpectcdforthealTembling of Synods.
As for the right of prefidency and moderation , wee diftinguifh (t)animad. with (*) Junius two forts of it , both which have place in Councels; inB&.cmt. vi#. the moderation of the Ecciefiafticall a&ion, and the modera- 4. lib, 1 . tion of the humane order ; and with him we fay, that in Councels , eap.ig.no- the whole Ecciefiafticall action ought to be moderated by fuch a ta 12. President, as is elected for the purpofe , even as Hofius B\{hop of
Corduba waschofen to prefide in rhe firft Councell of Nice: Which office agreeth not to Princes: for in the point of propounding right- ly the ftate of queftions and things to be handled , and of contai- ning the difputations in good order, Certeprajldere debet perfonaEc- {u) de rep. clefiajlica, in facris Uteris erudita faith («) the Archb. of Spalato, The JZccl.leb..7» prefiding and moderating in the humane order, that is, by acoactive prfp. 3.W.43 power to compefce the turbulent, to avoid all confufion andcon* tention,and tocaufe a peaceable proceedingand free deliberation, pertaineth indeed to Princes, and lb did Qonflantm prefide in the fame Councell of Nice.
DIGRESSION III.
Of the judging cfControverfies andjgueflions of Faith.
Here is a twofold judgement which difcerneth and judgeth of Faith. The one abfolute, whereby the moft high God , whofe fupreme Auctority alone , bindeth us to beleeve whatfoeverhepropoundeth to be believed by us , hath in his written Word pronounced, declared,andeftablifhed'; what he would have us to believe concerning himfelf, or his worfhip. The other limited and fubordinate : which is either publike or private. That which is publike, is either ordinary or extraordinary. The Minifte- riallor fubordinate publike judgement, which I call ordinary, is the judgement of every Paftor or Doctor ; who by reafon of his publike vocation and office, ought by his publikc Miniftery to di- rect and inftrud the judgments of other men, in matters of Faith.
Which
Ckap. 8. Of the judging of Co Mr oyer ft es. i?y
Which judgement of Paftors and Doctors, is limited and reftri&ed to the plaine warrants andteftimoniesof Holy Scripture, (x) they (x)Iun. themfelves beeing onely the AmbafTadours of the judge, to preach com, r.lihi and publifh the fentence which he hatheftablifhed , fo that a Paftor } cap 4. is not properly judex but Index. The fubordinate publike judge- nota 27. ment, which is extraordinary , is the judgement of a Counceil, af- ferabled for the more publike and effe&uall eftablifhment and de- claration of one or moe points of Faith, and heads of'Chriftian Do- drine, & that in Oppofition to all contrary herefie, or error, which is broached andfet a foot in the Church, (v) From which Counceil, (y)M.^w^ no Chriftian man who is learned in the Scriptures , maybe exclu-^e Dow. dt ded , but ought to be admitted to utter his judgement in the fame. rep. Zed. For in the indagation or fearchingout of a matter of Faith? they are W.7.C.3. not the peribns of men, which give au&ority to their faymgs, but n. 3 2. the reafons and documents which every one bringeth for his judge- ment. The fubordinate judgement, which I call private, is the judge- ment of Difcretion , (*) whereby every Chriftian , for the certaine (2) DaVe- information of his owne minde , and the fatisfa&ion of his owne natde jud. conscience , may and ought to trie and examine, as well the De- control. crees of Counceis", as] the Doctrines of, particular P.aftors , and in cap. 25. fofarre to receive and believe the fame , as he underftandeth them Iun.ubjfu- to agree with the Scriptures. jw.
Befide thefe, there is no other kind of judgement , which God hath allowed to men, in matters of Faith. Which beeing firftob- ferved, we fay next concerning the part of Princes, that when que- ftions and controvcrfies of Faith, are tofTed in the Church, that which pertaineth to them , is, to convocate aCouncellfor the De- cifion of the matter , civilly to nfioderate the fame , by caufing fucfi an orderly and peaceable proceeding , as is alike neceflary in every grave Alfembly, whether of the Church or of the Common-wealth; and finally, by their coa&ive temporall power,to urge and procure, that the decrees of the Countfell be received, and the Faith there- in contained , piofelTed by their fubjecb.
But neither may they, by their owne Au&ority , and without a Counceil , decide any controverted matter of Faith, nor yet ha- ving convocate aCouncell, may they takeupon them to command, rule, order , and difpofethe difputcsand deliberations according to their arbitrement; nor laftly, may they, by vertue of their Regall . Dignity , claime any power to examine the Decrees concluded in the Counceil , otherwile , then by the judgement of private dif- cretion , which is common to every Chriftian.
Firft , I fay , they may not by themfelves pre fume , publikely and judicially , to decide and define any matter of Faith , which is queftioned' in the Church: but this definition they ought to remit unto a la a full and'free Counceil. Ambrofe would not come to the
Zzz Court
2 78 Of the lodging Parr, j j
Court to be judged by the Emperour Valtnthian,\n a matter of Faithi and asked, whenever he heard thatEmperours judged Bifhops in matters of Faith , feeing , if that were granted, it would follow that Laymen fhould difpute and debate matters , and Bifhops heare, yea that Bifhops fhould learne of Laymen*
The true ground of which refufall (cleare enough in it felfe) is to) of the darkened by {a)D. Field, who alledgeth, i. That the thing which Church lib. Valmtinian tooke on him , was, to judge of a thing already rcfolved 5.0*0. 53. m* generall Councell called by Conflantine, as if ithad been free, and not yet judged of at all i. That Valentinian was knowcnto be partiall ; that he was but a Novice ; and the other Iudges which he meant to alTociate to him felfe fufpe&ed. But howfoever thefe cir- cumftances might ferve the more_tojuftify^w^o/« his not com- pearing, to be judged in a matter of Faith by Valentinian, yet the D. toucheth not that which is moft conflderable , namely , the reafon whichhe alledged for his not compearing , becaufe it hath been at no time heard of , that Emperours judged Bifhops in matters of Faithjand if chat were granted, it would follow, that Bifhops fhould learne of Laymen. Which reafon holdeth ever good , even though the thing hath not beene formerly judged by a Councell.
And furthermore, if thefe (which the D. mentioneth) were the true reafons of his refuting to be judged by Valentinian , then why did he pretend another reafon , (whereof we have heard) and not rather defend himfelfe with the reall and true reafons r Wherefore we gather , that the reafon which made Ambrofe refufe to be judged by him , was no other then this, becaufe he confldered, that Princes neither bythemfelves , nor by any whom they pleaf'e tochoofe 3 may, without a lawfully aiTembled and free Councell ,ufurpe a pub- like judgement and decifive fentence in controverfies of Faith : which it they arrogate to themfelves , they farre exceed the bounds fijMal, 2»7- of their vocation For it is not laid of Princes, but of Priefts, (b) that t' eirlippes ihould preferve knowledge * and that they fhould feeke (c) 2 chron. the Law from their mouthes. And fc) the Priefts did lehofaphat fet t 9.8.10. -n jiyuj'aiini j for the judgement of the Lord, and for control erfies , and for judging betwixt Law & Comrnandement , ftatutes and judgements. In the meane while , wedenienot, but that in extraordinary ca- fes , when lawfuil Councels can not be had , and when the Cleargie is univcrfally corrupted, through groiTe ignorance, perverfe affec- tions , and incorrigible negligence, in fuch a cafe, the Prince not- withstanding the defed of the ordinary and regular Judges, may yet by the Power of hecivill fword,rcpre(feand punifhfo many as pub- lifh and fpread inch Doctrines , as both he and other Chriftians by the judgement ofdifcretion , piaiueiy underftand from Scripture, !o be heretical!. *
Next! fay,- that the Princehavin^afTembledaCouncer^nay nor
take.
Chap. 8. oj wmroverjtes. 17?
take fo mtfch uponhim, as imperioufly to command what he thin- kerh good, in the difputes and deliberations, & to have every thing ordered , difr)ofed , and handled according to his minde. Todebate and define Theologicallcontroyerfies , and to teach what is Orthodoxall, what: UeretkaU , ts the office of Divines ;yet by a coatlive authority to judge this Or- thodoxe Faith to be received by all , and Hereticall pravity , to be re jetted, is the office of Kjngs , or the fupreme Mxgiftrates in every Commonwealth , f aii|h (d) the Biiliop otSarifburie. And (e) againe , m Searching , DireElinj>, (d) delud. Teaching; Divines, ordinarily andbyreafon of their calling , ought to goe be controV.t fore Kings themfelvet : but in commanding , efiablifhing , compelling -3 Kjngs cap. 1 6. doefarre exceU, Where he fheweth, how in defining oftheContro- pag^gi: verfies of Religion , in one refpect Ecclefiafticall perions , and in (e) ibid. another refpect Kings have the firft place. . cap, 1 4.p«
In the debating of a queftion of Faith , Kings have not , by ver- 75, tue of their Princely vocation, any precedencie or chiefe place , the action beeing meerely Ecclefiafticall. For, howbeit Kings may con- vocate a Councell , prefide alfo and governe the fame as concer- ning the humane and politicall order, yet faith (f ) lunius , ABionesi (t)ant- deliberationes t& defiriitiones, ad fubflantiam rei Ecclefiaftica pertinent es, a mad. in Sacerdotio funt , a catu fervorum Dei , eptibw reifux adminiflrationemman- BelLcont.^.. davit Dm. And with him the Archb. of Spdato faith in like man- lib. \ .cap, ner, that howbeit Chriftian Princes have convocated Councels , \z.nota 15 and civilly governedthe fame>yet they had no power nor authority (g) de rep, in the very difcufling, handling , and deciding of matters of Faith. Feci, lib. 6.
What then? In the handling of controversies of Faith, have Pcin- cap. 5 Mum. ces no place nor power at all , betide that of Politicall go vernement 8. 30. onely? Surely by vertue of their Princely au£tority, they have no other place in the hadling of thefe matters. Yet, what if they be men offingular learning andunderftanding in the Scriptures ? Then let them propound their owne fuffrage , with the grounds and reafons of it ,even as other learned men in the Councell doe. But neither as Princes, nor as men Angularly learned, may they require that others in the Councell (hall difpute and debate matters, and that they them felves (hall fit as Iudges having judiciall power of a ne- gative voice. For in a Councell, no mans voice hath any greater ftrength , then his reafons and probations have. Non enim admit- to , Cc. Fori admit not in a Councell (faith {h) the fame Prelate) fome (h) deRtp, as Iudges , others as Difputators ,forlhaVe f hewed that a conciliate judge- num, 33. ment , conjifieth in the approbation of that fentence , which above others hath leen f hewed to haVe moft waight , and to which no man could enough oppofe. Wherefore no man in the Councell ought to have a judkiarie Voice, unltffe he hee withali a Difputator , and afligne a reafon whtrefore hee adheres to that judgement , and repels another, andthat reafon, fuch a one, as is drawenfrom the Scriptures onely , and from Antiquity .
Laltly , I hold , that after the definition and decifionofaCoun-
Zzz 2 cell,
i So OfSxcowmUnicatlofu Part, $;
celli Princes may not take upon them , by any judiciall power or pu- blike vocation 3 to examine the fame, as if they had authority to pro- nounce yet another decifive fentence , either ratifying or reversing what the Councell hath decreed. Moft certaine k is , that before Princes give their Royall affent, unto the Decrees of any Councell wbatfoever, and com pell men to receive & aknovv ledge the fame, they ought firft of all carefully to trie and examine them, whether they agree with the Scriptures or not , and if they find them not to agree with the Scriptures , then to denie their a (Tent and au&ority thereto. But all this Princes doe not by any judiciall power, or pu- blike au&ority , butonely by that judgement of private difctetion, which- they have asChriftians, and which togither with them is common alfo to their fubjects: for neither may a Matter of a Fami- ly commend, to his children and fervants, the profettion of that Faith , which is publifhed by the Decrees of a Councell, except in like manner he examine the fame by the Scriptures.
DIGRESSION IV.
Of the fewer of the KeyesandEccleJiaHkallcenfuYeK
Cclefiatticall cenfures and punifhrncnts, wherewith Delin- quents are bound , and from which when they turne penitents they are loofed, are of two forts; either fuchas arecommon, and agree unto all ,as Excommunication and Abfolution ; or fuch as are peculiar , and agree onely to men of Ecclefiafticatt order, as Sufpcnfion , Deprivation, &c.
As touching th e power ofthe Keyes , to bindand loofe, Excom- municate and abfolve: fir tt of all, Princesare to remember ,rhat nei- fyVee*. ther they may , by themfclves exerce this power , (for (?) B^gum eft paytt-z.cau* Corporalem irrogan ptenam'Jacerc&tumSpmtuahm inferreyindittam;) nor fa 2.4,7. vet by their Depures or Com mi ttioners in their name, and with c.41. au&ority from them , becaufe as theyhavenor themfelves the po-
wer of cheKeye? , fo neither can they communicate the fame unto others. Secondly* forafmuch as Princes are the wai dens, defenders, and revengers of both the Tables, they ought therefore to provide and take courfe , that nenher Laymen be permitted to have and exerce the power of Excommunication , nor yet that the Prelates themfelves be fuffercd in their particular Diocefes, to appropriate this power and external! jurisdiction, as peculiar to themfelves: but that it remainein their hands to whom icpertaincrh by Divine inftitution. Whatawoefull abufe is ir,.thatin our neighbour Chur- , ches of England , and Irtland ,the Bifhops Vicar general! , or Offi- ciall j or Committarie , beeing oftentimes fu;h a one as hath never
entered'
1
Chap. $.' and Abftfotiofu 5 § i
entered into any holy Orders y (hair fit in his Courts , to ufe (J fhould have faid co abufe) the power of Excommunication and Abiblution ? And what though Tome filly Prefbiter bee prefent in the Court? Doth not the B^fhops Substitute, beeing a Layman, exa-* mine and judge the whole matter, decree, and give fentenee what is to be done ? Hath he net the Prefbiters tong tied to his belt ? And what doth the Prefbiter more , but onely pronounce the fentence according to th at which he who fitteth judge in the Court, hath de- creed and decerned ? As touching the Prelates themfelves, I pray , by what warrant have they appropriate to themfelves , the whole externall jurifdi&ion of Binding and Loofing, Excommunicating , and Abfolving? But hat we may a litle (ban this their ufurpation7 and difcover the iniquity thereof to the view of Princes , whofe part it is, to caufe the fame to be reformed, let us con Cider to whom Chrift himlelfe , (/0 who hath the Key of David, who openeth and $) Rsv. 35. r» no manmutteth,andi"hutteth , and no man openeth, hath commit- ted this power of the Keyes to be ufed upon earth. And firft, let us dittingmfh betwixt the power it felfe , and the execution of it.
The power and audonty of Binding and Looting, Chrift hath delivered to the whole Church, that is, to every particular Church collectively taken The au&ority of Excommunication pertaineth to the whole Church faith [l D.Fulke. Ins excommunicandi(faith[m)Baldume)non eft (1) on penes quemvis privatum, five ex ordine fit EccUfiadico, five Politico,&c. Sed 1. Cor. J. hoc jus peninet ad totam Ecclefiam. So fay ^anchius in 4. frac. col. 756. 4. Polanus Sjnt. lib, 7. cap, 18. Pareus mi. Cor. j .deExcom. CartVVright, (m)decaf, on 1. Cor. 5. 4. Perkins on lude verf.i. and generally all our found con fc. lib ,<f+ Writers, (w^ The Magdeburgtans cite for the fame judgement , *Au- cap. 10. gujline and Primafins. { o ) Gerard ciceth alfo fome Popifh Writers caf. 9. affenting hereunto. The reaions which we give fos confirmation (n) Cent. hereof, are thefe. J . cap. 4*
1. It pertaineth to the whole Church, collectively taken, todeny col. 183. her.Chriftian Communion, to iuch wicked perfonsas addecontu- {o)loc*. macieto their difobedience 3 Therefore it pertaineth to the whole thiol torn* Church to Excommunicat them. A gaines it pertaineth to the whole 6 p. 136,- Church , toadmit and receive one into her communion and nmili-ar 137. fjlowfbip. Therefore to the whole Church it likewife pertaineth, tocaftoneoutof her communion. Sure ,.the fentence jof Excom- munication is pronounced in vaine> except the whole Church cue of c!c perfen thus judged , from all communion with her. And the fentence of Abfolution is to as litle purpofe pronounced, except the whole Church admit one againe to have communion with her. Shortly, the whole Church hath the power of -punifliinga man, by denying her communion unto him. Therefore the whole Church hath the power of judging , that he ought to be fo punifhedo The whole Church haththe power of remitting this puniftiraent againe.-
Z-zz 5,: Ther-ev
1 8 2, Of Excontnwmcanon Part. 5.
Therefore the v\hole Church hath the power of judging that it ought to be remitted.
2. The Apoftle 1. Cor. 5. (heweth the Ifraelits their purging away of leaven out of all their dwellings in the time of the PafTeover , to be a figure of Excommunication t whereby difobedient andobiti- nat finners, who are as leaven to infect other men, are to be voided, and thurft out of the Church. Now as the purging away of the lea- ven , did not peculiarly belong unto any one or fome few among the Ifraelits, but unto the whole Congregation of Ifrael: fothe A- poftle wricting to the whole I Church of Corinth, even to as many as
(p;i.Cot. fhould take care to have the whole lumpe kept unleavened, (p) faith f->-7» !!• to them ail. Kpow ye not that a lltle leaven leaveneth the whole lumpe ?
Purge out therefore the old leaven. Put away from among your [elves than
wicked p erf on.
3. Chrift hath delivered the power of binding and loofing , to every particular Church or Congregation, collectively taken, which thus we demonftrat. If our brother who trcfpalTeth againft us, will neither be reclaimed by privat admonition , nor yet by a rebuke gi-
(g) Math* 18. venhim before fome moe \ itnelT^S; then (q) faith Chrift, Tell it unte i7' i8« the Church: but if he negleB to heart the Church, let him be unto thee at an Hea* then man and a Publican. Verdy 1 fay unto you, whatfoever ye Jhallbind on "Earth, fcallbeboundin Heaven, & whatsoever ye fhall loofe on Earth [hall he kofed in Heaven. Wherehefheweth 3 that in the Chnftian Church (which hee was to plant by the Miniftery of his ApoftlesJ Excom- munication was to be ufed , as the laft remedy for curing of the mod deadly & defperat evills : which Excommunication he fetteth forth, byallufion unto the order and cuftome of the Iewes in his time, among whom they who were caft oijt and excommunicat from the Synagogue, were accounted as Hear!- -ns and Publicans. And fo when he faith, Let him be unto thee ai an Heathen man and a Publican , he prefuppofeth,that the Church bath Excommunicat him for his con- CrMn tumaciewhich he hath added ro his difobedience. Foras [r) P areas
Math, 18. ^h* V h me> and thee, andeVery one he n to be accounted for fuch a man, ' 'it muH needs be , that the judgement of the Church be by publike declaration made knowen to me, and thee ; & every one, xAnd this meaning it throughly drawen out of the following Verfe. For whatfoever ye fhall binde on Earth , O'c Therefore the Church ought firfi to binde him , before he ought to be ac- eountedby me or thee foroneboundt that js, Excommunicat. Now what mea- ncth Cnrift by the Church, to which he giveth the power of bind- ing and loofing? Not the Church; univerfall , fure : for lean not tell t he Church univerfall (whether it be underftood colleBive , or re- prafentative) whenfoever my brother trefpaiTeth againft me, and will not be reformed. He meaneth therefore the particular Church , whereof for the time it (hall happen one to be a Merr b-r, The power {s}on lude of the K/yes (fain (s) Perktns^is given to all Ministers , Churches , er Con- Verf. 3 . , grega.
Chap. Si tndtsfbfelatiaru 183
gregations. Neither could there otherwifc an ordinary, perpetual], & ready courfe be had, for thecorre&ing of all publike contumacie and fcandall, by themeanesof Ecclefiaftical! Difcipline. But it will be faid, when he biddeth us tell that particular Church, whereof wee are Members, he meaneth not that wee fhould tell the whole body of that Church colle8ive\but that we fhould tell the Governou-rs of the Church, who are the Church reprefentative.
How then is this place alledged , to prove * that the whole Church , colltSlrve , hath Power and Auctonty to binde and loofe ?
jinf. Chrift meaneth indeed, that wee mould tell thofe Cover* nours who reprefentthe Church : but whiles he calleththem by the name of the Church , and fendeth us to them as to thofe who repre- fent the Church, he plainly infinuateth, that they exerce the power of the Keyes (as in his name, fo) in the name of the Church , and that this power and authority pettaineth to the whole Church : even as when one man reprefenteth another mansperfon, whatfoever power he exerceth eo nomine, doth firft of all agree , to the man who isreprefented, in his owne proper perfon.
4. (t) The Apoftle writing to the whole Church of Corinth, will ^I'Ccr,^ have them (being gathered togither) to deliver that inceftuous per- 4' fon to Satan. Therefore every particular Church or Congregation? hath power to Excommunicatfuch a contumacious finner, as that inceftuous perfon was. It is the common anfwere of Papifts, that- albeitthe Apoftle commanded the a& mould be don e in face of the Church, yet the judgement and au&ori'y of giving fentence, was in himfelf alone, and not in the Church of Corinth ; whereupon they would make it to follow , that the power of Excommunication pertaineth to the Bimop alone, and not the Church. And the fame anfwere doth (u) Saravia returne to Beza. But howfoever (x) the (u)detriph Apoftle fak* ,that hehadallready judged concerning the inceftuous epifi. gen. perfon, yet he did not hereby feclude the Church of Corinth , from pag. 41. theau&ority of excommunicatingbim It ji to be obferVed (a\ih (y) CaU 4$. Vine, that Paul, albeit he wot an Apoftle , doth not for his owne will excommu- (x ) verf. 3 » meat alone: butcommunicateth his counfellwith the Church , that the thing may \y) Jn be done by common auHority. Himfelf indeed goeth before and fheweth the i.Cor. jv way: but whiles he adjoynetb to himfelf other partakers -\he fignifieth fuffidently 0 4. that it Knot the privat power of one man. Nay> Ictus further oblerve with (3; lunim , that the Apoftles hath a twofold power : one, com- (zYanmad^ m onto them with other Prefbyters , 1. Pet. 5.1. another, lingular inBelLcom* proper. andextraordinary, which rhevhad as Apoftles. By this fin- *mttb. z. gnlar power , Paulhhh : (a) What will ye ? fhalllcomeunto you with a Cap . 1 6. rod? but by the common power it was that he faid: {b)When ye art ga- mta 6. thered toghhey> and my Spirit, &c By no other power, then that which fa r.Coe* was common to turn With the reft of the Prefby'ers or Bifhops'pa s 4.21.
Cznnth , (b) la. j.
184 Of Excommunication Parr. 5 T
Corinth , did he judge the inceftuous perfon to be excommunicated: and thus, as though he had beene preient in body , among the other Prefbyters of that Church , and afTembled togither with them , in (cxfun ubi their ordinary Counceil orConfiitoru (in which (c]fuerum Ubere ^4po - fupranota.ft0^ atijvero Preshteri exVocatione propria ,& nece/Jitate officii ±) (0 [d,hc C both pronounceih his owne judgement , and hkewife goeth before,
(SSjk.amt. by pronouncing that judgement which was to be in common by i.l'ib. 4.^. them pronounced. Furthermore , that the Apoftle would not have, 16. ncta. r^ac inceftuous man to be excommunicat by his owne au&ority ' alone, but by the authority of the Church of Corinth , thus it appea-
red. {c) i.Cor.f. 1 • (t) The Apoftle challengeth and condemneth the Corinthians, 1-6.9, becaufe they had not excommunicat him , before his writting un;o them; which he would never have done, if that Church had not had power and au&ority of Excommunication.
2. Howbeit the Apoftle gave his judgement , that he fhould be excommunicat, becaufe he ought not to have beene tolierated in the Church, yet for all that , he fhould not have beene indeed ex- communicat and thru ft out of the Church of Corinth, except the Minifters and Elders of that Church, had in name of the whole body of the fame, judicially caft him forth and delivered him to Satan. Which plainly argueth , that he fhould not have beene ex- communicat by the Apoftles au&ority alone, but by the au&ority of the Church of Corinth.
3. The A pottle only fheweth, that he fhould bee excommunicat, but refcrrech the giving cf fentenceand judgement upon him , to the Corinthians. For he faith nor, that the Corinthians being gathered togither, fhould declare or witneffe, that fuch a one was delivered to Satan, by Pauls owne power and au&ority f but, that they themfel- ves fhould deliver him to Satan verf. 4. 5-Andagaine ,Purge out there- fore the old leaven. Put away from among your fives that wicked perfon,
Cf) ubi ft' v. 7. 13. But faith [f] Saravia, partes ^ApoHoli in ilia aBione fueruntau- pra. tboritatih^chfueveroCorinthiaca .obediential. ^Anf. That che a&ion was done by the audonty of the Church of Corinth , it is manifeft both from that which hath beene faid, and hkewife if further we con- fider, that the Apoftle aienbethto the Corinthians , as much authori- ty in this action, as heaiTumeih tohimfelf. For he faith of himfelf, tnathehad judged concerning him rb.it hid done this deed v. 3. and fo he faith of them , Doe not ye judge them that are within? verf. 12. Where he fpeaketh not of the judgement of privat difcretion, (for foihey migh:have judged them tl at were withoutalfo, ) but even of theexternallandauthoritaive judgement of Ecclefiafticall Dif- {«d -• Ccr. 2. cipline g The Apoftie indeed faith, that re wrote to the Corinthians ?• to excommunicat that perfon , that he might know them, wheihet
they were obedient mail things; but this proveth not , that the au- donty
Chap. 8. md Abfduthn* iSj
auttority of the excommunication was not theirs : for their part in this action proceeded both from auttority &from obedience :from auctority, abfolutely: from obedience, in fomerefpect.Dqw*, they had no liberty nor power not to excommunicate him , but were bound to doe that which Paul pointed out to be their duty , and in that refpetthecalleth them obedient : yet abfolutcly , and de faBo it was free to them , (notwithftanding of Pauls writing to them) ei- ther to excommunicate him , or not to excommunicate him , and if they had not by their auctority excommunicate him, hee had not been at all excommunicate by any vertue oi Pauls judging of him.
4. When the Corinthians proceeded to excommunicate him , (b) the Apoftle calleththisa ceninre which was inflicted of many : [h)Ib.vcrf9 winch could not be faid if he was to be excommunicate by the Apo- 6. files auctority alone.
j. (i) The Apoftle writcthagaine to the Corinthians ,ro forgive the (i) verf.-j. inceftuous man > to receive him into their communion, and to re- mit the punifhment of his excommunication , becaufe he was winne to repentance. And (JO he addeth : To whom ye forgive any thing , I (ktocr/.i* forgive alfo. Now, who can remit the punifhment, and faveone from underlying the cenfurc> except fuch as have the power and auctority of judgement?
Hitherto we have proven, that the power of binding and loo- fing, pertaineth to every particular Church collectively taken. But the execution and judiciallexercing of this power, pertaineth to that company andaflembly of Elders in every Church, which the Apoftle , 1 Tim. 4. 14. calleth a Prefbitery. In Scotland we call it a Seflion. In France it is called a Confijlory, In Germany and Belgia according to the Scripture phrafe it is tearmed a Prefbitery. It is made up of the Pallor or Pallors of every Congregation, togither with thofe governing Elders which labour there (not in Doctrine , but)in Difciplineonely.Of which things, we have fpoken (I) before. (\)fupra That unto this Companieor ConGftorie of Elders , pertaineth the Digr*/, powet of binding andloofing, it is averred by the belt Divines. Calvine or, Math 1 8, 17. 18. &lib.Epiftol. C0l.16S.169. Beza contraSa- raviam de diverf. Mintsl. grad.fynchm in \.prxc% col.i 5 6. Junius animadi hi Bell. cont.$.lib. 1 cap \\.nota zS.PolanutSjnt.lib.j.cap. 1 8 TilenSynt. part. z. difp.iZ. The Profeffours of Leiden Syn. Pur. Theol. difp.48. Ge- rard, loc. Theol. torn 6 pag. M 7. 1 3 8 . Balduin de caf confe. Ixb.^. cap. n. taf. 1 1 . Parens in Math. 1 8. 1 7. 1 8» <SF'm i;Cor.5 Xartwright on Math. 1 8. fek, 7. Fennents Theol lib. 7 . Cap. i.p. 152. 153. jilfledius Theol. cafuum cap. 17 t DanatH Pol, Chrift lib. 6 pag 452. 464 . Hemingius Enchirid.claff. 3 . cap. 1 1 .pag. 3S8. Martyr in 1 Cor. 5. and fundry others, (m) Bullinger (m) apud recordeth, that ths was the manner of the particular Churches in Z^anch. in Helvetia , to choofe untothemfelvesa certaine Senate of Elders, or 4ypr*c*col. company ofthebeft men in the Church, which might according 745.
a a a to
i36 Of Excommunication Part. 3 »
to the Canon of Holy Scripture , exerce the Difcipline of Excom- munication. Which forme is well warranted by the Scriptures. For when Chrift commitceth the auclority of binding and loofing unto die Church Math, i8.i7.i8.Howfoever the pov\er & au&ority it felfc pertaine to any particularChurchcolle&ively taken, as hath been laid , yet the execution of the fame is committed to theConfi- ftory or Senate of Elders, which reprefenteth that Church, and (;.)/« 4. v hich Paul calleth a Prefbi:e:y. [n] Zjnekm faith , that Chryfoflome , prxc col. Bullinger y and all good Interpreters 5 underhand the Prefbiterv to 741 . be trkre meant by Chrift , when he iaith, Tell thtCburch. Chryfoftomt (o) contr^. faith <2sZ$\diQis tcou <&o\<?Ct><n, that is , faith (0) lurimt , the Ecclefia- iw.i cap. fticallbyneurium made up ofPaftors andElders. Thus (p) Camero "fr2 S ' ^evv^e e*poiwdeth the place. Ecclefuenomint faith he , videtur Chrifus \P)P ' • fignificaffe Collegium Presbiterorum qui Ecclefi* Chrijiiana erant prafuturi y om. ipag. cujiti presfrytenj ment\0 fit j Tjm 4# J^ow if Chrift hath committed .23- hue power ot Excommunication unto the Church , what have B:-
fhops to fay for themfelves,v\bo appropriate this power unto them- (q) Ca.v. fclvcs, each one 111 his owne Diocie? [q) for we can not give the name ■C Cartwr. of the Church unto aBifhop : becaule he is but one man, and the c» Math. Church is a company of many men. Nay, nor yet can we give the 18.17.p4r. name of the Church unto a company of Biftiops ; for if they might zniCor.5 gee called the Church, it ihould be for this refpeel alone , becaufe they reprefent the Church. But felt Epifcopi, &c. Bif hops alone fai/h (' ) "*• r Gerard , or they who teach , can not reprefent the Church , Jince hearers
Ineol torn, alj-0 p(na'me tQ the definition thereof , but the Presbitery can reprefent thu 6 pag> l}7* Church , whereunto not onely they pertaine who labour in the Word 3 but alfo Elders or Govern >urs 5 put in auSority 5 for expeding ofEcdeJiaficall matters (s)Trelcat innameof the whole Church. We graunt then, [t] that by the Church , Jnfl Tveol. Chrift mcaneth that company of Church Gouvernours, whereby a lib. 1. pag. certaine particular Church is reprefented , bu: fjrafmuch as the 29i. Church confifteth of two integrant parts, v?^. Paftcrs and Sheepe y Teachers and Hearers , wetheefore denie , that the reprefentative Church whereof Chrift fpeaketh, can beany other,thenthat Eccle- uVfticall Confiftory , whereofwe have fpoken.
Moreover , albei: ihe Aroftie wrote to the whole Church of Ccrhnh to deliver the inceftuous man to Saran, becaufe the matter couid not be otherwise done , bu: onely in the natre, and with the content of that whole Church , yet he never meant , that the com- mon promifcuous multitude fr.ould by their fuhrages and voices (: mI examine (-nd i.jdge thatcaufe. Bur faith (t) Calvin e becaufe the muU Cor. 5 v4. [itude unleffe it be governed by councel! . never doth any thing moderately , nor gravely 3 there was ordained in the auncient Church ("meaning the A pofto- j ck Church a Presbytery >th at ps, a company of Elders , which by the confent ' of all , had tkefirfl judgement and examination cf things: from it the matter tvai carried to the people , but beeing already determined before. Agr-ine,
when
Chap . 8* and Absolution. i S 7
when the Apoftle writeth to them in his fecond Epiftle, that they fhould forgive him , becaufehe had repented , rhus he reafolteth , (u) .Sufficient to [neb a man is thti cenfure which wai infiibJed of many . \V hich (u) 1 Cor. words that we may the be:ter understand , it is worthy of obferva- 2 6- m tion , (which not (x) Calvinc onely , but [y) SaraViazKo notch) (hat [*J com m it appeareih from this place , he was not excommunicate , but by iwtm locum fharpe rebukes tymoufly winne to repentance, whereby ihe Apoftie ()' , de di- fhewethitto be needlefTe,yea mod inconvenient to proceed againfl verfnnnijt. him, to the extremity of Difcipline. The Word \7n71yActy there 11 ^fi M^' ' by the Apoftle, (Ignifieth rebuke, reprehension* or chiding, faith D (z] on Fully. And (oScapula takechittobe the fame with imTi^eic and \ QQr.lt6. to fignifle another thing chen imrtfiioy or kmriy^ixct. Be^a andTW- mtllM turne imjiftict by increpatio. Ar. Montanm readeth, objurgatio. This chiding or threatning of the man, proceeded not from the whole Church of Corinth , but onely from many therein," as isplaine from the Text, and as (4) Saravia alfo graunteth. And who were (av; ub'i fu- then-huong, thofe many of whom the Apoftle fpeakerh? Not fuch pra. asfromChnftian and brotherly charity did privately chide and re- buke him, for the matter was notthen depending in private rebukes, but by theApoftles direction it was brought to the Churches parr, and to publike Difcipline , the fcandall it felfe beeing fo pubiike and notorioufly manifeft. They were therefore fuch as had pub- like office and auftority to chide him. And who were thofe, but the Confiftory ofPaftors and Elders, which reprefented the whole Church, and were fet in auclority for judging and managing of things pertaining to Ecclefiafticall Difcipline? Tney (no doubt) beeing met together , called the man before them, and did molt fharpely rebuke him and chide with him , andthreatned that they wouldnot onely debarre him from the Lords Table, (v\hich is cal- led lefTer Excommunication,but more properly, a ftep or degree ten- ding next to Excommunication: ) but alfo wholly caft him out of the Church, and deliver him to Satan. Whereupon the man beeing made to fee the grievoufnefe ofhisfinne, and the terrible punifn- ment which was to follow upon it , becommeth mod forrowfull „ humble and penitent. And this moved the Apoftle to fay , Sufficient to fuch a man , ($c. as if he would fay : what needeth him now to be excommunicate, and fo to be corrected and put to fhame by you all, when every one of you fha II denieto him your Chriftian commu- nion, as one wholly caft out of the Church -? Is it nor enough, that many among you , even your whole Prefbitery , ha;h put him to fuch publike fhame by their fharpe reprehenfions , and to (o great feare by their dreadfull threatnings ? and finee, through the blefTing of God upon thefe meanes, he is already winne to repentance, why
aaa 2 would
iS$ Of Excommunication Part»^
would you have him yec more publikely corrected and rejected by ail and every one?
And further, the A poftie addcth.that now they mould not onely forgivehim and comtorrhim verf.7. butalfoconfirme , (hvogoozcj) their love towards him Verf. 8. Now Ttvpoco fignifieth to confirme
(b) exam, or ratify by authority > and fo [b) Chemnhm, BuUinger, and Cartwrighs t*?.* ^ expound it in this place. It commeth from kvj)@* ^AuBorityr
*% ¥' whence commeth alfo xv£/@* a Lord or one having authority ,
(c) com m As therefore the Prefbitery or company of Paftors and Elders, had hunclocum. by their audority eftablifhed , that he was to be exdommunicate,,
(d) annot. afid determined to proceed to the execution of extreme Difcipline ibid, againft him , fo now the A poftle would have them by the fameau-
(e) Par. in &otity, to ratify and eftablifh the remiffionof thi^punilhmeatunto 1 Cor. 5.4 him, and to decree that the Church fhouldnot denie her commu- nion unto him. For this authority of binding and looting , though it pertained to the whole Church, in aBuprimo five in iffe-y-yti it per- fained to the Prefbitery alone, in a&u fecundojive in operari: and even
■ as the aft of fpeaking , pertaineth to a man y as Principium quod , but to the tongue alone , as Prinapium quo ; fo albeit the power of the Keyes , doth primarly and principally belong to the Church colle- ctively taken , yet the actuall execution of this power , beiongeth onely to the Prefbitery which reprefenteth the Church, and unto which the Church hath committed her authority to bind and loofe. Wherefore, fince the A poftle writeth to the whole Church of Co- rinth-i to confirme by audority their love to the penitent man , and. fince this authority in the a&uall execution of it (which the A poftle cravethj did not agree to that whole Church colle&ively taken > we muft needs underftand his meaning to be , that their love towards that man, £c their forgiving of him, fhould be ratified & confirmed by the authority of thofe Church Governours , qui Ecchjia nomen a& detum reprafmtant , totm nimirum Presbherij authoritat* atqm confenfu* Thus have we (hewed , that the actuall ufe of the Keyes , or the execution of the au&ority of binding and loofing , jfcrtaineth to that Ecclefiafticall Senate in every particular Church , which the Apoftle callcth a Prefbitery. For further illuftration of the truth "whereof, I adde thefefoure obfervations.
(f) T+elcat. 1 . We muft dtftinguifh (/) a twofold power of the keyes: the one Jnft. thtol, is execute in Doctrine : the other in Difcipline : the one Concionafa; lib. z>f>Ag> the other ludkiate. Touching the former , we graunt it is proper 2.S7. 2S8. for Paftors alone, whofe officeand vocation it is, by the Preaching Parent in and Pu blifhing of Gods Word , to fhut the Kingdome of Heaven t. Cor. 5. againft impenitent and difobedient men , and to open it unto-peni- ds worn* tent (Toners, to binde Gods heavie wrath upon the former , and (by
application of the proraifes of mercy) to loofe the latier from the
fentence
Chap. 3» unAufbfolmbon* 1S9
fentence and fear of Condemnation. When we afcribethe power of binding and looGng to that whole Confiftory , wherein gover- ning Elders are joyned togither with Paftors, we meane only of the Keyes of externall Difcipline , which are ufed in Ecclefiafticall Courts and Iudicatories.
2* When we teach, that the Paftor or Paftors of every particular Church and Congregation, with the Elders of the fame , being mec togithsr, have power to binde and loofe , we underftand this , only of fuch places wherein a competent number of understanding and qualified men, may be had to make up an Elderfhip ; othetwife len there be one Elderfhip made up of two or three of the next adja- cent Parifties , according as was ordained by the Church of Scot- land\, in thejfeaventh Chapter of the fecond bookeof Difcipline. Sinetothtt >&c. Without the con fmt of fome whole Church faith (g) Zgn- (g)E». 4» chins , no man ought to be excommunkat . Yea I adde , if it be a fmalt Church, pr*c coL and not confining of many learned and skillfull men ; 'Excommunication ought 756. not to bee done , except the nighbour Churches be asked coun fell of. And as touching .he Paftors part, [h) Calvine faith well , Nunquam , (Jc. I we- (h) ?&. ver thought it expedient , that the liberty of excommunicating jhould be per- cpiftolar* mitted [to every Paslor. The feare of great inconveniences , which ho, col, 180. thought likely to follow upon fuchacuftome, if once it were per- mitted, makes htm profeflj in that Eprftle, thathedurft notadvife JLifertH '-, to excommunicate any man, without taking counfell of other Piftors. Now I much marvell what Butt(i) I>. Forbejfe fhot {i)lrm.fi$ at , when he entitled one of his Chapters , De potentate Excommuni* 1. cap. 1 2,, Cand'b and then in the body of the Chapter doth no more at all , but only quote thofe two Teftimonies of %anchw and Calvine : Both of which , doe utterly condemne theufurpation of Bifhops , who ap- propriat to themfelves the power of Excommunication, & afcribe this power to the Confiftory of Paftors and Elders in every parti- cular Church : and in the forequotted places , doe only (for preven- ting of abufes } fet fome bounds to the execution of their power: which bounds we alfo think good to be kept , Vt%. that if a Church? be fo fmall , that it hath not fo many wellqua'ified men , as may be fufficientto aflift the Paftor in the governement thereof , then let one commone Elderfhip be made upout of it, and fome other nighbour Churches : By which meanes it fhall moreover come to- palfe, (which is the other caution to be given J that not every Paftor (no not with the Elders of his Congregation ) fhall be permittedco have foil liberty of binding'andloofing , butfhall in thofe matters receive counfell and advice from other Paftors. Howbeic for this 4
latter purpofe , the Church of Scotland hath profitably provyded another remedy alfo, namely, that incertaine chief places , all the Paftors in the adjacent bounds, fhall at fee and ordinary times afTem- bie themfelves*, (which AlTemblies in this Nation we call Prefby-
a.aa $ tenes-
i9o Of Excommunication Parr. $•
teries) that fo the Churches may be governed Communi Presbytero- Yiim conjllio ? as Hierome fpeaketh of tie Primitive times or the Church.
3. Though the execution. of the Difcipiine of Excommunica- tion and Abfolution, pertame to the Confiftory of the Paftorand Elders in every Church , vet :his Difcif line is to be by them exe- (k) /^anch. CLCe ^\ jn narng 0f the whole Church. [DSaraVia isbold to affirme, m 4. prac. truc he who recciveth a (inner , or cafteth him out of ti e Church, coJ.750. clothth;s inthenair.e and au&ority of God alone. We have pro- V.Pulkeon venby ftrong Arguments , that the auctonty of Excommunication 1. Cor. 5. pertaineth to the whole Church: which though he contradið, yet 4- in [m) one place forgetting himfeJf he aknoWledgeth, thattheau-
(<)detnpl. &ority of the Church of Cor«w&, was tointerveene in the Excom- 'Epifcgentr. munication of the inceftuous man. Wherefore , as in the name of pag.4y. God , fo in the name and au&ority of the whole Church , muftone (m) . % De cafb out, or received.
Vjrfmirujt. 4 To the right exe:utiouof this Difcipiine, (n) the manifeft con-.
grad.p.o}. fent 0f the whole Church is alfo neceflary : The trueth whereof be-
86^ fide that it appeareth from t-hat *hich hath bcene faid concerning
(n) Z^ncb. t^e Churches audloritydt is further confirmed, if we con/ider, either
lib] fupra. theimportancc of the thing , or thegood of the perfon. Touching
ty nop. pur. the importance of the thing-, Gra\>\(fima , &c. Mo ft waightie matters
Mol.dijp. inthe chunh faith (0j GtrW, ( and the fame faith (p) Zfinchius atfo,)
4S. tbej. 9. 0Ughtftotto fa undertaken without the confent of the whole Ecclefiafticall body ,
(o ■ he. anj as p0pe r^eo WKjtteth, Such thing as pertame unto all, ought to be done
t.recl. torn. w'nh the confent of ail. But what can be more waighty, and What doth more
6bag.\6\ . ptrtajni t0 ^e bpdy of the Church , then to cut ojf fome ynember from the
(p) ubi fu- body ? And torching the good of the perlon , {q) ^Auguftme fheweth
P™- that then only a Sinner is^both ftricken with feare , ana healed with
(q)«*. 5. frame, when feeing himfelf Anathematized by the whole Church,
contra eft ft . hc ca:1 not find a feilo ve multitude , togither wherewith he may re-
Parmen. joyce m'his hnne, and infult upon good men. And that otherwife,
if the tnres growe ib'ranke , inac they can not be pul'ed up , and if
thefame-cviil-riifcafe take hould of fo very many, thatthe confent
or the Church eamnot be had to the excommunication of a wicked
perion , -thengootj men mu(r grieve and groane , and epdure wha:
tHey can not-help.- Therefor*,th;t Excommunication may fruitfully
(r) Ant. dc '"^ceed, the confent of the people is neceflTary: (r Eruslra enim ejicitur
D?m. de ex fjfill&h (S'confortio fidelium privatur, quern populus abigere , <? a quo
rep eccilib. abfonercrecufet. Howbeu even in fuch cafes , when theconlent of the
5. MP 12. Church can not be had to the execution of this Difcipiine, faithftiil
n g£ Paftors and Profeifors tr.uft, every one for his ovvue part, take heed
thathchu'cno feilowihip with the unfruitfull workes of daikenefie,
but even ■■eprove them • yea they ought , in fenfunegativo , excom-
municat thole who fuoufd be(butarenotJexcommurncat positively:
which
Chap- 8. *<4nd abfolution. 1 9 >
which negative Excommunication, is not an Ecclefiafticall cenfure* but either a bare punifhrnent,oracautellandanimadverfion ; And fo faith (s) the A rchbifhop of Spalato, not only one brother may re- /s) lb, cap. fufe tocommunicatwith another, but a people alio may refufeto 9.num.$. communicat with their Paftor , which he confirmeth by certaine examples. But the publike cenfure of pofitive Excommunication (houldnotbe infli&ed without the Churches confent , fortherea- lons forfaid. Cyprian writteth to Cornelius Bifhop of Rome, that he had much laboured with the people, that peace might be given to them '. who had fallen , that is, that they might be againe received into the communion of the Church : whichif he mt-ght have done byhim- felf, why did he labour and dealefo much with tie people in that bu- iinefle ? And as they were not received into the Churches commu- nion, without the peoples confent , fo neither were they , without their confent, excommunicato*): Chryfosiome fheweth concerning his {t)ln time, thatwhen onewas to be excommunicat , the whole Church 2. Cor. was humbled in prayer to God for him , aadwhenhe was againe re- horn. 18. leafed, they did all kindly falute him, & wifh him peace, (u) Tmuttian (u) apolo- alfo writteth , that he who was to be excommunicat , in the publike get*cap $9» AfTembly of the Church , was by thecommon confent of al!,ftric~ SeeRhena- ken with judgement, and that ail theapproven andweil liked cfinus kts an» Elders , bad the preftdence or direction of the- reft, of the Church in notation the fe Matters. • • » upon that
Now from all this, which hath beenefaid of the power and au&o- place, and. arity to excommunicat and ahfolve , it is manifeft how uhjuftly M *AntM ufurping Prelats doe arrogat & appropriat to themfelves this power, E>om. de which Chrift hath committed to every particular Church or Con- Yih «"•*• gregation , and ordained to be execute by the Ecclefiafticall Con- 5-^p- !*■ uftory within the fame. Which Epiicopall ufurpation,as it hath becne n' 67* /hewed to bee moft contrary to Divine Inftitution y fo doth it alfo depart from the manner of the auncient Church: For it may be feenein (x) Cyprian, that theau&ority of reconciling and receiving (*)#£.■ 3.. into he Church , fuch.ashad fallen , was not proper to the Bifhop, ep¥* *4» butwith himcoT»mon to his Cleargie and Prefoytery , andthatjW M.16 & communication^ was. given them byithe Cleargie, as well as by the ^» 5-epift* Bsihop,We have heard out of (^)Hjmwne, that a Bifhop did nothing, 12- t which a Prefbytet did not alfo , except? only that he gave the rite or (.V )«/>(/?. ad ilgne of Ordination, that is, impotirion of hands. Whereby weun- EYagr. der.ftand, that as all otherthings, befide Ordination ?fo the power of Excommunication among thejefl: , was alike common to Bifhops and Prefbyters. Whence it is , thai the fame Hierome writing to De- ptetriades, calleth excommunication, Epifcoporum & Presbyterorwnceri- fura*. And (*) el-fe where. ^AUigatVtl folvit Epiftopw& Presbyter. Juslr- (*) $n'' ■man Novel 123, cap). 1 1 . fa 1 tH, Omnibus autem Epifcopjs &T Preibyterii in- Math , 1 £, urdlcimw figregare ali^mm a facra commmiom yantequam caufa monslrt -
mr, <$c.
1)1 Of Excommunication Part. $#'
tuTy <&c. certifying them, if they doe otherwife, that he whom they excommunicat, fhould be loofed from Excommunication a major* Sacerdote. Whence we fee, that Prefbytersalfo were wont to excom- municato & that this power was common to them with the Bifhops. The firft Councell of Carthage Can. 23 . decreeththata Bi/hophearc no mans caufe without the prefence of his Cleargie : and that other- wife h:s fenteace (hall be void , except it be confirmed by the pre- fence of his Cleargie. The Canon Law k felf hath fome veftjgies (aj Deer. 0f tne auncient order: for (a) it ordaineth, that when a Bifhop euhec fart. 2. excommunicateth or abfolveth any mar, twelve of the Cleargie be caufa, 11. prefent and concurre with him. (b) D Forbejfenovf alfoaknowlcd- £.3. c. 108. geth, thath isnotlawfull for a Bifhop toexerce the power of pub- 1 10. Lke jurifdi&ion by himfelf , and without the Prelbytery ; and un- f b)lren. ^cr t^is pOVYer 0f Iurifdi&ion whereof he fpeaketh, (c) hecompre- Ub. 2.. cap. hendeth, the Vifitation of Churches, Ordination , Suipenfion , and JVfc ' .** Oepofitionof M i in Iters , the Excommunicating of contumacious (c) Ib.pag. perfons t & tj,e Reconciling of them when they become penitent, 191. the calling of the fellow Prcfbyters to a Synod , the making of Ec (d)p.i95- clefiafticall Canons, &c. which power of Iurifdi&ion (d) laithhe, mm, if. remaineth one and the fame , whole and entire , both in the Bifhop, and in the Prelbytery, in him perfonally, in itcollegially. His con- felTion of the Prelbyteries power and au&ority , we catch & lay hold on: but whereas he would have this power any way proper and perfo- iiall to Bifhops, he is confuted by our former Arguments.
And thus farrehavewedemonftrat to Princes, who be they , to whom Chrift hath committed the power of Excommunication , that with them they may caufe it to remaine , and correct the ufur* pationof Prelats , who bereave them of it. Let us next confider, what Princes may , or fhould doe , after that the femence of any mans Excommunication, or Reconciliation, is given forth by them, to whom the power of this Difcipline pertaineth. (e) The Arch- (e)l\b.6. bifhop of Spalato is of opinion, that, not only it is free to Princes CAP. 9. to communicat with excommunicat perfons , but alfo , that if they ihall happen to communicat with them, the Church ( for the re- verence fhe oweth to Princes ) fhould ftraight abfolve them , and that her fentenceof Excommunication fhould no longer have any ftrength. What? Shall the Church draw, and put upagaine,the Spirituall Sword , at the pleafure of Princes ? Or becaufe Princes will perhaps caftholythings to Dogges: muft others doe fo like- wife ? O prodigious licentioufnefTe, and hellifhmiforder, worthy to be drowned in the lake of Letbe 1 But what then is the part of the Prince, after trm the Church hath given judgement? Surely, whenfoeverneedis,he ought bytheprivat judgement of Chriftian difcretion, to trie and examine , whether this Oifcipline be rightly execute, or not. If he find the execution thereof to be unrcprove-
ablc.
C hap. #. Of Sufpenfion and Deprivation. 1 93
able , and that yet the firmer goeth on in his contumacy) ({) then (0 Cafo. by his Civill power he ought further to punifhhioa in his per!on,or f&« Eptfo- wordly eftate, that he may either reforme or repreffe,. fuch a one as lw>CQ}- 169 hath not been terrified by the Churches cenfures. But if after trialJ, Gratian. be under ftand that the fentencc given forth isunjuft and erroneous, cauf- l '•£• either through the ignorance or the malice of the Ecclefiafticall and i'C.20. regular Iudges, then hee ought to interpone his au&ority , and caufe a due proceeding , for in fuch extraordinary cafes of the failing of Ecclefiafticall perfons, Princes may doe much in things andcau- ies Spiritual! , which ordinarily they can not.
It remaineth tofhew , who have the power of thofecenlures and punifhmenrs which are proper to Ecclefiafticall perfons, Wiere firft we are to confider, that there are two forts of faults which make Ecclefiafticall men worthy to be punifhed, viz. either fuch as vio- late facred , or fuch as violate civill and humane duties : the one is to be jud ged by Ecclefiafticall Iudges alone , and that according to the Lawes of God and the Church: the other by civill Iudges alone, and that according to the civill and municioall Lawes of the Com- mon-wealth. This latter fort againe is twofold, for either the fault is fuch , that though a man be condignely punifhed for it by theci- vill Magiftrate , yet he dothnot therefore fall from his Ecclefiafti- call office or dignity ; of which fort experience fheweth many : or elfe fuch as beeing punifhed according to their quality and demerit, a man by necelTary confequence falleth from the Ecclefiafticall fun - clion and dignity which before he had ; this was Abiathars cafe , and the cafe of io many as beeing juftly punifhed by Profcription, In- carceration or Banimment , are fecundario <& ex confequenti fhut from their bearing office in theChurch. If Abiather had finned in a facred . . matter >,tbe cognition thereof 'faith (g) Junius , had pertained to the Priefts : \g)*oW"* iut hecaufe he finned againjl the Common- wealth and the Kings Ma jetty , 4Jtlf-f'e» h was neceffary to deaU with him Chilly 5 and not EcchfiaslicaUy. What fare 20* no** °* not Ecclefiaflitall men in this time alfo thought to be lawfully judged by the Civill Magiftrate, if at any time they be foundguilty of appaireaMajejly? As for the other forts of'faults, whereby (as we havefaid) Sacred and Ec- clefiafticall duties are violate, fuch as the teaching ofFalfeand Hereticall Do&rine , neglecling of Difcipline, unbefeeming and fcandalousconverfation>&c. which things (lfthey be not amended) they who have the execution of Ecclefiafticall Iurifdi&ion com- mitted to them 5 ought to punifh by Sufpenfion > Depofition , &c. Now as when one is called to theworke of the Miniftery , his fit- nefle and qualification for that worke , mould be tried and judged by the Cleargie of the adjacent bounds aiTembled in their Claflicall Prefbitery>to whom it alfo pertain eth (after that he is by them tried and approven > and after that he is ele&ed by than Church where he 15 to ferve) to fend him out from them with power to exercife the
bbb office \
*94 OfSufpenfion Part. 5
office of a Paftor: fo when there is juft caufe of Sufpendingor De- priving him, ltbelongeth to the fame Prefbitery to conlider and judge hereof,and according to his offence to give judgement againfl him. For whofhouid recall him , but they who lent him ? Or who fhould difchargehim his Minifteriall function, except they who or- dained him to exercethe fame? And who may take the power from him, but they who gave the power unto him? That Ordination per- tainethto the whole Prefbitery, and not to the Bifhop alone, wee have (hewed before : and now by the famereafon we fay,Sufpenfion and Depofition pertaine to t'^e Prefbitery alfo , and are not in the power of the Bifhop. And that in the auncient Church , as Bifhop* gave not Ordination , fo neither did they Sufpend nor Depofe any man without the common Councell , Advice , and concurrence of the Prefbitery , yea andfometimes of a Synod , it is clenre from Cypr. lib. 1 . Epifi.9. lib. 3 . Epift. z . #* \ o. Concil. Canhag. 3 can. 8. Concil. Carthag, 4. can. 22.23. Concil. African, can zo.Oncil.Hifpal. 2 can. 6. I«- ftin NoveZ. 4.1. cap. 1. Huron comment, ad lfa. 3 . Siricius Episl. ad Ambrof. inter Ambr. epifi.So. Touching the Suipenfion and Depofition of Minifters , the A (Terribly at Glofgowe anno 16 10. ordained , that the Bifhop fhould affociate to hiailelfe the Miniftery of thefe bounds where the Delinquent ferved , that is, the Prefbitery whereof hee hath been a Member, and togither with them there take triall of the fa&, and upon juft caufe found, to Deprive or Sufpend. Which acl: was ratified in the 21 Parliament of King James an- no 161 2. NeverthelelTe , if any man thinke the fentence of the Bi- fhop and the Prefbitery given forth againft him , to be unjuft , he ought to have liberty of recourfe to the Synod, and there to bee heard , according as it was decreed by the fourth Councell ofG*r- thage Can. 66. But ofrimes the matter is of fuch difficulty or impor- (h)FftMtr. tance, that the Bifhop and thePrelbitery may not giveoutan per- Theol.lib.j emptory fentence of Sufpenfionor Deprivation , {h) till the mat- c7.p1 53- ter be brought to the Synod of the province, (J) where according (i) H00- to the auncient order the matter is to be handled , not by tbecenfureof wing en - one Bijhop , but by the judgement of the whole Cleargie gathered togither. cbir.claff. Princes therefore may not furTer Bifhops to ulurpe the pewer of 3. cap. u. Sufpending and Depriving at their pleafure , andwhenfoever they * 290.391 commit any fuch tyranny in fmiting of their fellow fcrvants , it is the part of Princes to caufe thefe things to be redreffed ,and for this end gratioufly to receive the grievances of opprefled Mini fters. fk} Can 11 The Arlansofold beeing a(Tembled in a Councell attAntioch, ' ' [k) decreed , that if any Ecclefiafticall Perfon , fhould without the advice and the letters of the Bilhops of the Province, and chiefly of (t)Hffl.Eo the Metropolitan , goe to the Emperour to put up any grievance tl.cem.^l unto him >he fhould be caft our, not onelv from the holy Commu- 2.V.48 p. rrion, but from his proper dignity, which hee had in theChurch.-
*4*. Whete"
— ^
Chap. 8. *"d deprivation. iOS
Whereupon [1) Ofianderhzth this obf rvation:Tfl# Canon alfowascom- pofed againfl holy Athanaftus: for Attanafim bee'mg expelled by the Arrims , bad fled to the Emperour Conjltntine the younger , and had from him obtained a returneto his owne Church. 'Now this Canon is Very un]u ft , which forbids that a Bifcop or any other Minifler of th* Church , beeingunjuflly oppreffed , flee to his godly Chill Magiflrate : fince it was lawfull to the Apoflle Paul to appeale to the Bgmane Emperour, wicked Nero , at the aBs of the ^Apofiles wit- nejfe. But it maybe feen in this place, that Bijhops were Very foone feekjng dominion , yea tyrannie ov er the Church ; and over their Colleags. Befi des all this, there is yet another thing which ought to have a very-prmci- pall consideration in the Depofition of a Minifter , and that is the confentof the Church and Congregation where he hathferved. Let (ntfwtf. the Ma gift rate know faith (m) Gerard, that as the vocation of Minifters thiol, torn, pertaineth to the whole Church , fo to the fame alfopertaineth the removing 0/6^.838. Minifers , therefore as a Minifler ought not to be obtruded upon a unwilling Church, fo the Hearers beeing unwilling and ftriving aga'inft it, a fit Minijier aught not to be plucked away from them. The Depofing of a Mmiiter (nj decaf. whom the Church loves and willingly heares , (n) Balduin accoun- con/c.l.4. tcth to be high Sacnledge,and holdethjthat as the calling, fo the dif- cap. 5 . caf. miffing of Minifters pertaineth to the whole Church. And fo teach- i*- eth [0) lunitH. Shortly, as a man is rightly called to the minifteriall (°) Ewfc- office and dignity , when he is elected by the Church, andjordained./^ «kj« by the Pr^fbitery ,fo is,he rightly depofed and put from the fame, caP' 3- when he is rejededbythe Church,anddifcharged by the Prefbitery. Now there was brought forth in Scotland , anno 1610. a certaine Amphibian brood, fprung out of the ftem ofNeronian tyranny, and in manners like to his neareft Kinfman the Spanifh Inquifition. It is armed with a tranfeendent power, and called by the dreadfull name of the HIGH COMMISSION. Amongother things , it arrogateth to it felfe,the power of Depofing Minifters. But how un- juftly ,thus it appcarcth.
1. IfthofeCommiflioners have any power at all to depofe Mi- nifters,they have it from the King whole Commiffioners they are. But from him they have it not. Therefore they have none at all. Thepropofition is moft certaine :for they fit not in thatCommif- flon to judge in their owne name, nor by their owne audority (quum nihil exerceat delegatus nomine proprio , as^/>) P anormitan huh, ) (p)apud but by vertue onely otihe Com million and Delegation which they Forb. Iren have of the King. Yea, Bifhops themfelves exerce not any Iurif- lib. 1. cap. didionin the High Commiffionas Bifhops, but onely as the Kings u.ji.177. Commiffioners, as(Y) D. Do#w*w aknowledgeth. The AiTumption(q)Df/w/- is grounded upon his reafon : The King hath not power to depofe lib. 1 . p.$. Minifters. Ergo he can not give this power to others. For (r) Nc-(r)Bonifac. mo pot eft plus juris trans ferre in alium quam fibi competere dignofcatur. The 8. de regul. King may iometimes inflid fuch a civill pumfhment upon Mini- lurisreg.
b b b z iters, 79.
196 OfSufpenpon Part. 5^ I
fters, whereupon fecondarily and accidentally will follow their fa!- I ling away from their Ecclefiafticall office, and fundion, (in which fence it is iaid tihat Solomon depokdAbiatkar, as we heard before, ) but ro depofethcm diredly and formally 1 which the High Com- miflion ufurpeth to doe) he hath no pov\ er,and that becaufe this de- pofirion is an ad of Ecclefiafticall jurifdidion : Whereas the power of Ecclefiafticall jurifdidion doth no more agree to the King , then (s) of the the power of Ecclefiafticall order: his power is Civill cc Temporall, , Church. lib. notSpirituall & Ecclefiafticall. (j)D.F*f/Jalfo confeiTeth.that none 5 .cap. 53. may judicially degrade or put any one lawfully admitted, from his- p.6Sz. degree and order , but the Spirituall Guides of the Church alone.
2. The depofing ofMinifters pertaineth to Claflicall Prefbire- ries j or (if the matter be doubtfull and difficille) to Synods , as hath been (hewed. And who then can give the High Commiflion fuch. audoriry as to take this power from them > and to afTume it unto it felfe. Thcfe Com miflioners profeiTe , that they have au&ority to difcharge other Ecclefiafticall Judicatories within the Kingdome from meddling with the judging of any thing which they fhall thinke impertinent for them, and which they fhall thinke good to judge cc decide by themfelves in their Co million. Which if it be fo, then (when itpleafeth them) they may make other Ecclefiafticall Judicatories to bealtogether ufeleffeand of no effed in the Church.
3. In this Commiflion , Ecckfiafticall an<l Temporall. men are joyned togither , and both armed with the fame power. Therefore it is not right nor regular * nor in any wife allowable. For even as when a Minifter hath offended in a Civill matter , his fault is to bee judged by Civill ludges according to the Civill Lawes , and by no other : fo when he ofTendeth in an Ecclefiafticall matter , his fault is ' to be judged onely by Ecclefiafticall pcrfons according to Eccle-
%t) >?oVeff. ii aft i call Lawes; and in fuch a cafe (*) lumnian forbiddeth Civill •ijicap.i. men to bee joyned with Ecclefiafticall men in judgement. They are Ecclefiafticall things or caufes which are handled and exami- ned .by the High Commiflion in the procefTe of depofing Mini- fters: and a fhame it is to Ecclefiafticall men, if they can withoutthe help and ioyning of Temporall men > judge and decide things of this quality.
4. As in the matters to be judged , fo in the cenfures and pn- nifhmenrs to be inflided , Ecclefiafticall and Civill men have in this Commiflion alike power and audority : for Ecclefiafticall men therein have power of Fining? Confining , Warding &c. common to them with the Temporal men : and againe , the Temporall men have power of Excommunication 5 Sufpenfionr Deprivation , &c. •common to them with the Ecclefiafticail men. For they all fie there as the Kings Commiflroners , and eonomme theyexerce this Imisdi dion ; which Comroi&on beeing auke difcharged by them
all,,
Chap. 9. Of the LaVtef Nautili lyy
all , it is manifeft that both Temporall men take hold of the keyes* and EccleGafticall men take hold of the Civill fvvord. And this monftruous oonfufionand mixetuie, giveth fufficient demonftra- tion that fucha forme of Iudgement is not from the God of order. Of the abufes and inregularities of the High CommifHon, wee may not now fpeake at greater length, but are hafted to make for e- ward.
CHAP. IX.
That the laVefuUne/fe of the Ceremonies 9 can not h warranted by the LaV? of Nature. -
Hat our Oppofites have alledged for the Ceremonies r ei- ther from the Law of God , or the Law of man , we have Seel. I. f$§Q hitherto an(wered. But we heard (m) the Law of Nature alfo aUedgedfor Holy dayes,-ind for kneeling at the Communion. And (u) fupra when (x) Hoofer goeth about to commend and defend fu ch vifible cap. 6.f. & fignes, which beingu fed in performance of bolyatlionSy are undoubtedly mo ft (x) Ecch tffe&uall to open fuch matter , as men when they know and remember carefully , pol. lib. 4. Tnuff needs be a great deale the better informed to what ejfetlfuch duties ferv e: /*. 1 * He (ubjoynein . We musl not thinke , but that there fome ground of rea* Jon even in Nature y <$c. This is a fmoake to- blind the eyes of the unlearned. Our Oppofi:es have taken no paines nor travell to make us fee any deduction of thofe Ceremonies, from the Law of Na- ture : We defire proofs , not wordsr In the meane while , for gi- ving further evidence to the Trueth ,. we will exprefle our owne minde? touching things warranted by the Law of Nature.
And firft we mu ft underftand aright , what is meant by the Law of "Nature. Towit, that Law (y) which God writteth and imprinteth Se&.'IL in the Nature of man, fo that it is as it were connaturali and borne togither with man* Now if wee confidcr, what Law was written in (v) Zanch.. the nature of man in his firft creation, it was no (*) other then the /;£. 1 de Decalogue or the Morall Law. But the Law which we are here to UgeDek enquire of, is that Law, which after the Fall,. God ftili writteth in tbef.S. the heart of every man: which (we all knowj commeth farreftiort, coK 190. & wantethmuch of that which was written in the heart of man before {z)A. PoV* his fall. That we may underftand , what this Law of Nature is, fmt. 1&.6. which is written in all mens hearts , fince the Fall , we muft diffcin- cap. 9. coL guifh jus natural e from jus Divinum naturale. For that Law which is ^.9.D:?au^ iimply called jus naturale is innatumy and layeth before the minds of explic. ca- anenj.thatwayj-wherein^by the guidance and conduct of nature, tech. part.
3.4.91. /?*£. 503. (z)Jr. JMn.de. pol, Mof. bbb 1 they
i ? 5 Of the Law of Namri. Patt. 5 1
they may be leddc to that good , which is in the end proportional to nature. Whereas Iw Divinum is infpiratum , & layeth before us ano-
(?]ldib\d. ther way, w - erein [b\ by a fupernaturall guidance, we may beJedJe to a fupern;.turall good, which is an end exceeding the proportion of nature. As for mat pare of the La m of God , which is called I/* dh'inumnaturah, it is foca led in oppofitionto jut divinum pofitivum*
Seel. III. Ins naturalc(hhh [c) luslitian,) eft quod natura omnia animalt a doeuit.
(c) Inflit. This the Lawyers take to be the Law of Nature, which Nature by lil. 1 .*#.»• its foie inftincl:, teacheth as well to other living creatures, as to men,
for Nature teacheth all living creatures , to fave and pref rve their o ne being, to decline hings hurt full, to feeke things nccelTary for their life, to procreat their like , to care for that which is procreated
(d) derep. by them , &c. (d] The Arch Bifhop of Spalato liketh to fpeake with Ecd lib. 6. the Lawyers , lus naturale faith he fimpliciter ponitur m omnibus animali - cap. 2. but. Videntur autem lairh [e] loachinus Mwfingtrus ) Jurifconfulti , Valde n . 35. in hoc abuti Vocabulo luris, cum exemplaprxdidafint potius ajfetius & incli- {e)Scbol. in nationes naturales, quce cum quibufque animantibus enafcuntur: quas Philofophi Jnflh.lib.i. gtpycU <pvQ)Cclg appellant, Inbruth mm cum nulla Jit ratio , igiturnec tit. 1. ullum jus ejfe pot eft.
(f i«, if. . ^j Aquinas alio fheweth,that beafts are not properly governed by
2 91 ^,2"the Law of Nature, becaufe Lex is aliquid ration**. Wherefore they
erre, who would make the Law of Nature to differ in kynd, from
lus gentium, which naturall reafon hath taught to all Nations. For
(0) uhi fu- this Law of Nations per fe fpeciem non facit , as faith [g) Mynfingerus. pra. ^ And the Law of Nature is aifo by the Heathen Writters, often cal*
(h) am- led lus gentium, *s(6] Rofinus noteth. If any will needs "have the Law of quit.Rom. Nature di (tin guifhed from the Law of Nations, let them either take lib. 8, [i) ^Aquinas his diftin&ion, who maketh the Law of Nature to con-
cap. 1 . taine cerraine principles , having the fame place in pra&icall reafon,
(1) ubi fu- which the principles of fcientifike demonftrations have in fpecu- fra. q. 95. lative reafon: & the Law of Nations to containecertane conclu- de. 4« (Ions drawen from the faid principles. Or o:herwife embrace the (k)Schol. difference which is put betwixt thole lawes by (k) Mattheus Wefenbt* ininfiit.lib. cius. Qu^befti^naturali conch atione ; ea (faith he) homines exeodemfen* 1. tit. 2. fu acajfeftione, cum moderation^ tamer, rationn Ji faciant \ jure nc.turai fa-,
ciunt. Qtue brut a non faciunt . fed foU raiione homhm propria , nonaffec - tione communis natural } omnes homines faciunt,ficrique opporterebuelligunt, hoc fit jure gentium. Se£l. IV. For my pare , I take the Law of Nature , and the Law of Na- {\)Rofin. tions, to be one and the fame. For what is the Law of Nations , but ubi fupra. that which Natures light & reafon hath taught to all Nations ? now Synopf pur. this is no other, then the Law of Nature. We thinke therefore, they theol difp. have well faid, [I) who comprehend under the Law of Naturcboth iS.thef. the common principles of good and evil 1, vertueand vice, right ?6.TiLfynt. part. 1, difp. 35. thef 16. Jun.dcpolMof.cap.i.
and
Chap. 9 .' Of the LaVv of Niture. 199
and wrong , things befeeming and things not befeemingj and like- wilethe generallconclufions which by nccefTiry conlequences are drawcn from the faid principles. To come to the particulars , there are three (bns of things which the Law of Nature requireth of man, asbodi(w) Schoolmen, and (w) Mo'derne Dodors have rightly {vajfAjtem, taught. The firft, it reqmreth as he is Ens; The fecond , as he is Am- ubifupra q. m*l. And the third, as he is Homo ratlone praittm, Firft, as he is Ens , 94* 4t) z* theLaw'of Nature reqiireth him to feeke the confervation of his (n)Z^ncb. owae being, and to fhunne or repellfuch things as may deftroy the ubi fupra. fame. For lb hath Nature framed, not only all living creaturs , but Co^ 1^^ other things alio which are without life , that they feeke their owne ' 89. !«»• confervation, and flee (if they can) from appcarant deftrudion. Let u^ )up™> us take one example out of fubtile (0) Scaliger, which is this. If a fmall Sharp, curfe quantity of oyle, be poured upon a found boord, let a burning coale tbeoldehge be put 1:1 the midft of it , and the oyle will quickly flee back from ^ %'z??* its enemy , and feeke the confer vat ion of it felf. This is therfore the (°)»* /«*-. firft precept of the Law of Nature, that man feeke his ownecon- tl^ eXerc* fervation, and avoydehis owne deftrudion. Whereupon this con- ^>dtH. 8» clufion neceffarily followeth , that he may repell violence with vio- lence. Secondly , as man is a living ceature , the Law of Nature teacbechhim to propagate and to conferve his kynd. Whereupon thjfe conclusions doe followe * Vi%. the com mixtion of Male & Fe- male, the procreation of Children , the educating of them , and pro vy ding for them. This Nature hath taught to man , as a thing common to him withother living creatures.
Thirdly, as man is a creature endued with reafom the Law of Na- Seel:. V. tureteacheth him, 1. Something concerning God. 2. Something concerning his Nighbour. 3. Something concerning himfelfe. I meane fome generall notions concerning good and evill, in refped of Each of thefe. Whereof the Apoftle meaneth, whiles {p) he faith, (p)Rtom. x, that the Gentiles jhewe the works of the Law written in their hearts . Firft l *» then, the Law of Nature teacheth man, to know that there is a God, and that this God is to be worfhiped. Whereupon it followeth , that man mould feeke to know God , and the manner of his worfhip. Now that which may be knowen of God , is dieted even unto the Gentiles, (q) The Apoftle faith fignanter. ?} yi>c*)$w sj fax ^(q)Rora. r» meaning thofe few and fmall fparkles of the knowledge of God, which natures imbredde light discovered unto the Gentiles , for ma- king them inexcufable , namely, that there is a eternalf power and Godhead, whichmen ought to reverence and toworfhip. 2. The Law of Nature teacheth man to hold faft friendfhip and amiti with his Nighbours, forasmuch as he is ^Animal fodale. Viol are alter um , a $£ , faith (r) Cicero .nature lege prohihemur. For the Law of Nature biddeth 0ffc' us (*) doe to others as we wold have them to doe unto us. A nd from $ mc, &
thefe 21.
£03 Of the LaVv of Nature! Part. 3 J
thefe precepts it followeth , that we fhould not offend other men, that we fhould keeppromifes , (land to bargains, give toevery man his owne, &c. 3. As touching a mans felfe, the Law of Nature teach- eth him, that he fhouid not live as a reafonleffe creature , but that all his actions fhould befuch, as may be congrous and befeeming for a creature endued with reafon. Wherupon it followeth, that he mould live honeftly and vertuoufly.that he mould obferve order & decca- (tJt.Cor.xi. cy in all his adions, 6c;. Hence [t) the Apoftle faith , thatnature" it fclf teacheth, that it is a fhame for a man to have long haire , be- ( ) Far Cau^e lt ls repugnant to that decency and comelineffe which the Law c i 7- °^ ^arure re-quireth. For (») among other differences which Na- Sum locum turenatn Put betwixt men and women, this is one,that it hath given to womenthicker and longer haire, then to men, that it might be as a vaile toadorne and cover them. The reafon whereof , Nature hath hid in the complexion of a woman , which is more humidc then the complexion of a man. So that if a man fhould take him to this womanifh ornament , hee fhould but againft Nature trans- forme him felf (in fofarre) into a woman. Sect. VI. Thefe things beingpremittedjl will addefoure reafons to prove, that neither facred fignificant Ceremonies in gcnerall , nor Knee, ling, Holy dayes , &c. in particular) can be warranted unto us by the Law of Nature. 1. The Law of Nature can not direct us unto {x)Iun. de -a fupernaturallend,asisaknowledgednot only by (*) our Divines, pol. Mof. but by (y) ^Aquino* alfo. It only teacheth us , to feeke and to doe cap. 1 . Par. (^) bonum, Velut finem nature, f uch a good as is a end proportioned to com. in Nature. AH thole precepts of the Law of Nature which we have Rom. 1 . fpoken of, could never lead men to a fupernaturall good, (a) Ic is 19* only the Divine Law, revealed from God, which informeththe
fy) i#. 2*. minds of men, with fuch notions, as are fupra naturam , and which tf 91.art.4-' may guide them ad finem fupernaturalem. But all facred fignificanc (z) lun. ubi Ceremonies , which by their holy and fpirituall fignifications , ex- fupra. preffetous fomemifteriesof grace, and of the Kingdomeof God; (a)Jtfw. muft be thought, to direel: us unto a fupernaturall good; Therefore ibid. they are not of that fort of things, which the Law of Nature requi-
red!. For this Law goeth no higher , then to teach men that there is a God, and that this God is to be worfhipped , the knowledge of which things is not a goodexceeding the proportion of Nature. For it was found in the Gentiles themfeives, who knew no other good (b) defub- then that which was proportioned to Nature. Let me now conclude iil. exerc. tnjs reafon with (b) Scaligers vvords. Neque enim qu<e fupra natura leges 77. diH 2. j-unp^ ex nature legibus judicanda cenfeo.
Se&.VII. 2. As the Ceremonies by their facred fpirituall and mifticall fig- nifications, direel: us unto a fupernaturall good, fo they are thought to guide us unto the fame, by 4 fpirituall and fupernaturall way,
which
1
Chap. 0. Of the taw of Nature. 101
which natures light could never difcover unto men. But in the Law of Nature, is wcared-rected untonooth^r good then flich as is pro- portioned to nature, fo are we guided unto ihe fame, (c) Natura ducey fc} j^n ufi that is to fay, by fuch common notions, as God hath imprinted in the fopra, Nature of all men. Now I fuppofe our Oppofites will not unwil- lingly reckon their facred fignificant Ceremonies , among thofe things of the Spirit of God,(d) which a natural! man cannot receive, (d) i.Cor.r,. becaufe -they are fpiritually drfcerned. What then have they to doe J-** yvith the Law of Nature ? If it be fatd>.thatthey neceffcrilv follow upon thofe firft principles & conclufions , which a natural! man rc- ceiveth; I anfwere, this fhall neverbe proven. They will fay perhaps, that nature teacheth us to ufecertaine rites in the worfhip of God, to obfervefet times for his worfhip , alfotokneele downe in reve- rence of God whom we worfhip. *Anf. Be it fo: but how make they up a neceffary connexion betwixt certaine Rites , & fignificant Ce- remonies of human inftitution?betwixt fet timcs>& fome moedayes then one of feaven: betwixt kneeling in the worfhip ofGod ingene- rU and kneeling at the Sacrament infpecie ; unlerTe they fay , that Na- ture requireth us to kneel in every acl: of worfhip, and never to worfhip God, without kneeling on our knees.
3. lmnatura is ubiqtte idem , as (e) Rofinm : It is approven commur.i Seel. VII I vmnium gentium judicio atqueaffenfu , as (fy the ProfefTors of Leiden •- (e) uhi fn* It is one &thefame among all Nations, in refped of the principles pra. of it, as (g) Aquina and (/;) Zanchw : The Law of Nature fixa eft cor. (t)difp; \§* dibm noflrti, as [i) Stella. Yea it is fo written in our hearts , that iniquity it thef 16. felfcan not blot it outyas{\)Auguflinehid\ And we learne from the (/) A- (g) ia. 2^. poftle, that the Law of Nature is manifeftin the Gentiles, for God ^,94.4^.4^. kath fhewed it unto them. Ergo non ignorant faith(w)P4ratf.\Vha foever (h) uhifa- then the JLaw of Nature requireth, it doth clearly and neceiTarily pra thef. $* follow upon thofe principles which are written in every mans con*- (i) in fcience, unleffe we fet up new Divinity, and either fay that the prin- Luc. 6\ ciples ofthc Law of Nature are notwritten in every mans confcience, 11, or elfe that they may be at fome time abolifhed and razed out of the (k) lib. tl confcicnccs of men , which were to leave men without a witnefle. confejfc.4. Nay, faith {») AuguKine , the Heaven and the Earth and all that is in 0) Rom. 1^ them, on every fide ceafe not to bid all men love God, thatthey may . J9- be made inexcufable. Now if all the principles of th« Law of Na- 1^ c?m m turc.be firmly and clearly written in every mans confcience, andean^ U7n oam* Jiot but be knowen to every man who hath the ufe of naturall jud- vnjf V 10, geme-nt & rcafon^it followeth, that they who will prove or warrant conM • any thing by the Law of Nature, muft only take their premi fifes ca*' ' from evey mansconfcier.ee, & fay as (0) the Apoftle faith, ludgein (o)r Cor.ij^ ■your felves , &c doth not even Nature it f elf teach ycu ? C<\ As if the l$' x4» A poftle faid,This principle of Nature is fixed in all your hearts, that men fhouldarTe£t honeftie and comelinefife. Goeto3 reafon in your felves from the Judgment of Nature whether it follow nor upon this
ccc prm*-
to i Of the Law of Nature P a r t. 5
principle, that a man fhould notwearc longhaire , fcrasmuchas his wearing of long haire, is repugnant to the principle of nature. com. in Committitiplh judicium faith [f] Parens : hfos testes , imo judkes appellar. i'llimlocum. So [hit if the Ceremonies be warranted unto us by the Law or Na- ture-, thejudg: ment mu-ft be committed to every mans confeience, & f o fhould every man be convinced in himfelf, by l*uch a principle of Nature, from which the Ceremonies have a necelTary and mani- teit deduction. Yet we atteft the (earchec of all hearts , that we have never beene convinced in our felves, by fuch a principle of Nature, - . Y no not after diligent fearch and enquiry.
b^ct. I A. 4#Let our Oppofites fay to us, once for all, upon what precept of re Law of Nature doe they ground the Ceremonies ? forlhavebe- fore opened up.all forts of things which the Law of Nature requireth of man as he is Ew, ck as he is !^«iw4/,belongeth notto our purpofe. As for that which it requireth of him , as he is a creature endued with realonj there is one par: of it that concerned our (elves; Vi%. that we ftiouldlive honcft\y,i\ fecwidummodum ration?* ,ihn we fhould obierve order 5c decency in all out actions. This order and decency, doe not Ce/ped our holy duties to Godwardmor comprehend any (acred Ce- remony in hisworfhip: but they lookcto us ward,8c are referred only to fuch befeeming qualities , as are congrous & convenient to a rea- dable Nature in all its aclions. Yea even generally we may fay with (q)defuhtil. (q)Scaliger Ordinem dico fine quo natura conftare non pot est. Nihil enimabfqut extrc. 2. ordineVelweditata est Vel effecitilla. Another part of that which Nature requireth of man, as he is a creature endued with reafon, concerneth (as we fhevved)our Nighbours,whom it teacheth us,not to harme nor offend, Sec. And if our Oppofites wold reckon with us here, their Ce- remonies will appeare repugnant to Nature.becaufe of the detriment e\: affencc which they offer unto us .whereof we have fpoken in our ArgumcnrofScandall.ButtherewasathirdpartconcerningGod6c his wori"hip:& here rouft our Oppofites feeke a warrant for the Cere- monies. Now albeit Nature (as was faidheach all men.t hat there is a ccernall & mighty God , who fhould be worshipped 5c honoured by them. Yet it defcendeth not unto fuch particular precepts, as can have lu 2. any fnew of making ought for fignificant Ceremonies Omnibus enimin- di ruts, natum ejl ©* in animo quaji infculptum}ejfe decs:bui yet quale; fins faith [r)Ct* Dcor. ctr ovarium efl. And as Nature hath not taught men to know the Na-
{%) Jun uli aire cv the attributs of the Godhcad,toguher with the facred Trinity fiifr+m of per ions in the fame: fo neither hath ittaught,what fort or manner ofworQiip fhould be given unto God (s)Lej natural* rerum communium e/r, oc doth only informe us with thofe common notions called vgivcq ctvoicq. Concerning the woifhip ofGod\it, fpeakes onlv de gauretnotd?fpccU. Wherefore there can be no inference from that worfhip which the Law of Nature require h, either of any diftird kynd ofwodhip , or of any Ceremony in that kynd. No mor. then it followcth. Si eft animal, en ^Afinm: for agenere ad finder* non Valet equmfia aff.rmmdo, THE
Faultes efcaped in Pait,
Lin. Faultes
ConcBions
|
~ i s f hund |
fhould |
||
|
74 7% 77 |
1 1 1 |
Ar amotion} Sacrafiaorwr* lelf |
SacrtficiGrum left |
|
16 |
not |
then |
|
|
7* |
\6 |
ofifo.fafting |
of falling |
|
79 8l |
14 41 |
more SamentA |
motl Sacrament* |
|
at Mar^ {d) ^2 |
29 |
cap* num. 48. formalices |
cap. ^num^g. Formalizes |
|
83 8) |
28 41 |
& familiarly |
familiarity |
|
86 |
15 |
refpect |
refpetted \ |
|
87 |
24 31 |
Superior repliech |
Supprior j refoyndeth |
|
90 91 |
26 |
courtefia. |
courteous |
|
5 |
it the |
it hath for it the |
|
|
93 at Marg. (x) |
pag. 1 4* |
pag. in- |
|
|
95 |
12 |
indecently |
decently |
|
3 5 |
commended |
commanded |
|
|
96] |
18 |
Goalar |
jaylor |
|
at Marg. (c) , |
cap. 7- 6> 7* |
cap. 7* $• 7. |
|
|
97 |
1 |
Technics |
7*)(ViR«S |
|
9g |
37 |
1 7- 28. |
27. 28. |
|
99 |
16 |
for me |
for, ME |
|
VI |
for we |
for , W E |
|
|
100 |
16 |
Vagn'tme |
Tagnme |
|
I- |
JufcepoTWtt infoUmnm |
[vfcepermt in folennem* |
|
|
10} |
34 |
convenientum |
convenientium |
|
1 04 in Marg« |
Seel. 11. |
Se&. 12. |
|
|
114 |
44 |
iogiHM |
LegiBat |
|
n?atMarg.(_)f) |
f.3z. |
S-3*. |
|
|
[x 16 at Marg. (6) |
<fnee).pag,2. |
kneel, pag. $a» |
|
|
119 |
z 1 |
place not |
place could not left to |
|
16 |
left f he |
||
|
( at Marg. (r) |
lib. 2. |
lib. 3. |
|
|
ri 10 |
15 |
without |
with |
|
13* |
13 |
fapore |
faptrt |
|
h« 5 |
him |
1 them |
Tk Christian reader will correft the ttH,
The fourth part
<iAgainft the Indifferency of the Ceremonies.
CHAP* I.
Of our Oppofites pleading for the Indifferency of the Ceremonies.
F it feemeto any , that it is a Grange Methode to fpeakenowof lndifferency3in theend of this Dis- pute , which ought rather to have been handled in •i| the beginning of it: they may confider,that the Me- thode is not ours, but our Oppofites. For they have been fleeinguponlcrfw wings, and (baring fo high that their wings could not but melt from them : fo have they from neceflity fallen downe to expediency jfrom it to Iaw- fulneffe ; and from thence to indifferency.
I knewcertaineofthem, who after reafoning about the Ceremo- nies , with fome of our fide , required in the end no more > but that they would onely aknowledge the indifferency of the things in them- Llves. And lb beeing wo'ed & folicitoufly importuned by our for- mer Arguments againft the Ceremonies , they take them to the weaving of Penelopes web, thereby to fufpend us , and to gaine time agatnit us : this indifferency I meane , which they (hall never make out , and which themfelves otherwhiles unweave againe. Alwayes, fo long as theythinke to get any place for higher notions about the Ceremonies , they fpeake not fo meanly of them , as of things in- different. But when all their forces of Arguments, and anfwcrs are fpent in vaine : then are our cares filled with uncouth outcries and declamations, which tend to make themfelves appeare blameleffe for receiving, and us blameworthy for refufing matters of Rice and indifferency.
Vpon this firing they harpe over and over again •> in Bookes , in
Aaaa Sermons,
2 Of the nature of Indifferent}. Part. 4.
Sermons , in private difcourfes. M G. Poivell, in hisbooke DeAdia- fborX) andT//t'»,in the 12 and 17 Chapters of his Prfrawf/w, condemne thole who make ought adoe about the controverted En&iifh Cere- monies , for fo much as they are things indifferent. Paybody in his Apology for kneeling at the Communion , ftandeih much upon the indiifereucy of this gefture , both in every worlhip of God, and in that Sacrament namely. The ArchBi{hopof$4/w&Jwrfra0« in his Sermon at Perth AiTembly , becaufe he could not prove this indif- fcrency 5 he choofed to fuppone it. Of the indifferency of thefe Articles (faith he) I thinly there is title or no queftion among'fi tts. VV hether he fpa ke this of Ignorance or of Policy, I leave it to bee guefled at. Howlo- ever,if we fhould thus compote our controverfy about the Ceremo- nies; embrace them and pra&ifethem , to beeing that they be onely (a)^Wca^ things indifferent: this were to cure our Church 5 as L.Sulla Itb. 5 cab!' cured his Country durioribwremedw, quampericula cram faith, (a) Sens- 16. ca* Wherefore we will debate this queftion of Indifferency alio.
CHAP. II.
Of the nature of things Indifferent.
Sec"t. I. fil^iil Ofay nothing here of the Homonomy ofthe word Jndijferet, Bj|S| but to take it in that fignification, which concerneth our pre - IdiSSbJ fentpurpofe ; ft figmfieth fuch a mean betwixt good and evill, in humane a&ions.as is alike diftant from both thefe extreams, and yet iufceptive of either of them. Indifferent faith Calepine, is that
(b) 1.2* q.quod fuanaturanequebonum est neque malum, (b) Aquinas caWtih that an lS.art. 9. indifferent action, which is neitner good nor evill. J{em indifferent em
(c) Bald. dey0coqu<e neque bona neque mala in feesl, faith (c) a later Writer. caf.confclib. But (d) D. JF 'orb effe like tn to ipeake in another language. He will z.cap.cf.cxf. have that which is indifferent, to be opponedtothat which is necef-
9- fary : and a thing indifferent he taketh to be fuch a thing , as is nei-
(d) hen. hb. ther neceffirily to be donc5 nor yet neceffanly to be omitted, in re- 1 . cab, 13. fpe& of any necedity of the commandemenr of God:cr fuchaihing 4-7" r.s is neither remunerable with eternall life , & commendeth a man
unto the reward of God , nor yet is punifr able with eternall death,
and poiluteth a man with guilnneiTe. Now becaufe he knew? that
Divines define a thing indifferent to be tbat which is neither good
(<)/£/W.§. norevill. (e) He therefore diftinguifheth a twofold ooodneffeofan
10- individual action. The onehe calleth £<wir<# generally concomitant , & fine quanon. By which goodneffe is meant the doing of an action
in
Chap.i. Of the nature of Indiffercnef. 3
in Fairh , and the doing of it for the right end, as hee expoundcth himfelfe. This goodneffe , hee faith , is neceffary to every humane adion . and hindreth not an adion to be indifferent. The other he calleth bonitas fpecialis, caufans t& propter qttam. This goodneffe hee cal ethlegall, and (kith, that itmakcthan adion neceffary. In which refped indifferent actions are not good , but thofe onely which God in his Law hath commanded , and which are remunerate with eter- nail life.
But that we may have the vanity of thefe quiddities difcoveredto Sect. II, us , let us onely confider how falfly he fuppofeth , that there are fome things which we doe, neither laudably nor culpably , and for which we fliall neither bee rewarded (it is his owne phrafe which I life) noryetpunifhedby God. 1 thought we had learned from Scri. pture, that we muft all compeare before the judgment feat of Chrift, to give an account of every word which we fpeakc? and of every deed which we doe in the flefh , and accordingly to receive either a reward or a punifhment. What? could the D. fay that thofe good actions which he calleth indifferent , and of which he faith, that they aredone in Faith ,and for the right end are not laudable nor re- . - '_ munerable ? Nay, but he (/) faith, that thegenerall goodneffe which ^ i)ubtIti' accompanieth the action , is remunerable , becaufe it is neceffary ; *r"' but the action it felfeis not neceffary, becaufe that generall good- neffe may be had as well in the omiffion of it, or in the doing of the contrary , as in the doing of it. Whereupon he would have ic to follow, that the action it ielfe is not remunerable.
Anf.i. The D. had done well to have remembred, that he is fpea- king onely of individual! actions , and that aBw individuatur a cir- cumflantifi O'adjeBo modo : fo that whiles all that he faith , turneth to this , that one adion confidered in it felfe , without the circumftan- ces and concomitant goodneffe, is not remunerable, he maketh not out his point -.for he faith no more in effed, but that aftttiquoad fpe- ciem 3 is not remunerable 3 which none of us denieth.
2 . An individual! good adion of that kind , which the D. calleth neceffary , is no otherwife remunerable and laudable , then an indi- viduall good adion of that kinde which he calleth indiffetent , for example; when I goetoheareGods Word upon the Lords- day; let this adion of mine be confidered quo ad mdhiduum : is it any o* therwiferemunerable.then in refped or the goodneffe which accom- panieth it ? whence it is , that the hearing of Hypocrites , not beeing accompanied with fuch goodneffe, is no: remunerable: yet the hea- ring of the Word is an action neceffary, becaufe commanded. Now may we know wherein fiandeth the difference betwixt the remune- rate good of this adion of hearing, and t':e remunerable good of
A a a a 1 one
4 Of thetJa'tife of Indifercncy. Pare. 4,
one bhhofe actions which the D.calleth indifferent; for example ,
a wonians action of marrying ?
( \ hi ftt- * Perceave vs hat the D. would anfwer. For he (g) faith 5 if a wo-
t -6 i "» mrm m?,rry *n * c Lord, ihis action is good refpeblu adjiB'i modi, quam -
< ' Vis in fe fit media & libera > etiam quo ad individuum. Implying , that if
*kQ'4*(l>o onthe otherpirt an individual! action be neceffary, ( as forexam-
uidefll de P*e ^ie a&i°n of hearing the Wordjthen it is in it felfe good , etiam
auohbet in- <T10 ^Mbnduum,
i idmson- ^uc * reP^ ' wnat meancs ^e by thefe words, mfe? meanes he the vntsUbfto individual! nature of the action ? Nay ; then the iencc fhall bee no 'ion to- other then this , quo ad mdividuurn > etiam quo ad mdividuurn. A nd be- tit 'q'uiddi- ^QS the D. can noc define to us , any omer nature in a individuail utemejtts thing, then the nature of the fpecies or kinde. finndanm "^ Is it not holden mdividuurn nonpojfe definiri>nifi d<finitione fpeciei* fed commu- Sure, a perfect definition expreiTingthe nature or the ti.ing defined, nemtot'iL can not be given to any in dividual! thing , ochcr then the definition faciei faith °f dta Species. Needs therefore muft the D. by in fe, underftand the p Tonkc* fpeci fi call nature : and indeed when Divines fpeake of things indif- com*inMe-fezentinfe'Per fe> orJua MtUM ; they meane onely things indiffe- V .-» rent quo ad fpeciem. Yet thus a f 0 the D. hath laid none fence. For fo hi 7. cap 1 \ fhould we take his words , quamVis quo ad fpeciem fit media & libera , qrufl. unic. etkm 4U0 ad ™d»iduw- feEi ?
Sect. Ill But to *et ^ls manner °f ^*Peaking pafle , we will confider what 'hewouldor could have faid. There is no difference which can here be imagined , except this -.that the individuail action of hearing the Word , (when one heareth aright) is good and remunerable, in a double refpect, namely, becaufe it is both good in it felf , or quo ad fpeciem , and likewile refpt&u adjeBi modi : whereas a wotnans action of marrying (whe:i fhe marrietn in the Lord) is onely good and re- munerable in the laft refpect, namely, refpeEiumodi>(ori infe-, or.gwo ad fpeciem \ it hath no remunerable goodnefie in ir.
Anf. What doe we heare of any difference betwixt thefe actions quo ad fpeciem ? That which we crave , is , that a difference may be ihewed betwixt the remunerable goodneffe of the one , and of the other , both beeing conudered quo ad individuum.
That whereby the D. eith-.r was deceived , or would deceive , ap- peareth to be this ; that he taketh every thing which agreefh ro a in- dividuail thing , to agree to it quo ad individuum : as if ro forake of Peter quatemts eft homo \ and to fpeake of him quatenw cslindiviiuum fig* natum, or , res fingularis fub fpecie bo?nimi , were all one thing. Even to, to fay of my individuail aciion of hearing the Word , that iris ne- ceffary becaufc of thecommandementof Go 1 , ( and in that refpect remunerable-Jis not to fpeake of it quo ad individuum, but as the I e- cificall nature of that aciion of hearing the Word,) which God
hath
1
Chap. i. Of the name of Indifferency . j
hath commanded^ is found in ic- For if we fpeakc of this indivi- dual! a&ioo , quo ad individuum , we can not contider it oiherwife then refpeBu adjeEiimodi : bccaule in morall anions , modus adjeBus is princr- pium individuationts , and nothing elic , doth individualize a morall action.
Thusfhall my Pofirion flandgood, namely , that thofe individual! Seel. IV. a&ions which tt eD. calleth ncceffaiy, becaufe their fpecies h com- manded of God, and thofe individual adionswl ichhecalleth indif- ferent becanfe il cir fpecies is not commanded , both being confide- xedquoad in\nduum\ the fotmer hath no other remunerable good in them 5 then ihe latter ; and the whole renumerable good which is in ei her of hem , ftandeth only in adjeBo modo. Which beeing fo, iris all one , when wefpeakeofany individuall morall adion^«o ad individuum, whether we lay that it is good , or that it is remunerable andiaudable . botharcone. For asiswellfaid by (h) Aquinas, neceffa- (h) i*.2*. rtum ifi omr.em aBum homines > ut honumvd malum 3 culpabilfsVel laudabiltf q. 21. rationem habere. And aeatne. Nihil enim eft aliud faudari vel culfariyart, 2* quam imputari alicui malitiam Vtl lonuatem fui aBm. Wherefore that diftm&ion of a twofold goodneffe , caufansand concom'uans , which the D.baih given us,rathnoufe in this queftion , becauie every ac- tion is laudable and remunerable, which is morally good , whether it be neceffary or not. Now morall goodneffe (i) faith Scaligerjfipcr- W &[&*«• f<Bio aBm cum reBa ratione. Humane morall actions are called good "^-307. or evill, in crdine ad rationem , qua eft profrium principium bumanorum d*& • *7« (tBuum, faun {k) ^Aquinas , thereupon inferrng , that till mores dicuntur (k) i«.2< loni, qui rationi ccngrunnt: mali autem , qui a ratione difcordant. D. Forbejfe ?• 1 oo,art* doth therefore pervert the queflion, whiles he (I) faith, inbaccumfra* i« tribus qucejlione y hocbmttm eft quod netejfarium. Nay , thole actions we v) u& fu~ call morally good, which ai e agreeable to right reafon, whether they pr*cap. 1 3 . be neceffary, or not. Since then, thofe adions arc laudable and re- $• 7- munerable, whichate morally good; and thofe are morally good which are agreeable to right reafon: it foMo^eth , thatforafmuchss thofe adions which the D. calleth indifferent , are agreeable to right reafon , they are therefore not only morally good, but alfo lauda- ble and remunerable, & fo not indifferent. Yea thofe adions which he calleth neceffary, beeing c ontidered quo ad individuum* are no other- wife laudable and remunerable, then thole which hccallcth indiffe- rent, being confidered in like manner quo ad individuum, ashathbeen- (hewed.
And befides all this , we have fomewhat more to fay, of the D"- Se&* y. speculation about the nature of things indifferent.
For, 1. the D. maketh that which is indifferent, to be opponed to that which is nvCeffary , and ycthemaketh both thofe to be mo-
'A aaa 3 rally
6 Whether there be anj atlion indifferent Parr. 4. I
rally good. Now albeit in naturall things, one good isopponed
to another good, as that which is hot, to that which is colde , yet,
(m)Aefut7h (m) bonum bonononcontrariaturin moralibus. The reafonof the diffe-
1 .2* q. 3 1 . rence is ,becauie Bonitas ?k)fica or relativa eft congruentia nature qucedam
att. 8. faith (n) Scaliger : and becaufecwo natures may be contrary one to
(n) ubifu- another, therefore the good which is congruous to the one , may be
pra. contrary to the good which is congruous to the other 5 batbonumvir-
(o) ubifu- tutvs faith (0) Aquinas, non accipitur nif\ \ per conVenicntiam ad aliquid unum ,
pra. fc'il'icet rationem : fothat it is lmpoiiibie for one mo rail good to be
opponed to another.
2. Since Divines take a thing indifferent , to be medium inter bo- num & malum morale : and fince (as the very notation of the word * fheweth, ) it is fuch a meane , as commeth not nearer to the one ex- treme, thentothe other, but isaike diftantfrom both : howcomes it, that the D. fo farredeparteth both from the tenet of Divines, and from the notation of the word , as to call fome fuch actions indiffe- rent, as have a morall remunerablegoodneffe , and yetnot eviilm them ? or where learned he fuch a Dialed , as giveth to fome 'good things, the name of the things indifferent ? {p)ubi fu- 3. Why doth he a lfo waver from himfelf? for [f) he citeth out pralib.i. of the Helvetike Confeflion Hierome his definition of a thing indif- c.$.num4i» ferent, andapproveth it. Indifferent (faith he,) iilud eft quodnecbonum nee malum eft , up five feeerisfiv* non fecerts, nee jujlitiam habeas nee inju- fihiam. Behold the gooneffe which is excluded from the nature of a thing indifferent, is not only necefiity , but righteoufneiTealfo • yet hath the D. excluded on'y the good of neceflity from things indiffe- rent , making the other good or righteoufnefleto ftand with them. For things which are done in faith and done for the right end ( fuch as he acknowledged thefe hings to be, which he calletft indifferent,} have righteoufneifeinihem, as all men know.
CHAP. 1 1 r.
Whether there be any thingindffirent Ina&uexercito.
Sect. I. JE^jpS OrourbetterHglninthisqueftion, I v\i!l premitthefeconfl- jSiraij rations, 1. When we meafure the goodnefTeor the bad- ^^^ neiTe of a human actiotv-e mu ft not only meafure it by the (q) Scholin object, and the end, but by allthccircumftances which accompany lib. 2. de it. [q) Yed. Monflus upon thofe words of Seneca, ]{cfert quid, cui, quan- Sewf. dtiQuarC) ubi > Cc. faith, that without thole circumftances of things*
pcrfons
Chap. 5 . Whether there he any aft Ion Indifferent, 7
perfons, times , places, faRi rat to non con fiat. Circumftances fome- times conflituunt rerum earum quceaguntur fpeciem, (r) fay our Divines (0 l**n. de meaning chat circumftances doe make an adion good or bad. Humanist- tnof. atlus lay the Schoolmen; non fohtm ex objeEln .V erum ex circumftantits bom c*p* 7- vclmalieffedkuntur. In is not every mans part , (faith [t) one of our (s) Aquin. Oppofites )to judge deciraimHant'w , qiuereddh aBionem vel bonam Vel 14 2*. q. malam. Some circumflances faith [u) another or' them, are intrinfecall and 1 8. art. 3 . effentiallto aBions , and Jt peci ally making up their nature. The principall (/) Comer. circumftances which here we ipeake ot, are comprehended in ihis pr*l torn. verficle. i.ptg .49.
(u)DBuf
^uiiy^uid^Vbiy^uihf^auxtliu^CuY^ £htotnodo,Jguando,geJFofthe
Uuf cf
The fTrft ci^cumftance which makcth an adion good or bady\s,Qufs, fyeel.c. !• which defigneth the perfon : If a Magiftrate put to death a malefa- ctor, the adion is good, but if a privat perfon put him to death , it is evill.
Thefecondis, Qujd, which noteth the quality or condition of the objed: If a man take fua , the action is good; If aliena , it is evill.
The third is, Vbh If men banquet in their ownehoufes , the adion is good : If in the Church, it is evill.
The fourth is, Quibus auxilw:\£ men fee-khealth by lawfull meanes, the adion is good ; If by the Divill , or his inftruments, it is evill.
The fifth is, Cur : If I rebuke my brother for his fault , out of my love to him , snd defire to reclame him, the adion is good: If out of hatred and fpl ne, rhe adion is evil].
The fixe is, Quornodo: for he who do. h the workeof the Lord care-% fullv doth well, but be who doth it negl gently, doth evill
The feaventh is, Quando -. To doe iervile worke upon the fixe dayes of labour , is good: but to doe it upon the Lords Sabbath, is evill.
2. There is another consideration which followeth upon the for- Se&. 1 1» mer, and it is this. The goodnefle or badneffe of a humane adion , may be considered two wayes , V?3( fcithei in aBu fignato , and , quo adfpeciem^or inaRuexcrcho, and quo ad individuum.Fov an adion is laid to be fpecificated by its objed, and individuated by its circumftan- ces. So that wl en an adion is good or evill in refped of the objed of it, then it is called good or evill quoadfpeciem. When it is good or evill in refped of the circumftances ofit, then it is faid to be good or evil! quo ad individuum.
1 Humane adion s whether co nCideted quo ad fpectem,or quoadindivi- dnum) are euhet fuch as proceed from the deliberation ot reafon, or
from
8 Whether there be any aBion indifferent' Part. 4.
from bare imagination onely. To this latter kinde wee rcferre fuch a&ions,as arc done through incogitancy , whiles the mind is taken up with other thoughts ; for example , to cl awe the head, to handle the beard, to move the toot, &c. which fort of things proceed only from acertaine ftirring or fleeting of the imagination.
4. Let itberemembred, thatthofe things we call morally good, which agree to right reafon: thofe morally evill,whichdifagrcefrora rightreafon:andtholeindirTerent,which include nothing belonging to the order of reafon , and fo arc neither confonant unto nor diiTo^. nantfrom the fame.
5. When wefpeakeofthe indifferency of an individual! a&ion, it may be conceived two wayes, either abfolute & fine refpeftu ad alhtd , or, comparate <st cum refpcBu adaliud. In the free will orTnngs > if fo be a man offered according asGodhadblefTed & profpered hiseftaite, it was indifferent to offer either a bullocke, orafheep, oragoate; but if hechoofed to offer any of them, his a&ion of offering could not beindifferent , but either good or evill. When we lpeake of the indifferency of an a&ion comparate, the fence is only this, that it is neither better nor worfe then an other a&ioii , and that there is no reafon to make us choofe to doe it , more then another thing. BuC whenwefpeake of the indifferency of an aclion , considered abfo- lutely and by it felf , the fimple meaning is whether it be either good orevill , and whether the doing of the fame muff needs be either ilnne orevill doing.
6. Every thing which is indifferent in the nature of it, is not by 6c by indifferent in the ufe of it. But the ufe of a thing indifferent ought evermore to be either choofed or refilled, followed or forfaken, ac- cording to thefe three rules , debveredtous in Gods Word. 1. The Tule of Pietie. 2. The rule of Charity ^ 3. The rule of Purity.
The fir ft of thefe rules we findc t . Cor 10. %\ . Whether therefore ye eat, ordrinkjz , or whatfoever ye doe , doe all to the glory of Gjd. Aid Rom. 14.7.8. For none of w liveth to himfelf , and no man dUth to himfelf. For whether welhe , we live unto the Lord , and whether we die > we die unto the (y) com. ** Lord. Where the Apoftle (as [y) Calvine noteih) realonethfrom the itium locum* whoie to the part. Our whole life , and by confequence all the particular a&ions of it ought to be referred to Gods glory , and or- dered accordin'xto his will. As;ame, Col. 3. 17. <And whatfoeVer ye doe in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord iefi4. In the ex pounding of which words , I> DaVenant faith well , that FStam iU<e aEliones qua? funt fua natura adiaphora , debent tamen a Chrislianti fieri in nomine Chris'ti , hoc esi , juxta voluntatemChrisii, & ad gloriam Clmfti.
The ieconderubis the rule of Chanty : which teacheth us, not to life any thing indifferent, when fcandall rifeth out of it. Rgm. 14. 21. It if good neither to eat fle {]i, nor to drinke wine > nor any thing whereby thy brother flwnbUth , oris offended) or made weake $ yea, though it doe not
weaken,
I J. & Id.
(C) IO. I!
So-
C/up. J ." Whether there be Atiy a&ion indifferent. 9
weaken, if it be not expedient for edifying our brother , be it never fo lawfull or indifferent in it's ownc nature, the Law of Charity bin- deth us to abftainefrom it. Rom. 14. 19. Let us therefore follow c after the things which mal^c for peace, and the things wlnrewithone may edify ano- ther, lUgm. 1 5 . *. Let every one of us pleafe hu vighbour for his good to edifi- cation-, 1. Cor. 10.23. kAU things are law full forme, but all things are not ex- pedum : All things are lawfull for me, but all things edify not. Where rile A pottle teacheth (*,) that, Incibo, 0"c. In meat , driniif , and the whole (l) Parens kind of things indifferent , it fs not enough to lool^e whether they be lawfull : com. m ;/- hut that further , we aretoloo^e, whether to doc or omit the fame , be expe- lum locum, dientandmay edify. The Bifhop of Winchester preaching upon I0/3. 16.7. I tell you the truetb , it ft expedient for you that I goe away , &c. maikc.b, that Chritt would not goe away , without acquantmg his Diici- ples with the reafonof it: and that reafon was,becaufe ic was for their good. Whereupon he inferreth,i.Thatwe fhouldavoide [a) Hopbni's Ca) T- •■ ^ non \ult enim, and make out Vult our enim : that is , that we ihoula not i *■** give our will for a reafon, butatealonforour will. 2. That wefhould .not withthe(^) Corinthians ftand upon licet, it is lawjull -y butframe our (b) r.Corfc ruleby expedit, it is expedient. 3. That our rule mould not be (c) Ca- japhas expedit nobis , but Chrifts expedit Vobis : for you it it goody ou, thedif. ciples : andmakf tbatjfc rule of our goingout , and our commingin. The heathens themfelves could fay , that we are borne , partly for God, partly for our Country, partly forour friends, £cc. How much more ought Chriftians to underftand, that we are not borne for our felves, but for Chrift and his Church ? And as in the whole courfe of our life, foefpecially in the policy of the Church , we may doe nothing (be it never fo indifferent in it felf) which is not profitable for edifi- cation , 1. Cor. 13. 26. Let all things be done to edifying. From which precept Partus inferreth,that nothing ought to be done m the Church, which doth not manifeftiy make for the utility of all andevery one: and that therefore not only unknowen toungs , but coide Ceremo- nies, and idle geftures fhould be exploded ou'eof the Church.
The third Rule is the rule of Purity , which refpecleth our pence and plerophorie of conference , without which any thing is uncieane to us, though ir. becbane 2c lawfull in it's owne nature. Bgm. 14. 14. To him that efteemeth any thing to be uncieane , to him it is uncieane. There- fore (d) Si quis aliquam in cibo immunditiem imaginetur, eolibcre uti non po- (d> Calv. test. Whatfoever indifferent thing a man judgeth in hisconfeience com. in il- to be unlawfull, he may not lawfully doe it Pgm. 1 4. 5 . Let (very man hWi locum, be fully perfwaded in his owne minde And vcrf 2 3 . He that doubt cth is dam- ned, if he eate, becaufe he eateth not of faith: for whatfoever is not of faith is finne. Nefas eft omnino faith [e) Calvine, quippiamaggrediquodpuies ili/Jo~ (Cj in mino) difplicere , imo quod non perfuafus fis il'i placer e. Now , if a thing Rom. 14, indifferent be ufed according to thefe three rules , the ufe of it is not 7, 8
Bbbb only
jo Whether there be any aFt ion incLiffertnt. Part. 4; I
only b'Mull , but expedient alfo. Bit if it be not u fed according to tbcte rules, the ufe of it is altogither unlawfull.
Sect I'll. And Gnce a thing indifferent in the nature of it , can never belaw*
fully u(cd , except according to tr*efe rules , hence it foiloweth , that
the ufe of a thing indifferent is never law full to us, when we have
no other warrant for uling the fame , befide our owne will and arbi-
crement.
(?) Inn, if) &• Forbcffe fpeaketh unadvifedly, whiles he faith, Evenit ncimuri-
lb. 1 cap. $uam) &c. If fallethout fometimes , that that which wot expedient for thee
11. $.16. tQdoe yeflerday ^ and to omit this day 3 thou may not with fianding afterward
either doc it or not doe it y according to thy arbitriment. As if fortooth, our
tiling of things indifferent , fhould not evermore be determined by
the mle of expediency, which Gods Wordgivethus, but fometimes
(y expo fin. by our owne will, (g) I> DaVenant could not dreame that any cx-
Co!. 3.17. cept the ignorant common people, could bee of this opinion,
which D.Forhcffe holdeth. FaUitur vulgw faith he, dum judicat Ikcre
fill) tti hwEbt , Vefiitu %fermone , aut quacunquen adiapbora pro arbitrio fuo :
nam hcec omnia ad regidam adhibenda fant.
Moreover, as we may not ufe any indifferent thing, at our owne pleafure; fo neither may the Church at her will andpleafure, com- mand the uf: of it : but as our pra&ice , fothe Churches injunction, mu ft be determined and fquared according to the former rules. And if any man think, ihat in the ufe of things indifferent, he may be ledde and ruled by the Churches determination, without examining any further* lechim underftand , thatthe Churches d. termination, is but a fubcrdinaie rule, or a rule ruled by higher rules.
D Forbcjfe perceiving how thefe rules of Scripture may fubvert
his caufe, detireth to 7ub]cc"t them to the Churches determination,
{h)ubtfn- and to make it our highefi rule, lam aut em (h) faith he, hitaliumrt-
pj*a e*p. 1 1 . rum ufu id cdificaty quod pacificum , illudesl pacificum quod esl ordinatum ; is
fj&.j&i axtcr.idic.cns ordo eft in Ecchfia ab ipfo Christo constitute , ut intalibus non
fuo qnlfq ie fe genu arbitrate , fed audiatur Ecclefia 3 0 exhibeatur prapofitis
obedie)itia.
He hath beene fpeaking of the rules which Gods Word giveth us, concerning the uleof things indifferent , and all of them he com - prehendeth under this rule, tiiat we fhould hearethe CburJi, &obcy them who are let over us , as if Gods rules were fubordinare to mens rules, cv not theirs to his. We lay not tha: every man may ufe things indifferent fuoarbitratu; but we fay vviihaU , thac neither may the Church com band the uf-- of tlv.ngs indifferent , fuo arbitrate. Both (I.e. in commanding, and we in obeying, mud be guided by the rules of Scriptuni.
Tvey who arefet over us in the Church, have no power given them of Chnfr, which is not for edifying Eph. 4, 1 2. The CounccII
of
CHnp. j. Whether there be any aStion indifferent. 1 1
of the A poft'es and Elders at Jerufalem, (which is a lively patreme of , A ft alawfull Synodeto the worlds end) ;?)profeiTed they would lay no ^ xBt ' other burden upon the Difciples , except fuch things as the law of Charity made necelTary for fhunning of Scandall: and fo that which they decreed, had force and ftrength to binde , a Charitate propter Scandalum , faith (l^SanBius. But fuoarbhratu they injoyned no:hing. (k)fo Ac!:. It apj/eareth by M place (faith [I) Cartwright) that there may bee no abridg- T $ . n \ g, ment of liberty (imply decreed , but in regard of circumflance , according to (jj Annot. the rule of Edification. And if ihe Churches decrees and Canons , be on Ad. 1 5 not according to the rules of the Word? yet forafmuch as [m) every y^?. io. one of us fhall give account of himfclfe and his ownc deed, we muft (w)Rom.i4. looke , that whatfocver the Church decree , yec our practife in the 1 2* ufe or omitTion of a thing indifferent, be according to the foreiaid rules.
We may not for the commandement of men tranfgreffe the rule of Piety, by doing any thing which is no: for Gods glory, and orde- red according to his will; neither ought any of us to obev men » ex- cept (n) For the Lords fake; and {o)as the ferVants ofChrifi. doing the will (*) » ?ef. *- of God; which teacheth us the manner how we ought to obey men , ,}^' h ' namely, (p)propter Chriftum & ficut Chriflm pracipit. For if wefhould ^ Za»cb'. know no more but the will of man for that which we docy then we m Epnei; fhould be the (q) ferVants of mm, not the fervants of Chrift. Neither 6# c. 6. yet may we for any humane ordinance, breake the r^e of Charity : ^ x cor. 7. but (r) whatfoeVer either would wea\cn , or not edify our brother ; be it never 25c fo lawfuU\never fo profitable to our f elves ; never fo powerfully by earthly {y)1*y!oron authority in joymd-3Chrijlias who are not borne unto themfelves }but untoChrifi; Tir. 1.15. Unto hfs Church \ and unto the fellow members -jnuji not dare to medle with it. p> 19$.
Nor laftlyjmay we obey men,fo as to breake the law ot Purity, and (/) performe any action with a doubt full conference , that is, whereof ei~ (Q Id. ibid. ther the Word hath nott or we out of it have no warrant : in which cafe tender * 7, go . conferences muft be tendered , rather then be racked by authority : for bee the things inthemfclves never fo lawfuU ? Cc. they are utterly unldwfullto me y without fuch information. Whereas therefore fome fay , thac in the ufe of matters indifferent , the lawes ofthofewho are let over us ought to rule us; we ftill anfwerthat ourpractifemay not b« ruled by any law of man, except it be according to the rules of the Word; where- of one is this: (t) Tantum oportere effe obedientia ftudium in Chrijiianis s (r) Cah.in tit nihil agant, quodnon exisliment Vet potitfs certi fint placere Deo . R om . 1 4,
Thefe confiderations beeing premitted , for refolution of the Seel. IV. queftion in hand, wefay, 1. As touching thefe actions which pro- ceed from bare imagination , whether they be evill and inordinate quo 4^y)nww,forfornuchas the imagination from which theyha\c their original! ,doth not in thofe actions fubjeft it felf to the con- duel: and moderation of rcafon , but is like Gehazz , running away
Bbbb 1 Without
1 2. Whether there be in) aSiin indifferent. Par c, 4.
f <A A r vvll^°Pt ^'$ mafters leave, let the learned give their judgement. ^) me j. Howibever , it can not be denied , («) that fuch adions may be and }'atJ o areof.eneviil quoad individuum , or in refped ofthecircumftances, conjc cap. . ^hichfTiew forth in t:em rcproveable temerity, incogitancy, levity,. 2' *■ andundecency. But fuch adions belong not to ourpurpofe.
2. As for thofe adions which proceed from the deliberation of rejfon , h'owbeit many of them be indifferent quoad fj>eaem,yet none . of them is , nor can be indifferent quo ad individuum . The reafon of a 7*Hm' !!r;s tilffcrence and diftindion is , (jc) becaufe every adion ha h it's 1 ' **' I* ipeciesor kin de from thcobjed- and ahumane morall adion, hath" 15. art b, j,^ fpecies or kind , from the objed referred to the originall of hu- mane adions, which is reafon. Whereupon it commeth , that if the objed of the adion include fomething that agreeth to the order of reafon , irfhall be a good adion, according to it's kind : for exam- ple 5 to give alxes to an indigent man. But if it include fomething that is repugnant to the order of reafon , it fhall be an evill adion according to it's kind;as,to fteale or take away another mans goods. No-v lometimes ithappeneth, that the objed of an adiondothnoc include foroe hingihat belongethto the order of reafon; as, to life a (have from the ground ,'to goe to the field &c. fuch adions are- indifferent, according to their kinde. But we muft pronounce farre orherwife of them , when wee fpeake of them quo ad indiv'iduum , be- caufe as they are individuated by their circuniftances , fo in their individual! beeing , they have their goodneffe or badnefle fremthe* lame circumfhnces, as hath been fheA'ed. So that no fuch adion as is deliberated upon , can bee indifferent qtio ad,- individuum • becaufe * \y) tbid. art. cp0rtep faith [y] Thomas, quod quilibet individual^ aEitfs babeat aliquam cir- 9* cumjlamiam , per quam trahetur ad bonum, Vel malum, ad minus ex parte in-
tent iows finis. r \ „.j Fnar Ambrofms Catarinus, following the Dodrine of TJjomus ,\ VV ' (^)maintained in the Counceli'of TWwt , that to doea good worke ,. cftt une ihe concurranceof aii circumftancesis neceffary ,but the want of 1 rem'ib' one onely is.fufficient for an evil! : fo that ho,vfoever among the 1 ^I^0k vvorkes confidered in gencrall, fome are indifferent, yet in the fin- gular, there is no wei/'^w between having all the circu enhances and wantimg fome 5 .the re fore every particular adion is .good or. eviil. And becaufe among the circumftances, the end is one, all wot kes referred to a bad end are infeded. He further alledged 5". Augnjline> (hat it is.finne not onely to refer re the adionto a bad end. buc alio ' .\ C&mJm "otto rcferreitto a good end. Thus fpake the learned Friar very i/Cor.* 6. appofirly. And the fame is the judgment of our owne Divines, De 12 ' hii rebus ind'jferentibus faith (a) Martyr, flatuendum est, quod tantummofc (bj in R6. tx &mire atqu* natura fua , mdifftrentiam habeant , fedqnando adeUBio-' 14 dhb 1. ntmdefimdipur nihil eft Indljj 'ems . And foiairii yfttaijm likewife.
Xhefe
Chap. 5 • Whether there he .v:y nuion indifferent. 15
Thefe things arc fo plaine and undeniable, that [c) D. ForbeJfe$e&>V. himfelfe,aknowledgeth no- lengthen that every indiviciuall humane (0 &*» lib. action is either good or bad morally ; and that there is a goodneffe 1. cap. 1 3. which is neceffaryto every action, namely, the referring of itto the 4-7« 9-io« laftend, and the doing of it in Faith; which goodneffe if it be wan. ting ? the action is evil). Notwiihftanding, he will have fome ac- tions even quoad zndtviduum , called indifferent , for this refpect, be-- caufe they are neither commanded of God , andfevneceflary to bee done , nor yet forbidden , and fo necelTary to be omitted.
Of an individuall action of this kind , he faith : manethomini refpeBu ifliut atlus plena arbitrij libcrtat moralts , turn eaquce exercitij feu contradic- tions dicitur , turn mam ea qua fpecificatiom feu contrarietatts libertas ap+ pellatur. Heholdeth, that though fuch an aclion be done in Faitn ,. and for the right end (which generall goodneffe , he faith , is necef- faryto the action, and commendeth a man to God ) yet the action ie felfis indifferent, becaufe it is notjnecefTary: for a man hath liberty to omit the fame , or to doc another thing, which he illuftrateth by this example.
Ifthe widow Smproma marry at all, it isnecefiary that fhe marry in the Lord, yet it is not neceiTary that {lie marry. Iffhe marry TV- tjufi it is necefiary that fhe marry him in the Lord, yet it is not ne- ceffary that fhee marry Thhts, but fnee hath liberty to marry either him 5 or Ca'm 5 or Bornpomm. Jf fhe marry not at all , but live a fin - glelife , it isneceiTarythatfhe live a finglelife in the Lord , yet it is not necelTary that fhe live afinglehfe. And fo (till it is indifferent and free for her, either to marry, or not to many , or if fhe marry, it is free to her to -marry either Titiuf, or Cam , or Pomponw.
ZAnf.ihc D. either miftaketh, or mifleththe marke many' waves: Sect. VI.- which thatwemaydifcover, andwithall Icvell better at the marke', Jet us note,
1 .Ourqueflion is onely of individuall actions, considered both- in reject of their originall , which is deliberation and election , and in refpect of all t heir circum (lances , none excepted. When [d)?arw M) In difputeththisquefiion, whether there be any action indifferent; he Rom. 14^ refolveth that things indifferent rre confidered three waves. i.lnfe9 fab.i, or y quo ad r fob ft ant tarn operk , inth.rnfelves , or, in refpect of thefub- fiance of the worke; and fo many things are indifferent. 1. Rations ftit prmcipij, be. eleBiorm Wmtentionis qua fiunt, m refpect of their ori- ginall, which is the election and the intention , wherewith they are done: and fo there is no action indifferent , faith he, but either good or- evill, according as it proceedeth from a good ot eviJl election and intention. 3. Ratione ejfeBus , in refpect of the effect ; and fo he ao knowledgeth no action indifferent neither : for if Scandall followe upon it , it is evill ; now if it edify not, it fcandalireth anddeftroy-
B b b b 3 et'h., ,
1 4 Whether there be any atiion inherent'* Part. 4.
■(e) 7»Ri. eth, which (e) hec pcovech fromChrifts words , He that gather -eth n<? 14.20. wuhme, feat ter eth. And indeed , for i'o much as that which is impedi- thum boni fpirhuahi, is confefied to befcandalous, and every actioa whichedifyethnot , hindrcthour fpirituall good , in that it fhould edify, but doth not; it folio .vet h , that every action which edsfyeth not, doeth certainly fcandalize ; which (hall be ye: more plaine , if weconfider, that every action that is done to the notice and know- ledge of a man, ifityecld him no matter of profitable thoughts 5 it gives him occafion ofvaine , idle, and hurtfull thoughts; for the thoughts and cogitations of mans minde >becing ftirred and feta- workeby the view of (bmcobjed, arelike the upper and nether mil- ftones, which.wheu they have no graincto grinde, weare andfpend themfelves away , till at lad one of them breake another. If then every adion , which is done to the notice of other men, either edi- fy or fcandalize them, and every one of our adions (without excep- tion) either edify or fcandalize our felves , that is , cither make us the better or the worfe , it muft needs follow , that there is not one of our adions indifferent, but either good or evilljin refped of the ef- fed. Now all that the D. hath laid , evinceth no more but the in* differency of fome adions confidered onely inrefpedof theworke, not in refped ofall thecircumftances , (and by confequence, not quo ad bidiwduum.) If hce had con fide red Semproma , her ad of mar- rying, either inrelpedof the originall of it, or in refped of the ef- fedof it, (much more if he had (as he ought to have) confidered it in both thefe refpeds) he might eafily have feen , that it can not bee called indifferent, becaufe it either proceedeth from a good eledipn and intention, or from a bad ; and it hath either a good effed or a bad, Imeane,it either edifyeth or fcandalizeth. In which two re- fpeds (we fee) neither it nor any adion is indifferent, in Parens his judgement.
Scd.VII. i. Our queftfonts of the mdifTerency of things confidered a bfo- lutely & by themfelves , not comparatively and in relation to other things , (aswefhew before.) if we fpeake of comparatives , there is no queftion »but there may be an adion, which is neither better nor worfe, then fome other adion. Butif we hold us atpofitives ,wee truly maintaine.that every adion confidered by it felf, is either good or evill , and none indifferent. Now the D. onely compareth5V**- promo, her marrying , with her living a finglerife , and her marrying ofTithu, with her marrying otCaim or Pomponhtt. But if be had con- fidered any one of all thefe things abfolutely and by it felf, and pro- ven itto bein that refped indifferent, he had faid fometbing to the purpofc. Nothing followeth upon that which he hath faid, but that, (thefe things beeing compared among themfelves') Sempronia her marrying of Jim, is neither better nor worfe, then her marrying
of
Chap. 3. Whether there be any attion indifferentl 1/
cfCaitK or Pompomus. Yet for all that, iffhec marry any of them 5 her ad of marrying that man, fhall be either accordingto the rules of the Word, or not,& fo either good or evil!, not ind fferet. Which purpofe [fyAmtfiw illuitrateth by this appoiuejlra?/*. A itatuarie or a graver of rf. 1^ , ^ images oftimes hath no reafor, wherefore hefliould make this Ima- ^A c^% ge, more then another; yet if he make any Image at all, he mud; 18. needs either make it good, by following the rules of his att, or elfe evil!, by departing from the laid rules.
3. Thong- higencre nature a man hath liberty of contradiction , to Sc&. ufe things which are in their owne nature indifferent, or not toufe VII I. them, and liberty of contrariety to ufe either this or that; yet ingmt* rcmorji, it is otherwife: a man hath not fuch-morall liberty in the ufe of things , which are in their nature indifferent , as the D. alledgeth. For thole things which are in their nature indifferent , are never in- different in their ufej andthat becauferhe ufe of them , is either ac- cordingto the rules of the Word , and then it is expedient ; or nor^ and then it is unlawful). The D. diftinguifheth not betwixt the nature of things indifferent and the ufe of them : but fo he reafoneth as if everything indifferent in the nature of it, were alfo indifferent in die ufe of it. Which how falfe it is , men of lower degree then Doc- tors can eafily judge.
Goe to then; let us fee how the D. reafoneth. He faith, it is indirTe- rent & free to the widowe Scmpronia either to marry or not to marry; and if fhe marry , (he hath liberty to marry either this man or that man : and that becaufenoneofall thefe things is either commanded or forbidden of God. In ft fo , might the ftrong among the Romans and Corbu 1. -ians ,havc reafoned againft Paul. Why doe you goe about toadftner, orlimiteour ufe offuch things3is God hath neither com- manded ncr forbidden ? it is indifferent and free to us $ either to eat fiefh or not to eat flefh, and if we eat flefh , either to eat this kind , or that. Nay, but the Apoftle will not have the indifferency of the thing it felf.in its owne nature, to be ground enough for the ufe of it: buthe will have their practife and u(e of it , to be ever either expe- dient or uHlavvfulI, in refpect of the circum fiances , and according as thefe rules of Pietie, Charity *& Purity (which Goes Word gives concerning the ufe of things indifferent,) are obferved or not obfer- ved. A ndf o doe wean (vveare the D. That if a widowes a& of mar- rying be according -to the rules of the Word , that is , if it tend to Gods glory, if it be expedient for edifying, tk if (lice be rightly per- fwadedin her eonfeience that fh.ee hath a warrant from the Word for that which fheedorh,(of *hich rules, I have laid enough before) then is it good, not indifferent. Ii: it be not according to ihefe rules, then isitevill, no: indifferent.
More plainly -.her act of marrying, is either according to the ruks
•^ of the
\6 Whether ihtre be any aftim indifferent. Part. "4*
o-f the Word, or nor. If it be according to the rules , then it is expe- dient thatfhe marry therefore not indifferent; [fit be not according to the rules, then it is unlawfull , therfore not indifferent. Ifitbcfaid that the beft man who lives ticth not himfelf to thefe rules , in the ufe ofevery indifferent thing, butoftimesufethoromitteth a thing of X$) u. 3. 2- that nature, at his owne pleafurc. I an five re , (g) hi many things weof- (h)Pial. 19. fm$a\L% And, (/:) who tan under jlani.bA errors'! But in the meanetime, the rules of the Word limit us ioftnctly, that we may never ufe a thing in it's owne nature indifTerent,at our arbitrement and pleafure, and that the ufe of it is never lawfull to us, except it be done pioufly for Gods glory , profitably for mans edification , and purely with full aflurance that that which we doc is approved of God. And as all this hath beenc proven from Scripture heretofore , fo now !er us trie whether we can make it to follow upon that which the D. himfelf hath faid. (i) uhfu- (i) [f a widow marry , he holds itneceflary that fhee marry in the pra.^.7. Lord, becaufctoherthatmarrieth it is commanded that fhee marry ,fk)i.cor. in the Lord. Now when (\) the Apoftle-commandcth that fhee who 7' 39* marrieth marry in the Lord . he meanes , that fhee marry according* (1) com. in to the will of the Lord , Jecundum Volnntatcm Domini , as (0) ZgnchiiH Eph.6. 1. expoundeth him. And what is that , but thatfheemarry according to the rules of theWord? neither doth the Apoftlc a'lowe iier to (w) Eph# marry , except fhee marry according to thefe ru':es. So he {m) bid- 6- u deth children obey their parents in t^ e Lord, thai is, according to the will of the Lord. in) ubifu- Againe, (n) the D.holdes itnecelTary , that w^atfoever thing we prat doe, we doe it in faith, becaufe as the Apoftle teacheth , whatsoever is not of faith is finnc. Now whiles every thing is condem ned which (o) com. in is not of faith, two forts of actions are rejected , as (0) Calv'me cbfer- Rom.14. veth. 1. Sucha&ions asare not grounded upon, nor approven by 23. the Word of God. 2. Such actions as though they be approven by the Word of God , yet the mind wanting this perfuafion, doth not cheerfully addreffe it felf to the doing of them. But I pray, doeth the Word underprope or approve the ufe of any thing indifferent, if it be not ufeJ according to the forefaid rules, and by confequence conveniently and profitably ?
Sect. IX. The D. thinkes it enough, that in the ufe of a thing indirferen:, I beleeve it is lawfull for me to doe this thing , albeit I beleeve and certainly know, that it is lawfull to me to omit it, or to doe the con- trary, fo that the doing of a thing in faith, inferreth not the necefii- tyo'f doing it. But for anfwere hereunto, we fay,
I. We have fufficiently proven, that it is never lawfull for us ro doe ajiy thing which is in the nature of it indifferenr, except we be
. perfwa-
C hap . 4. Whether there be any aflion indifferent* 1 7
perfwadednot only ofthe lawfullnefTe of the thing, bur of rhe expe- diency of doing it.
it Of his comparing of things indifferent togither, and not con - fideringthem pofuiveiy & by themfdves , we have aifo laid enough before.
3 . The doing of a thing in faith , inferreth the expediency and profit of doing it ; and that is enough to cake away the indifferency of doing it; for fince every indifferent thing is either expedient to be done, or elfeunlawfull to be done, (as hathbeenefhewed,) it fol- io weth, that either it ought to be done , or e fe it ought to be left un- done : therefore it is never indifferent nor free to us , to doe it , or leave it undone, atour.pleafure.
4. Becaufe the D. ( I perceive) (ticketh upon the tearme of necef- fuy ; and will have every thing which is no: neceiTary to be indiffe- rent: therefore to removethis fcruple , befide that Chryfojlome , & the Author of the interlineary gloffe uvoriMath, 18. 7. take the mea- ning of thofc words ,lt muff needs be that offences come > to be thi s , It is profitable that offences come. Which gioiTcthough.it be not to be re- ceived, yet as (p) Camero noeeth , (it is ordinary to call that neceiTary, (p) prd. which is very profitable and expedient. Befidethis (I fay,) we fur- Tom,z, thermantaine , that in the ufeof things indifferent, that which we /^«3 45V dcliberatuponto doe , is never law full to be done , except it be aifo nxeiTary , though not neceffitate abfoluta feu confequenm , yer mcefjitatt tohfeqttctitU feu ex fuppojltione . Fouls c rcumcifingbf Ti mot hie was lavv- full: only becaufe it was ncce(fary,for(#)he behooved by this meanes (q)G.r*n& to winne the good will of the people or Lyflra who had once floned in Acl. 16. him, otherwise he could not farely have pteach.d the Gofpell among 3, them. Therefore he had done wrong, if he had not circumcifed Ti- tnothie, flncetrecircumcifing of him was according to the rules of the Word, and it was expedient to cireumcife him , andunexpedient to doe otherv\ ife. A nd (becaufe it paribus idem efl judicium ) whensoever the ufeof any indifferent thing is according to the rules of the Word, that is , when it is profitable for Gods g'ory and mans edification , 6c the doer isperlwadedof fo much, I lay > putting this cafe , then (for fo much as not only it may , but ought to be done,) theufe of it is not only lawful!, but nece(Tjry:and (tbt fo much as not only it needs net, but ought not to be omitted,) theomiflion of it jsnot only un- necessary, but alio unlawful!
Againe, put the cafe, that the ufeof a thing indifferent beeither againft , ornot according to the faid rules, then (for fo much as not only it may, but oughtto be omitted, theomiflion of ic is notonly iaAfullbutnecelTary : an J (i"brfo much as net only it needs not, but may nor, neither ought to be done)thedoingofit,is not only unne- ceffary, but aifo unlawful!. For which it maketh , that the Apoftles ifl [r) chch: decree,alledgc no other ground for abftinenccfrom blood (t, A^ ,
Cccc and #$*'
i S O'fwerfils Vfhtrehj to trie, part. 4,,
and things flrnngled (which were in their nature indifferent,) but
the ncceflity of abftainingcaufedand induced by the fore/aid rules.
The Apoftlc fheweth that that mcaiure of liberality whereunto
hee e\hort:th the Carmtbpmf+WM not by any Divine commande-
ment nccetTary, yet he advtfeth it as a thing expedient. 2 Coy. 8 8.10.
A nd were not the Ccrhithuns thereunto bound becaufeofthis expc-
diencv of the matter, though it was not neccflary ? luxtaverbumy&c.
(ft delnfiit. ^According to Gcds JVord { faith [f] ihe Bifhop ofSdrishtrie,) we artobll-
actual, cap, g4"^ t0 Vt*rtfy God by our good'tvorkes , not encly when ncceflity reqturtth > blip
42. p. 400. t'i0 ir^n <&\\it'j furnifbeth, and oportunity Qcwrntk, Gal:6. 1 o.T/7. 2. 1 4,
Sc&X. As touching the fcope of all this Difpute, which is the indirTcn-
rency of the controverted Ceremonies , we fhall hcare fundry rca- fonsagainft it afterward. For the prefent I fay no more but this, A sin every caicjfo mo ft efpecially when we meddle with the Wor- ship ofGod,orany appurtenance thereof , the rules of the Word tie us fo firaicly, that that which is in it's owne nature indifferent, ought either to be done, or to be left undone , according.as it is ei- ther agreeable or not agreeable to thele rules, and fo is never left free to us , to be done or omitted at our.pleafure. For if at all we be (as certainely we are) abridged of our Liberty, chieHy it is in things per- taining to Divine worfiv p..
Bat I marvell , why D. Forheffi, difcourfetb fo much for the indif- ferency of the Ceremonies, for i;b. 1. cap. 7. Heholdeth , that thire were juft reafons in thethings themfe'ves 5why the pretended Af* femb'-y of Penh , fhould injoyne the five Articles j fo me of which he ca'leth very convenient and profitable , and others of them necef- fary in themfelves. Sure, if he Hand to that which he hath there writ- ten , he can not choofe but fay , that it is unlawful! both for us, and for ail Christians any where, to omit the controverted Ceremonies , and rhat all fucri as have at any time omi.ted them , have thereby Grftred in leaving ihat undone which they ought to have done : foe t'~e conveniency and neceiTuy of them which he prerendeth, is per- petuall and univerfall.
CHAP. IV.
Of the rule by which we are to meefun andtrie^ what things are indifferent.
Kat the Word of God is the one'y rule, whereby w:e mud udge cf the indifTcreqcy of thing , none cf o'j'- Oppcfires we hope) will denie. Of things indifitrm faith (0 ?4]Mj>l
udge
Chap. 4* veh<tt things be indifference 19
'.lay downethis ground , that they be fnch , and they onely , which Cods Word hath left free unto m.
Now chefe things which Gods Word leavethfrce and indifferent ,{in refpeft of their nature and kind).ire fuch things as it neither fhew- eth to be good nor evil!. Where we are further to ccnfidcr , that the Word of God fheweth unto us the lawful neffe or unlawfulnefTe* goodneflfe orbadnefTe of things , not onely by precepts and prohi- bitions, but fometimes aifo, and more plainly by examples. So that not onely from the precepts and prohibitions ofthe Word, but like* wife from the examples recorded in the fame, we may finde out that goodncfle orbadnefTe of humane actions , which takcth away the indifferencyof them.
And as for thofe who will have fuch things called indifferent, as are neither commanded nor forbidden in the Word of Cod , I aske of them , whether they fpeake of plaine and particular precepts and prohibitions, orofgenerall onely? If they fpeake of particular pre- cepts and prohibitions , then by their rule ; the baptifing of young children; the taking of water for the Element of Baptifme; A leclors publike readingof Scripture in the Church upon the Sabbath day ; the avTembling of Synods for putting order to the confufions ofthe Church ; the writing and publication of the decrees of the fame ; and fundry other things which the Word hath com mended unto us by examples, mould all be things indifferent ,becaufe there are not in the Word of God , either particular precepts for them , or parti- cular prohibitions again ft them. Bnt if they fpeake of general! precepts and prohibitions, then are thofe things commanded in the "Word ofGod, for which we have the allowed and commendedex- araplesof fuch as we ought to follow , (for in the generall wee are commanded to be followers of fuchexamples,P/$.4.8.9. 1 Cor. 1 1. 1. "Bpb. 5*1.) Though there bee no particular precept for the things the mfelves thus exampiified.
To come therefore to the ground which (hall give us here fome Seel. II, footing, and whereupon we mind to reare up certainc fuperftruc- tions : we bold* that not onely we ought to obey the particular pre- cepts of the Word of God, but that alfb wearehundto imitate Chrifl , and the commendable example of hnApoftles /mall things wherein it Knot t\idmt>) they had f Retail reafons moving them thereto , winch doe not con* cerne w. Which ground as it hath been of a long time holdcn and confirmed by them of our fide, fo never could , nor ever fhall , our Oppofites fubvert ic. It's long fince the Abridgment confirmed and ftrengthened it, outofthefe places of Scripture. £/>/;. 5.1. Be ye there- fore followers of God , 06 deare children. 1 Cor. 11 1, Be ye followers of mey c\>en a6 1 alfo am ofCbrift. 1 Theff 1 .6. ±And ye became followers, of us an& ofthe L\rd} Fhil. 3,17, Brtthtrw be followers togitherofm.
Cecci This
2C 0/ the rule wbctdy to trie Parr. 4.
(u)#.l. This ground is a'.fo at length preded by («) Cyprian, who fhewcth
jp^j / that in tr.e holy Supper of the Lord, Chrift alone is to be followed
by us: that we are to doe what he did -.and tha: we ought not to take
heed 3 v. hat any man hath done before us, but what Chrift did, who
is before all*
Seft.HL B« Bifhop [x] Lmifty asketh of us , if we hold this rule , what is
[x)fne. m (he caufe whv at the celebration of the Sacrament, we bleflc not the Tenh. Af- Bread feveially by it ie.f, & the Cupfeverally by itfeif,fccing Chrift femb.pwt.i, didfo , yet hiving no caufe to move him which concernes not us. /, 38.6* *A*f. i.Befidethc common blefling of the Elements in the be- 40. ginning of the a&ion, we give than kes alfo in the feverall actions of diftriburion , faying aher this or the hke manner. The Lord Iefitt , the : right he tvai fatrased 3 took* Bread , and when he had given thankj (as* 0 give thanks to G id who gave hn Sonne to die for m) he breakeit <sfc. Inline manner alfo after Supper } he tookj the Cup, and when he had given thank** astpealfo give thankes to God who gave hs Sonne to (hed \m blood fir m] he gave it , Vc Which forme (we ccujeive) may beconftrued. to be an imitation of the example ofChrid.
2. Though we did notobferve iuch a forme, yet there were two reafons to move Chrift to give thankes federally both at the giving ofthc Bread, and at the giving of the Cup3 neither of which concer- ned us.
1. The Eucharifticall Supper was ore confirmed aclion with the other Supper which went before it , for it is faid , That whiles they did. €at , he tooke Bread, Cc Wherefore for more dinVndion of it from that Supper which immediately proceeded , it was fit that he mould give thankes feverally at the giving of each Element, . . 16,6, 1. He had to doe wkh the twelve Apoftle^, 'y) whofe hearts bee- ing fo greatly troubled withforrow, and 7Q wiiofeminds not well 2' comprehending that which they heard concerning the death of Chrift , much lelTe thole Mifticail Symbolesof it , eipccialiy at the fir ft hearing , feeing, and ufing of the fame , it was bchoofefull for their caufe , diftir.ctiy and feverally to blifTe thofe Elements, there- by to help the weaknefle of their underftanding , and to make them- the more capable of fo Heavenly Miitcries.
SeS.I V. Now havingheard that v.hich the B. had to fay a gain ft our rule ," V4 uc'i fa- let us examine his owne. [a) He holderh, That'm the actions of Ch rift 1 r.%. fm J.pojVesyor the Cuftomes ofthc Chnrch 3 there is ?iothing exemplary and life,
to be imitated of us , but that which cither heemgmorai v generally comman- ded in the DecaUuge , orb eeing CeremottiaU and chramJUtiidB /; pa-fiiculaxly commanded by fome con/iant precept in the Gofpell.-
lAnf 1 . This rule is moil iaife , tor ir iolloweth from ir , that the example of the A potties making choice of ihe Element of Water in.
Baptifmc
CliapTj, i ^hat things are indifferenf. n
Baptifme, and requiring a Confefiion of Farhfrom theperfon who- was to be baptifed; tfre example alfo both of Chrift and his Apoftlc s, . ufingthc Elements of Bread and Wine in the Holy Supper : a Ta- ble at which they did communicate , and the breaking of the E read, ; are not left to be imitated of us ; becaufc thefe things are ceremo- nialf , but not particularly commanded in the Gofpcll. So that ac- cording tothe rulevvhich the Bifhop holdeth, we h'nnein imitating. Chrift and his Apoftles in thofe things, forasmuch as they are not exemplary, nor lefc to be imitated of us.
i. His weapons fight againft his owne fcllowes , who alledge (as we have (hewed (b) elfewhere) the Cuftome of the Church ,, is a fuf- (W ftp** ' ficienc warrant for certaine Ceremonies questioned betwixt them part.z.etp. and us, which are not particularly commanded by any precept in 6./'&i2.» theGofpell. Thefe the B. doth unwittingly ftrickear, whiles he hol- deth , that fuch Cuftomes of the Church are not exemplary , nor left to be imitated of us.
Wherefore wee hold ftill our owne ru'e for (u re and certaine< Seel;. V"..- Chnfts actions are either Amand*, as the workes of Redemption, or Admiranda , as his miracles; or Notanda, as many things done by him for (bme particular reafon, proper to that timeand cafe, and not be- longingto us , which t'rings notwithftanding are weJl worthy ofour obfervation5 otJmitandas and fuch areali his actions, which had no fuch fpeciali reafon moving him thereto as doe notconcerne us.
Cdvine upon i Cor. 1 1. i.laith well. that the Apoftle there, cals back both himi'elf and others to Chrift , Tanquam umcumreHeagmdi exem- plar. And Policarpik' Lycm#,upon Math. 1 6. 24. Vnder that command of following Chrift , comprehendeth the imitation of Chrifts ac-- cions.
Moft certainly, it is inexcufable prcfumption, to leave the exam- ple of Chrift , and to doe that which feemeth right in our own cy^s > 1 as if wee werewifer then he. And now having laved downe this ground, we aretotmild certain portions upon it, asfollowes.
CHAP. V.
7 he firfl Tc/ithn which vve buiti upon the ground confir* wed in the former Chapter.
Rom that which'hath been faid, of following Chrift and the Se£t.I( ';£ commendable example of his Apoftles, in atl things w here- yg in it is nottevidentthat
they had fome fuch fpeciali reafon moving them to doc that which they did , as doth not concerne us
Cccc ; Gun
Xi v [The firft pofition concerning tfre Mjlributhn&c. Part. 4?
Our firft inference is this : That ic is not indifferent for a Minifter
to give the Sacramentall Elements of Bread and Wine, out of his
owne hand , to every com mumcaut ; for as much as our Lord com-
mand.d his Apostles to divide the v. up among them, that i$, to
regfch it one to another, LuJ^ 12,17. Some of' the interpreters are-
of opinion ; that the Cupfpoken of by the E^angelift in that place ,
is not the fame whereof hee ipeaketh after v<rj* 20. but they arc
greatly miitaken: for if it were as they thinkc,then C hrift did aga ne
drinke before his death , of that fruit of the Wine, whereof we read
Verf 1 7. 1 8. which ismanifeftly repugnant to bis owne words. Where-
(c) com. in fore as(V) Maldonat obferveth out of lAuguflint atidEuthimm , there
Math. 26. Was but one Cup , whereo' Lul^e fpeaketh mil by anticipation, and
*7. afeerward in its owne proper place.
Se&: II. But(d)B, Lindfey falleth here upon a very ftrange (peculation , (c) ubifu- and teis us, that if all the Difciples did drinke, howbsit they did not fra/>*g. 61. deliver the Cup oneto another, but received it fcverally from Chrilts o.vne hand , they divided the fame among them: becaufe when eve- ry one takes his part of that which is parted ,they divide the whole among them. Alas that I fhou'd blot paper with, the confutation of fuch foollerics. Ibeleevc , when his Majefty hath distributed and divided fo many lands and revenues among the Prelates of Scotland? everyone of them takes his part , but dare not lay (chough) that they have divided thefe lands and revenues among ihemielves. Cane 20. or 40. beggars.when an almes is diftributed among them , becaufe every one of them gctteth his part., fay therefore that they themfelves have parted it among.them: what then fhall be faid of the distributer , who giveth to every one his part feverally and by fryLtfc. ii'himfelferThata man who required, (e) that his brother fhould divide 2J' the inheritance with him , did not (I trow) defire Chrift to caufehis
brother to take his owne part of the inheritance : (there was no feare, that he would not take his part) but he defired , that his bro- ther mightgivetohim his part. So that to divide any thing among men , is not to take it , but to give it. And who did ever confound parting and partaking , dividing a Gup and drinking a Cup , which differ as much as giving and rec.iving: Thus we conclude, that when Ctirift commanded the Apoitles to divide the Cup among them, the meaning of the words can be no other then this, that they fhould (f) ld*Uon. give the Cup erne to-anoiher, which is to plaine, that (j) a Fefuite ubiftipia. aifo maketh it to follow upon this command , that Chrift did reach the Cup, non finguln feduni 3 qui proximo, proximo fequcnti > & de'mceps {g)'dere dam. Hence it is that (g) Hofpinian thinkes it mod likely , that Chiut S*cram. hb. brake[the Bread into t ao parts, earumque alteram dcdei it illt qui proximttf 2 .pa? . 3 1 . t\ ad dextram accumb that-, alteram Vero ei qui adfiniftram, ut ifii deinceps pr» - xinsc awtanbcBtiktn^ porrigfrcnt) donee Jinguji parricuUmJiti dearpfffem .
C H A P.
Chap. 6. The [ecoud T option , concmiitig iht; Table gesihye. } j,
CHAP. VI.
t^inothr Vejitionfuih upn the fame ground.
J5£^3 Vrnextpofition which we infcrre , is this : that it is doc in- Scd.Iif »g^| different to Sit,Stand, Pafle , or Kneel, in the aft of recie- i
<:*-&£ ving the Sacramentall Elements of the Lords Supper : be- caufewe ate bound to follcvethe example of Chrift and his A- poftles,whoufed the gefture of Sitting, in this holy action , as we prove from lob. 13. 12. from Math. 26. 20. with 26. jVfor/^ 14. 18. with 21.
Our Oppofites here beftirrethemfelvers , and move every /lone againftus. Three anfwers they give us 5 which we will now con- iider.
Fir ft , they tell us , that it is notcertaine that the Apoftles were fitting when they received this Sacrament from Chrift , and that ad* buc.fub ludice lit eft. Yet let us fee> what they have to fay againft the certainty hereof.
B. Lindfey, objecteth , that betweene their eating of the Pafchall Supper, and tbeadminiftration of the Sacrament to the Difciples , five ads interveened. i. The taking of the Bread. 2. The Thanks- giving. -3- The Breaking. 4. The Ptecepr^Takeyecyeatyee. 5. The Worde , whereby the Element was made the Sacrament. In which time ( faith hee) the gefture of fitting might have becne changed.
tAnf., It is firft of ail to bee noted, chat the A poftles were fitting', at that inftant when Chrift tooke the Bread : for it is laid, that hee tooke Bread, whiles they did ear, that is (as [h) Maldonat rightly ex- (h)com. m • poundcth it ) Antequamfurgerent 5 antequammenfa & ciborum rtliqtu<erc- M ath. 2w moVcrentur: and fowee uieto lay , trie menaredyning or flipping, 26. fo long as they fit at Table , and ihe meat is notrcmoved from be- fore them». To Chrifts miniftting of the Eucharifticall Supper to- gether with the preceeding Supper, Chriftians had refpett when they celebrated the Lords Supper together with the Lo've-Feafts. Probabile eft ess adCbifli exemplum refpexijfe , qui Eucbarifiiam inter c<z - narJum injlinm ( faith {fyPxum. ) But ot this wee need fay no more, (*) com. in for the B. himfelfe. hath here acknowledged no leife , then that they 1. Cor.i 1 were fitfiggjaj that time when Chrift tooke the Bre.ul. Onely hec 21. fai?h , that .here were five 'acts which interveenedbeforexheadmi- nitfration of rhe Sacrament to the Difciples (whereof the taking of the Bread was the frrft ) and that in this v\ hile the gefture of fitting might have r;eene changed : which is as much as to fay, when 1 c tooke the: Bread they were-iitting, but they might have changed this geftti re ; either in the time of taking the bread,or in thetime ohhankf. giving, or in the ti moot bceakingtkc Bread, or whiles he (aid .Take
• ye , eat
i4 TU fecoad Poftion concerning. Parr." 4?
ye, eatye, or laftly, in the time of pronouncing thofe words - ToitK
my body, (for this is the Word w..ereby( in the Bifhops judgment )
the Element was made the Sacrament, as we ftiall fee afterward. )
(k) Math. Now bur by his leave, we will reduce his fyve ads to three: for
26. r6. thusfoeaketh the^text. And as they did eat, lefns tookf bread and klejftd
Mar kc 1 4. n ant* ^rakc u> *ndgaveit to the Difciples, andfaid , take , eate , tbn it my
ti. body. Whence it is raamfeft , that the giving of the Bread to the
Di'fciples , which no man ( I fu^pofe) will deny to have beene the
adminiftrationofit , went before the two laft a&s , which theJB.
•reckoneth out. Nothing therefore is left tobim, but to fay , that
their gefture of Sitting might have beene changed, either in the
taking, or in the blefling , or in the breaking , or elfe between e the
taking and the blefling, or betwecne the blefling and the breaking ;
yet doth the text knit all the three togi her by fuch a contiguity and
connexion,as fhewethunto us, that they all did make up but one can*
tinuedadion, which could not admit any interruption.
Seel:. II. I faw a Prelate fit doune to his breakefaft , and as he did eate ,'hc
too kefome cups., and having called for moe , he faid he thanked
God that he was never given to his belly -.and with that, he made a
.promife to one in the company , which he brake within two dayes
after. Wold any man queft'ion whether or not the Prelate was
Ct:ing,whenhe made this promife,foralmuch as betwecne his fittintg
doune co mcate , and the making of the promife , there interveened
ins taking of fome cups, his calling for moe, and his pronouncing of
thofe words, I tbake God that I was never given to my belly. Yet
might one farre more eafily imagine a change of the Prelats gefture,
then any fuch change of the Apofties gefture , in that holy adion
y . 2. r, Vvheref we fpeake. Becaufe the text fetteth doune fuch a continued,
>•' "v**" 0* eiujrCj unbroken, and uninterrupted adion , therefore [€) Calvine
4.^.17.^ gat^cj-gth out of the Text, that the Apoftles did both take , and eate
3*" heSacramentale Bread), v>hilesthev were fitting. Non legmus faith
(m
i\jr. vvas ^l11 Sltttig,*! c^e giving °* the Bread to the Apoftles. And that ip) dijp. 3. t^e Apoftles were (till lifting , when they recived the Bread {0) Hof- dtfymb, <*' pinMnfankQs ic no le(Te ccrtaine. They made no doubt ofJ:ecer- w dom. ta,,nty hereof, who compofed that old verfe which we Had in
tl-r. {p)*A4Wias,
(0) vbi fapr* rj 2 y
(/>) 3 . 5. 8 1 . Rex fedet in CMa> tmla cm tins duodena :
*"• l • Sc t cnet in manxbm : [e c&at *ff$ cibm .
(7) ie facr. Papiftsalfo put it out of coruroverfy:for (q)BellavmJne zk nowledgc-th, Y.mUr. Lb. that the Apoftles could not .externally adore Chriftby proftrating 4^.50,. themfelves,
Chap. 6*. The Table geflmel it
themfjlvcs in the lad Supper quando recumbcrecum to iUh nccejfe erat. ,
Where we fee , hee could guclie nothing of the change of their gef- y' w»«*w.
ture. Jntettigendum eft faith (r) C. lanfcnim ,T>ominum in noYiifimx bac van^caP-
tana, difcubiuffeO'fediJfe ante &po ft comeftumagnum. (f) D. Stella ftick- >C]\19t\ «
eta not to fay. diftribuit Sahator rnundi panem difcumbennbm. "> Xk
22. 19.
Biunow having hczvd B.L'mdfey, let us heare what {t) Paybody will Seel:. III. lay. He taketh him to another fubterfuge , and tcls us , that though M Apol. we read that Chrifl: tooke Bread whiles they did eare, yet can it not ^rt lt Csit% be concluded hence, that he tooke Bread whiles they did fit : becaufe i.feEl 5. ' faith he , ^As they dideate , is expounded by («) Lukj: and (x) Paul, to («)Luke z%> be After they bad done eatings or after Sujtper. Tnus is their language di- 20- vided. B. Lindfey did yceldtous , that when Chrifl: tooke Bread, W*£°'>IU they were fitting , and his conjecture was, that this gefture of fitting might have been changed afcer the taking of the Bread. Paybody faw that he had done with the Argument, if hefhould graunt , that t^ey were fitting when Chrifl: tooke Bread , therefore he calleth that in quzftio 11. Vulcans owne gimmers could not make his anfwerand the Bifliops to fticke togither.
But let us examine the ground which P^o^fy takes for his opinion. He would prove from Lukj and Paul , that when Mathew and MarJ^z fay , yAs they were eathg, lefm tooke Bread : the meaning is onely this : After Supper Jefus tookf Bread; importing, that Chrifts taking of Bread did not make up one cotinued action with their eating, &: that there- fore their geflure of fitting might have been changed between their eating of t"he preceeding Supper , and his taking of the Sacramcn- tall Bread.
Whereunto we anfwer , that there are two opinions touching the Suppers which Chrifl: did eate with his Difciples .that night wherein he wis betrayed : Andwhichfoeverof them the reader pleafe to fol - lowe , it fhaii bee mofteafie tobrcakc all the {trength of the Argu- ment, which Paybcdy oppofeth unto us.
Firftthen , there are fomewho think that Chrift having kept the PaiTeover according to the Law, (which is not particularly related, SecT:. IV. but fupponcd by the Evangelifts, ) did fit downe to an common or ordinary Supper , at which he told the Difciples that one of them ftibuld betray him. Andof this judgmentare Cahmemd Be%a upon Math. 26. 20. Parens upon Math. 26. 21. F«%and Cartwright againft the Rhemifts upon 1 Or. 11. 23. Tolet and Maldonat upon Job. 13. 2. Corndhu Ianfenim Conc.Pxang. cap. 131. Balthafar Mdfnerus, TraBat. die feft. virid pag. 25 6. Johannes Porjlerus cone. 4.. depajf.p. 538, Chryjhpho* rusPelargusin Job. 1 3. qutft. 2. and others. The reaibns whereby tiieir (y)h(ipb. judgment is confirmed arethefe, lib. 7. di
1 . [y) Many focieties convcened tojthe eating of the Pafchall Sup- hello tod.
Dddd pcr^.1,%
t.6 The ftcondTofitioihCtncerniKg Part. 4."'
per by Twenties. And if Tvvcntie was often the number of thctn who conveened to the eating of the fame > (which alfo confirmeth their opinion, whothinke that other men and women in the Line, did eate both the pafchall and Evangelicall Supper, togither with the Apoftles in Chrifts company: ) it is not very likely (fay fome) that allthofe werefufficicntly fatisfied and fedde with one lam be , which after it was eight dayes old , was allowed to be offered for the Pafle- [%) Mof. ov cr,as [$ Godtryn noteth . {a)Ncque efmuniwagnl faith Farms joti fmi* and Adtcn \\# fidandce famt fuffxerepotcrat.
Jib. 3.^.4. 2. The Pafchall Supper was not for banquctting or filling of the (z)ccm.iv. belly, as (b) Jofephus alfo writteth. Kontam exfatiend* nutrundceque na- Math. 26. iur<e 'faith (c)Maldonat, quam ftr\and<ehgaUCenmom#cau[a fumtbatur. a 1. " Ncnvcntri faith [d) Partus , fid religions caufa fiebat. But as for thac (b) ubi fit- Supper which Chrift and bis Apoftles did eate,immediatly before the pr*> t Eucharifticall; \t)Cartwright doubts not to call it a carnall Supper; (c)com. to an earthly repaft-a Feaft ror the belly: which lets us know , that the Id. 1 3. 2,. Sccramentall Bread and Wine was ordained , not for feeding their Id) ubi fu- bodies which were already fatisfyed by the ordinary and day ly (up-.
pr** per, but for the nourifhment of the foule,
{e)*nnet. ?i That beGde the Pafchall and Evangelicall Suppers , Chrift
oa. 1 Cor. and his Apoftles , had alio that night another ordinary Supper,
t i. 23. (f) Fulke provethby the broth wherein the Sop was dipped lo. 1^.26.
CO u^ fu~ Where as there was no fuch broth , ordained by the Divine inftitu-
i>r4. tion, to be ufed in the Pafchall Supper.
4, That there were two Suppers before the Eucharifticall , they
gather from loh. 1 3. For fir ft, the Pafchall Supper was ended verf 2.
after which Chrift wafhed his Difcipies feet. And thereafter we
(g par. ubi ready?//. 12. (g) J{efumptPS Vefiibus rurfum adc&nam.ordinarum confcdijfe*
fitp*» The dividing of the Pa(Teover into two femces or two Suppers , had
no warrant at all from the flrft inftitution of that Sacrament : for
which caufe, they thinke it not likely , that Chrift would have thus
Dividedit, according to the device & cuftome of the Iewes in later
times;forfo much as in Mariage, (and much more in the PelTeover
he did not aliovv of that which from the beginning was not fo. Neil
ther feemeth it to them any way probable, that Chrift'wouM have
interrupted the eating of the Parfeover with the wafhingof his Dif-
c'plesfeet, before the whole Pafchall Supper was ended, and they
had done eating of it,
-eel, V. Butothers (and thofe very judicioustoo ) areof opinion , that that fecond courfe whereunto Chrift fate do-vne after the wafhing of his Difcipies feet , and at which he told them > that one of them fho.ild betray him /was no: an ordinary or commone Supper (be- caufe the Pafchall Sapper was enough of it fc'fto fatisfie chem, ) biMt' a part of the Pafchall Supper. And from the Iewifh wntters
they
tib*p»& The Table geflml 17
ehcy prove , that fo the cuftome was , to divide the Pafleover into t,vo qourfes or fervices. As for that wherein Chrift dipped the fop, they take it to have beenc the fauce which was ufed in the Pafchall jupper , called Cbarofeth : of which the Hebrcwes writ , that it was made of the palme tree branches , or of dry figges , or of ray fens, which they damped and mixed with vinegar, till it was thick as muf- urd, & made like clay, in memory of the clay wherein they wrought . inEgfpt; and that they ufed to dip both the unleavened bread & the bitter hearbs into this fauce. And as touching that p'ace lo. 13. they expound it by the cuftome of the Iewes , which was to have two fervices or two Suppers in the Pafleover : And take thole words \terf. 2. Supp erbee'mg ended , to be meant of the firft fervice: and fit- ting downe againe to Supper Verf. u. to be meant of the fecond iervice.
Ifthofe two opinions could be reconciled and drawen togither Sc&.VT. into one , by holding that that fecond courfe whereunto Chrift fate downe after the wafhing of his Difciples feet, v, as (for the fubltance of it) a commone Supper , but yet it hath beene and may be righrly Called the fecond fervLe of the Pafchall Supper, for tl"at it was eaten the fame night wherein the Pafchall lambe was eaten: So fhouldall the difference betaken away. But if the mantainersof thele opi- nions will not be thus agreed, let the Reader confiderto which oif them he will adhere.
If the firft opinion be followed , then it will be mofteafily an- fweredto P<*jWy,that (h) Inter ca>namdummftituta fuitEucharifiia.cum (h) Tanfen. jam mrfim menfaaccubuijfent. Sed poslccenam Pafcbalem , (fujumagni U- conc.Evang, .gaits, WhcnMathetveandMarkf fay, Astheydidcate , le(us took e cap. 131* bread, they fpeake of the commone or ordinary Supper. But when LukjzndPatdc fay,that hetooke the Cup afer Supper, they fpeake of the Pafchall Supper * which was eaten before the commone Supper.
Againe.if the reader follow the other opinion , which holdeth that Chrift had no other Supper that night before the Evangelicall , ex- cept the Pafchall only, yet ft ill the anlwere to Paybody , fhall be eafie; for whereas he woulS prove fro mthofe words of Luke & Paul > Like* tvife alfo the Cup after Supper , that when Matbew and Mark fay , As they did eat, lefus took* Breads their meaning is only this , After Supper , lefus took? Bread: he realoneth very inconlideratly : forafmuch as Luke &c Paul lay not of the Bread, but of the Cup only , that Iefustooke it after Supper. And will Paybody fay, that he tooke the Gup fo foone as he tookethe Bread? If we will fpeake with Scripture, we muft fay, that as they did eat the preceeding Supper., fto which we reade they fate downe,) lefus tooke Bread : for nothing at all interveened be- twixt their eating of that other preceeding Supper, and his ta-
Dddd * tag.
a 8 The faondTofitGn > concerning Pirt. 4'
king of the Eucharifticall Cup, there intervccned the Taking, Sicf- fing, Breaking, Diftributing, and Eating of the Bread.
Now therefore , from that which hath beene (aid , we may well conclude , that onr Oppofites have no reafon * hich they doc or can objeel:, againft the certanty of that received tenet that the Apo- ftles received from Chnft the Sacram entail Bread and Wine , whiles (k) Irev. they were fitting, [k Dr ForfojjTehimlclf fetttth downe fomeTefti- Ub. z. pug. monies ofMufadus, Cbamier, & the ProfefTors of Leiden, all acknow- 55. 361. ledging, that the Apoftles, when they received the Lords Supper, 362. were ftill fitting.
Seel:. VII. The fecondanfwerewhichourOppofit.es have given us, foilowettij They fay , that though the Apoftles did not change their geftureof fitting, which they ufed in the former Supper; when all ihis is graun* . ted to us , yet there is as great difference betwixt our forme of fit- ting, and that forme of the Icwes which the Apoftles ufed , as there is betwixt Seel ere 2nd Jacere.
Anf. i.Putthecafe it werefo, yet it hath beene often anfvvcrcd them, that the Apoftles kept the Tablegefturc,ufed in that Nation, and fo are we bound herein to folio. ve their example , by keeping the tablegefture ufed in this Nation. For this keeping oftheuiualj tablegefture of the Nation wherein we live 5 is not a forfaking , but a following of the commendable example of the Apoftles : evenas whereas they dranke the Wine which was drunke in that place 3 and wedrinke the Wine which is drunke in this place, ye: doe we not hereby differ from that which they did.
2. The words ufed by theEvangelifts5fignitv our forme of fitting, no leiTe then the Iewifh. Calepine, Scapula, and Thomafvis, in the ir Oic- tionories , take AvoL7n7?tb)y AvcucXivayA'vctxXivofyq^ A\cLx,<{i($qy iZ^>pX<lfs$tj 3 Kc&ax4fl&j) & the Latine words Difcu?nbotlH£cumbo,Ac* cumbo (ufed by Arias Montanw, Beza, hlarlorat, TremeUiiM^d in thei-r versions) not only for lying, but alfofor luch fitting , asisopponed ro lying; even for fitting upright at Table, after our cu ft omc.
3. Thereisnot fo great a difference betwix: our forme of fitting, and that Which thelewes ufed, as our Oppofites atledge. For as
(!) Alt, (I) DidoclaViitt fheweth out of Cafaubone ; their fitting at banquets dam.pAg. was only with a leaning upon the icftarme, and fo not lying, but 739. fittin© with a cert:,ine inclination. When therefore we rende of (m) Hadr. (rrt) LeBi difcubitorij tricl'inhrcs , in quihi; biter canandum difcumbebant> 2u7i. invo^ wemuft underft.ind them to have beene featcs, which compafTed mcmlats three fides of the Table ( the fourth fide beeing left open ?.nd voide
for them who ferved; and wherein they did fit? with fome fort of in.
clination. (n) ubifa-- Ycc(»)5, lindfejh bold to averre , that the ufuall tablegefture fMf*£'4$«" 9$
Chap. -6. The T able geslurf. * i<y
of the Iewes, was lying along: and this he would prove from ^Amos 6. 4. T% lye upon Ids of yVorie , they j\r etch them fives out upon their couches,
Anf. 1. If \*efhould yeeldtothis Pre'ate his owne meaning where- in he takcth thefe words,yet how thinks he that the gefture of Drun- kards and Gluttons, which they ufed when they were pampering thcmfelves in all exceiTeof riot , and for which a\lo they are up- braided by the Spirit of God , was cither the ordinary tablegefture of the Iewes, or the gefture ufed by Chriftandhis Apofties in their la ft Supper?
2. If any gefture at all be touched in thofe words, which he Prelate citeth , it was their gefture they ufed when they lay downeto ttcep> and not their table gefture when they did eat. For Mitta and Ngheresy (the two words which Amos ufeth,) fignify a Bed or a Couch wlierein a man ufeih to lay himielf downe to lleep. And in this fence we find both thefe words Ffal. 6. 7. kAU the night make I my bed { mittaihi) to ftvlmme: I water my Couch (Ngharji) with my teares. TheShunnamite prepared for EUfoa a chamber , and : here in fet for him a bed (Mitta) and a Table, andaStoole, and a Canclleflicke , 2. Kings 4. 10. The Stoole or Chaire was for fitting at Table ; but Mitta the Bed was for lying downe to fieep. Now the Prelate 1 hope will not fay , that the LcElitricliniares, wherein the Iewes ufed to fit at Table, and which compared three fides of the fame, (as hath bceneiaid,) were their beds wherein they did lye and Deep all night.
But, 3. the place muft be yet more exactly opened up.That word which is turned in our Englifnbookes , they lie > commeth from the Radix ScbachaV, which in Pagnins Lexicon is turned dormire.VJs find Rutby 7. LifchcaV , which Arias Montanus turneth Addormimdum , to jleep Our owne Englifh tranflation, 2. Sam. 1 1. 9. [&\xh tVriah fieep t, where the origiuall hath VajifchcaV. And the very fame word is pur, moft frequently in the bookes of the Kjngs and the Chronicles , where they fpeake of the deaih of the Kings of lud.xh and Ifrael. Pagmne turneth it, tydormivit: and our Englilhtranflators every where, And he fleept with bit-Fathers > &c. Thefe things beein^ considered, we muft with Cahine read the piace of Amos , thus ; Qui decumbunt Vcl dormiunt inkSlfs. The other word which the Prophet nretfvis Serucbm. Our Englifh verfion turneth', Tbey flretch thcmfelves out. But Pagniney TuxtorfJ TremeUiuSy prdTarnovius , come nearer the fence , who reade Redundant es , Superfiuentes , or Luxuriant es. Which fence the Eng!;fh translation alio hath in the margenr. The Septuaginrs followed the fame fence, for they read Kct7Uazrcuxh&ovTBgi.e. Living in pUafurc. So, 1 Tim, 5.5. fneetbat Uvetb in plea fire 'Z'zrcCTuXooatt+hnd lam.*,.1). Yeebaie lived in phafure i <r want hr, outs i The Radix is Saracb , Rem dundavit) or LnxxriaVit. So Exod. 26.12. Saracb, and verf. 1 3. Swicb?
Dddd 3 is put
$o ' TkeJecondTojritioti,c$ncernifi£ Part. 4;
is put for a ^urplufage or fuperfluous remainder, redundant & fuper- fluum , as Tr-meUiM readeth. Ncvthen, it is evident, that the thing which Amos layeth to the charge of thofe who were at cafe in %ion, • in the words which :he Prelat citethagainft us, is, thatihey flept upon beds of yvorie (fuch was their fofrneiTeand fuperfluirie, ) and fwim- medinexceffive p'.calures upon their couches. And incontinent this fllthie and muddie itrcame of carnalldelicacie and exceflive volup- foufnefle, which defiled their beds , ledde him backe to the uncleane fountaine out or which it ifhued , even their riotous pampering of themfelves at Table: Therefore he fubiovncth, .^And eat thelambes out of the flocke , cVc. For Ex menjis itur ad cubilia 3 ex gula in metier em faith Cor nelhtf a lapide commenting upon thz fame Text. Thus have I clea- red, he place in fuch fort, that the B. can not butfhootefhort of his aimes. Wherefore I goe on to other replies.
4. If the Apoftles when they received the Lords Supper , or the Ie .vesjwhen they did eat at Table , were lying all along , how could their mouthes receive drinke unfpilt ? Orhowcould theyhavethc life of both their armes i which the B. himfelf would not ([ am' Lite) gainelay , if he would once trie the matter in his owne perfon, andalTav to eatanddrinkc, whiles he is lying along.
5. The words ufed by Mathew 26. 20. MarJ^ 14.' 18. Where they fpeake of Chriftes fitting downe with the twelve , is alfo ufed bylohn.6. 11. where he fpea keth of the peoples fitting downe upon the graffe, to eat the loaves and fillies : and will any man thinke that the people did eat lying along upon the grade, where they might faire better fit upright ?
6. If our Oppofites like to fpeake with others , then let them Iooke backe upon the Testimonies which I have alledged before, lanfenim (o)Tra8at. putteth difcubuiffe <2 fediffe: Martyr , fedentibus aut difcumbentibus, dtiftHd vi- Parens ufeth the word Confediffe. (0) Meifnerus > confedendo. Evangelijla rid. p. 25 6. (faith (p) D. Stella,) dich dominum difcubuijfe, Id eft fediffe ad menftm. (0) In 7- i£ tnev lJke t0 fpeake with them(elves : (q) Camero fpeaking of
Luke. 12, Ihone his leaning on Chriftes bofome at Supper, faith, Chrisltts autem \\. ' fedebat tnedius. (r) D. Mortone faith , it can not be denyed, that the gef- lq)pr*left. ture of Chriftand his ApouYes , at the laft Supper, was fitting : only rXomr. " faith he, the Evangelifts leave it uncertaine , whether this fitting pA„ 27< Was upright or fomewhat leaning. It entered not in bisroindc to (t)partje. guefle any thing of lying. The EnglifhTranflaters alio, fay noc \e'f. cap. 3. that Chriftlay downe, but that he fate downe.
Se&.VIII. Tneir third anfwere is, that Chrifts fitting at the lad Supper , is no
' moreexamplary and imitable, then the upper chamber, or the night
(s)amot. feafon,orthefexeand number of communicants, &c.
pn. 1 Cor. Jnf. 1. As for the fexe and number of communicants , (s) Dfi
t'x, %\ ' Fd\e nghtly obferveth , that it is not ccrtaine from Scripture , that
*' twelve
Cbap.7- TheTdlegelJure, $r
twelve men ontly and no women did communicate (:<s (t)$. Lind- [tyln far* [ey would have us certainly to believe) But pat the cafe it were cer-£- i '• f tame, (u) yet for this and all thofe other circum fiances , which are (l0 tetAUir not examplary ; iherewere fpeciall reafons either in the orgency of D^-^-741* thelegall neceflity , or in the exigency of present and accidentall oc- cafions, which doe not concerne us : whereas the geflure cf fitting, was freely and purpofely chofen , aridrfe intended to be examplary, efpecially fince there was no fuch reafon moving Chiifl toufe this geflure of fitting , as doth not concerne us. v- r k
(^) The B. faith, that his fitting, at the former Supper , might (x) *«./**' have been the reafon which moved him to fit at the EuchariflicalLt?r*/>* 4°V Supper. ButifChriflhad not purpofely made choice of the gefture of fitting, as the fittefl andmoft convenient for the Euchanflicall Supper, his firing at the former Supper, could be no reafon to move him , as may appeareby this example. There are fome Gentlemen (landing in a noble mans waiting roume, and after they have flood a while there, the Noble man commcth forth : they beginnc to fpeake to him, and as they fpeake , flill they fland. Now can any man fay, that the reafon which moveth them to*ftand, when they fpeake to the Noble-man, is , becaufc they were (landing before he came to them? So doth the B. come fhort of giving any fpeciall reafon for Chrifls fitting* which concerned: not us. He canalledge no more but Chrifls fitting at the former Supper • which could bee no reafon«elfe hefhouldhavealfo rifenfrom the Euchariflicall Sup- per, to waihthe Difciples feet, even as herofefrom the former Sup- per , for that effe£l. Wherefore wee conclude , that Chnfl did vo- luntarily and of fet purpofe, choofe fitting as the fitted and befl be* feeming geflure for that holy Banquet.
Finally, (y) Hookers verdicl; of the geflure ofChrift and his Apo-iV) &«/■.?'?. (lies in this Holy Sacrament, is. That our Lord him felfe did that , which M.) fiB^fy tufiome and lon% ufage had made fit : we , that which fitnejfe and great de- cency hath made ufuall. In which words , becau'e he importeth, that they have better warrants for their kneeling, thenChrifl hadfor his fitting ('which is blafphemie) I leave them as not worthy ofan anfwer. Howfoever.letit be no ed, that he aknowledgeth, by knee- ling they depart from the example ofChrifl.
■ - . - I,- -
CHAP. VII.
Other ? options built upon the former ground*
He third ccnfcquence which we inferre upon our former Seel:. Ij ^ rule of following the example of Chnfl, is, that it is not a . thing indifferent, to omit the repetition of thofe words > , \
toi-
3 % T options of the Work of the Injlitwions breatyg, &c. Part. 4I
This ii my body , cnunctatlvcly and demonftratively, in thcadlofd1- ftributmg the Euchanfticall Bread : and fat re leffc is it indifferent , ioto omit this demonstrative ipcech in the diftnbution, asinplacc of it to furrogae a Prayer, to prefervc the foule and body of the com- municant umoeveiiaftrnghfe. Our reafon is, becauic Chnft(whofe example herein we ought to follow, v.ivd no prayer in the diftnbu- tion, but that demonftrative enunciation, This is my body. But we goe forward. $ctit. II. Tie founh Petition , which we draw from the fame rule, is , that it is not indifferent for a Miniftcr to omit the breaking of the Bread a: the Lords Table, after the consecration , and in the diftribution of it : becaufe he ought to follow the example of Chrift , who after he had blcffed the Bread , and when hee was diftributing it to them (z\ Vamis w^° vvcrc at Table , brake it , (z) mambus commlmundo panem acceptum ■ j ^or in panes-, but had it not carved in froall peeces before it was brought 11 m*. to thc Tahle- Hence {a) G. I. Voffvts doth rightly condemnc thole , to) defsmb Nvll0> * hough tncy breakethe Bread in mult as mbrntun , yet they break tJntdm. ' 1C noc m "&* facramtntali. Such a breaking as this , (he faith well? ) d'fp.z tbef. ^ HOtMj/fictf buicoquinaria.
Se#. III. **^c ^rh P°^tion drawen from the very fame ground, is, that it ' is not indifferent for a Mini (tec in the a& of diftribution, to fpeake in the lingular number ,Take thou, eat thou, drinke thou: becaufe he fnould followdie example of Chrift , who in the diftribution fpakeinthe plurall number, T.^e ye, eate ye, drinke ye. And he who followeth not Chrifts example herein , by his fpeaking in thc fingular to one , he makeih that to be a private a&ion betwixt himlelfe and the commu- nicant , which Chrift m2dc publikc and common by his fpeaking *""" to all at one time.
How idly {b) B.Ltndfey anfwercih torhefe things , it can not but Sect. IV. nppCare to every one whoconfidereth , that we doe not challenge (b) Vart.z. -tj!,cLm for not peaking the Bread at all?, for not pronouncing at all p*g- 5 5 ■ 5 6- tu,efe vvords , This U my body , or for never pronouncing at all , thefe *7* fpeeches in the plurall, tahsye^eateye, drinke ye 5but for not breaking rue Bread in the very ad of diftribution :fornot propouncing de- monftratively thofc words , This is my body , in the very ad of diftri- bution: for not fpeaking in the plurall number , Take ye, <&c. In the very acl of diftribution.,! as Chrift. did , having no oiher reafons to move him , then fuch as conccrnc ui. Why then did not the B. izy fomething to the point, which we prefTe him withrorfhall we excufe him, becaufe he had nothing to fay to it ?
Sect. V. ^ow laft of al!, we finde yet another point , whereby the (c) B. lAibid * -departcthfronuhe exam Die and mind of Chrift. He faith, thatby {U - r * theSa-
Chap. 7 • Of the Words of Confccration. 3 3
the Sacramentall word , This is my body , the Bread is made tl c Sacra- ment, &c. And that without tins word,c\:c. all our Prayers & wifh.es fhould fcrve to no ufe. Where he will have the Bread I to be other- wife confecratcd by us , then it was confecratcd by Chrift : for that Chrift did not confecrate the Bread to be the Sacrament of his bo- dy, by thofe words , This is my body , it is manifeft 3 becaufe the Bread was confecrated before his pronouncing of thole words: or elfe what meaneth the bleflingof it , before he brake it ? It was both b'cfTed & broken, and he was alio diftributina it to the Difciples, before ever he laid, This it my body Be%a, beneditlionem exprefie ad panisconfecra- (d) com. in tionem & qmdem Jingularem , refert: : & omnts nofri referunt 5 confecratio - Math. 26. mm inteU'tgentes , OTc, Qua ex communi cibo, in Jpiritualis alimomce facra- 16. mentum tranfmutetur, faith (d) Parens. Whcrerore we muft not ,hink , (e) Amef. to fan&ify the Bread, by thisprefcript word, This is my body, but by 'Bell, tner. Prayer and Thanfgiving , as Chrift did. Our Divines hold againft Tom.}. 1. 1. the Papifts , (e) Verba ilia qu<e in Sacramento funt confecratoria , non cjfe c-z.q 2. paucula quaidam prcefcripta j fed praxipue Verba orationis , qua non funt prat- ff) Cartwr. fcripta; And th;t l/j through ufe of the Prayers of the Church , there is a on Math, change in the Elements, (g) t>. Fulk ob;e£tcch againft Gregory Martin, 26. f 6. Your Popifh Church doth not either as the Greece Lhurgies 5 or as the Chur- (g) defence ches in Ambrofe and Auguflines time: for they hold that the Elements are con- of the Engltfh fecratedby Prayer and Thanksgiving. I know none who will fpeake w th tr*nfl*ton B. Lindfey , in this pour , except Paoifts. Yet (h) Cornelius a Lapide cap. ij.n.f could aiio Cay , Eucharijlia conficit ur (fconditur facris precibus. (h) corn, in
Mai. 1. n.
I fay not, that thefe words, This is my body , have nouleatall, in Sc&. VI. making the Bread to be a Sacrament. But that which giveth us dif- likc , is,
1. That the B. maketh not the Word and Prayer togither , but the Word alone ; to fan&ify the Bread and Wine, Novv if(ij both (Qitiau^
the Word and Prayer be n.-celfary, to lanftify the creatures for the ,,*' r food of our bodies, much more are they necefTarv to fan&ify them . rrj'r' for the food of o-.u foules. (k) Nequecnim folis domini verbis confecratio °"' ePn' fit , fed etiam precibus. The Fathers ((kith [I) Trelcatius) had not onely "!?* ^ °"!\ rcf peel to thole five words. For this is my body , dum Eucharijliam fieri "W'2" t *i ' dixerunt, mifiica prece, invocation nominis diviniyfolemni bcnediclione, gra* ,.z' -. tiarumaftionc. 2. Thac he makes not the whole word of the Inftitu- }J Iyyf' non ,:ofanctify the Bread , but onely that one fentence , This is my *0' 2* body. Whereas thrifts will is declared, and confequently theEle-^,'2* - ments fan£tifyed,(W)by the whole word of the mftitution: lefts tooke \™)Amt\> the Bread , and when he had given thankes, he braj^e it, and faid, Take cate , u WM* this is my body which is broken for you , this doe in remembrance of me, &C.
3 . That he akndwlcdgeth not the Bread , though I'anftified by Prayer? to be the Sacrament, except that very word be pronounced,
Eece This
$ 4 Th at the Ceremonies are not indifferent to ta Part. 4.
This is my body . Now when aM>ni(ler bath from Chrifts will&infti- tution declared, that he hath appointed Bread & Wine, to be the Ele- ments of his body and blood : when he hath alfo declared the eflen- tiall rites ofthis Sacrament.
Andlaftly , when by the Prayer of confecration he hath fan&i- fyed the Bread and Wine which areprefent: put the cafe, that all this while , thofe prefcript fentences , This is my body , This Cup is the New Teftament in my blood, have not beene pronounced; yet what hin- dereth the Bread and Wine, from beeing the Sacramental! Ele- ments of the Lords body and blood? It is founder Divinity to fay, < n) Amef. (n) that the confecration of a Sacrament , doth not depend ex certa ubifispra. aliqua formula verborum. For it is evident , that in Baptifme there is lib 4. cap. 6. noc a certaine forme of words prefenbed , as (o)B diamine alfo pro- {o)apud.A- veth • becaufe Chrift faiih not : Say>lbaptife thee in the name , e^c. But mefibid.kb* onely he faith , Baptising them in the name, &c. So that he prefcribeth 1 cap,i. not what fhould be laid , but what ffcould be done. (j>) Aquinas like- (p)x.q.6o. wife holdeth , that the confecration of a Sacrament is not ablolute- art. 8. ty tie^ to a certaine forme of words. And fo faith (q) ConradusVor- (q) in E»- y#w,fpeaking ofthe Eurharifl:. Wherefore (r) Voffm doth tightly con- ehir. contr. demne the Papifts , quod con fecrationem non din^erbh fieri putant > quam inter Evang, tftjh k°c *& corpus meum , O* hie efl fanguff mete.
& Pontif. ■-
{r)ubifupm
CHAP. VIII.
Tfat the Ceremonies ate not things indifferent to the Church
of Scotland : hecaufefhe did abjure and repudiat
themy by a moft folemne and generall Oath.
S & I ifiSPfti Aving fpoken ofthe nature of things indirTerent,and(liewed "e ' ' f^i ^v^ich things bee fuch ; alfo ofthe rule whereby to triethe fgSgs indifFerency of things : which rule we have applied to cer- taine particular cafes. It remaineth to fay fomewha: of the mainc and generall purpofe , which is principally queftioned in this laft part of our Difpute^namely,whether Crorfe, Kneeling, Holy-dayes, Bifhopping , and the other controverted Ceremonies , where* ith our Church ispreffed this day, befuch things as we may ufe freely and indifferently ? The negative (which we hold) is ft rongly confir- med by thofe Arguments , which in the third part of this ourDif- pute wee have put in order, againft thelawfulneileof thofe Cere- monies. Notwithstanding, we have thought fit, to adde fomewhat m ore > in this place. And firft we fay , whatfoever bee the condition of the Ceremonies in their owne nature , they can not bee indiffe- rently
Chap.8* becmfiofScoxhndsOdthi $f
rencly embraced and ufed by the Church ofScotland, which hath not onely once cad them forth, but alfo given her great Oath folemne- Jy to the God of heaven • both witnefling her dctefta' ion ofthe Ro- man A nrichriit hts five baftard Sacraments , with aU his Bjtes, Ceremonies, and falfe doSlrine , added to the.miniflrationof the true Sacraments , without the iVorcFofGod: all his vaine allegories , B^tes, Signes, and Traditions .brought inthe Kjrke without or againjl thelVordofGod. And likewife , Fromipng and /wearing to continue , as well in the DifcipUne andufe ofthe Holy Sa- craments , as in theDotlrine of this Reformed Church of Scotland , which then firft (he embraced and ufed, after fhe was truly refor- med from Popery and Popifh abufes. And this which I fay , may be feene in the generall Confeflion of Faith, fworne and fubferibed by his Majefties Father of everlafting memory, anno 1580. and by the feverall Parochines in the Land, at his Majefties {trait command: whichalfo was renued and fworne againe anno 1596. by the gene- rall A (Tembly, by provinciall AfTemblics , by Presbiteries, and par- ticular Parilh Churches.
No Reformed Church in Europe, is fo ftri&ly tied by the bond of Se&.II. an Oath and Subfcription , to hold faft her nrft Difcipline and ufe of the Sacraments , and to hold out Popifh Rites , as is the Church of Scotland. And who knowethnot that anOathdoth alwayes ob- lige and bind , (/ quando eslfaBum de rebus certvs <ff poffibilibus , vereae ( Q Aljled. fine dolo prameditate, accum judicio, juJie,adgloriamDeit (pbonum proxi- Iheol. c*f. mi f What one of all thole conditions , was here wanting ?Can we **p. ^S-p* then fay any lefle, then a (t) Pope faid before us , Nonesl tutum quern* 270. libet contra juramentum fuum venire , nifi tale jit , quod ferVatum Vergat in (t) Decree, internum falutis at erna f O damnable impietie! which maketh fo imall GfegMb.z. account of the vioation of theforcfaid Oath , which hath as great *'*. 24.^.8 power to bind us , as («) that Oath ofthe Princes of Ifrael, made to W l°{.9> the Cibeonhes , had to bind their pofterity, z Sam. zi. i.z. For it was made by the whole incorporation of this Land, and hath no tearmc at which it may ceafe to bind. Nay , (mfome refpe&s) it bindeth more ftraitly, then that Oath ofthe Princes of Ifraell. For, 1 . That was madeby theiPrinces onely: this, by Prince, Paftors, and People. /
2 That was made rafhly: (for the text fhe weth, that they asked not councell from the mouth ofthe Lord:) this , with moft religious & due deliberation. 3. That was made to men: this, to the great God. 4. That fworne butjonce : this, once and again.
Some of our Oppofites goe about to derogate fomewhat from Seel. III. the binding power of that Oath of the Princes of Ilraell : they are fo nertled therewith, that rhey fitch hither and thither, (x) D. "Borhejfi M iren.hb, fpeaketh to the purpofe thus .luramentum Gibeoniw prajlitum contra ?/>- 1 . cap. 9.
E eee 2 fitts j. z.
3 6 That the Ceremonies are not indifferent to us P arc. 4J
fi a Del mandMum ? & inconfulto Deo, nonpotuiffent lofuce &IfrdeUt* obeys perficcre , nifi Dens extraordmaric de fuo mandato dijperifajfet , compajjionc pxnitcnw illiiu popui'i Gibeonitki, <? prop: er honor em fui nomhus ,ut nequt fadifragorum fautor , neaue JuppTitium pcemtentium afpemator ejfe^ideretur. Anf 1. If rhe Oath was again ft the Commandement or God, what difhonourhad come to the name ofGod> though he had not patro- nized the (wearers of it, but hindered them from fulfilling their Oath r If aChriftian (weare to kill a Pagan , and hereafter repent of his Oath, and not performe it; can there any difhonour redound thereby to the name ofChrift ? The D. forfoothmuft lav fo.
2. Where hath he read of the Repentance of the Cibeonltes , which God would not defpife ?
3. If an Oath made againft the Commandement of God, (the breach of the commandement beeing defpenced with, ) binderh fo ftri&ly and inviolably , as that Oath of the Princes of Ifracll did : how much more ought we to thinke our felves ftrictly and inviola- bly bound, by the folemneOath of the Church of Scotland s which
, was not repugnant , but moftconfonant to the Word of God, even (y }V.Vorb. QUr Adverfaries themfelves being judges ? for thus fpcaketh (y) one #/W. $.3. of them. Quod autem jurarunt nojlrates, non crdt illlcitum > fed a nobis omnibus jure pr<eftarl pot eft ac debet, So that the D. hath gained no- thing, but looted much, by that which he faith of the Iiralites Oath. He hath even fanged himielfe fader inthefnare which ^e though to efcape.
O ' but faith the D. that which they did either infwearing , or in performing their Oath, againft the exprefTe Commandement of God , we may not draw into an ordinary example.
tAnf. It was againft the Commandement ofGod ; no man will fay , that w^ftiould follow either their fwearing or their performing of their Oath. Yet in themeane time the D. is prefled with this Ar- gument : that if their unlawfull Oath(in the cafe of Gods difpenfa- tion) did bind their pofterity , much more doth ttatOatb of the Church of Scotland ( which the D. hath, aknowledged lawfull and commendable*) bind us this day.
5c&. IV. But, 4. Albeit the D; hath hereby given us fcope and advantage enough againft himfelfe.Nevertheleffe;for the trueths fake,Iadde, that it can not be fhewed how that Oath of the Princes of Ifraell was againft the exprefTe Commandement of God: but it rarherap.-
}(z) T» Iof. peareth that it was agreeable to the fame. For as (*) Tremeliius hath
9+19. it noted,that Commandement Deut .10. Whereby the IliaeUes were
commanded,to favcalive'nothing in the Cities of the Canaanitesywas
to beonely underftood of fuch Cities amongthcm,as fhculd make
warte with them , and bee befieged by them. But the Cibeonltes were
not
Chap. 8. becatofeofScotlandsOath. 37
not of this fort, for they fought their lives , before the I fraelites k)l©ki» came to them : and by the fame meanes , (4) Rahab and her Fathers \h\ Com, in boufe got their lfe,be;aufe they fought it. (b) Calvine alfo obfer- lof. 9. veih j Juffos fuijfi lfraditas pacem omnibus ojftrre. And hmhts u p on Dent. 20. diftinguifhcth well two Laws of warre given to lhael.
Thefiritis concerning offering peace to all: which law is general! and common, as well to the Canaanhes, as to forraine Nations. When thou Comefi night unto a City to fight againft it, then prodaime peace unto it. *And it foall be , // it make thee anfwer of peace , then it fhall be that all the people that is found therein fhall be tributaries unto thee, and they fhall ferVe thee. Which Com mandement was afterward obferved by Urael , of whom we read , (c) That when Ifrael tiros ftrong, they put the Canaanhes & j^^'lt to tribute, and did not utterly drive them out. By {d) Solomon alfo, who did ^ £ ehtom not cutoff the people that were left of the Hhtites, and the j4morhes, $.7. 8. but onely made them to pay tribute. That which I fay , is further confirmed by {e) another place , where it is faid , There was not a City (*) U& *»• that made peace with the children oflfrael,fave the Hivites the inhabitants of***3,0* Cibecn: all other they tooke in Battel! . For it was of the Lord to harden their hearts, that they fhould come again ft Ifraell inbattell,that he might deflroy them utterly , and that they might tave no favour : 'but that he might de- ftroy them , as the Lordcommanded Mofes.\ From which words it appea- rpth , that if the Canaanhes had made peace with the children of If- rael , they were to fhew them favour ; and that they were bound by the Com man dement of the Lord -o deftroy them , then onely and in that cafe, if they would not accept peace,but make warre; whence itcommeth,thatthecaufcof the detraction of the Canaanhes , is im- puted to their owne hardnefle and contumacy in not accepting of peace-andnotto any Commandement which God had given to If- rael , for destroying them. In a word, it was voluntas figni , which in . - ., (/) one place (hewed the I fraelites, what was their duty , namely to ,0%u'2^ offer peace to all , even to the Canaanhes , and not to cut them off , if they fhould accept the pesce. But it was, voluntas beneplacm , which (as we read in (g) another place) decreed to deliver the Canaanhes , fc)Deut. r» before the Ifraeh:es , that is , to harden their hearts to come againft *• them in B.ittell,and fo to overrule the matter by a fecret and inferu- table Sprovidence, that the 1 fraelites might lawfully and fhould cer- tainly defttoy them > and fhew them no rm*rcy. Even as that fame God, who by one word fhev.ed umo Abraham, what was his duty ,MGem;2a, (h) bidding him offer up his fonre lfaacbj by another Word fignified a. unto him, what he had decreed to be done, (j) forbidding him to lay (i) ibid. his hand upon the Lad, or todoe any thing unto him. But this (Iverf.u, know,) will be very unfavory language3to many Arminianized Con- form itans. The other law of warre which Junius, upon Vttft, 20, obferveth ,
E e e e 3 prefcribed
3 S That the Ceremonies are not indifferent to m Part. 4.'
prefcribed to the Ifraelites , how theyfhould deale with them who refuted their peace. And here onely vsasthe difference made be- twixt the Cities which v\ere very farre off, and the Cities of rhe Ca- naanitestDeut. 10. 15.16. But thefirftlaw was common; as hath been proven.
lofeph Hall feemeth to deny , that the Oath of the Princes of Ifrael,
had any power to bind , but upon another ground then D Forbejfe
(k) con~ tooke rohimfelf. It would feeme, very queslionable t faith (t-|H*//, Whe~
templMb.S. therlofua needed to hold him [elf bound to this Oath: for fraudulent conv en-
ofthi t'tons obliege not: and Ifrael had put in a direct caveat of their vicinity .
Ctbeon. Anf. I marvell how it could enter in his mind to ihinke this mat-
(\) t. Sam, ter queftionable,fince the violation of that Oath [l) was afterwards
ax. 1. a. pumfhed with three yeares famine. Yet let us hearken to his reafons.
One of them is forged : for the Princes of Ifrael who fware unto
(m)iof. 9. them, put in no caveat at all. (m) The Text faith only in the generall,
if. that they fware untothem. A< touching his other re.ifon , it is an-
(n) com. in fweredby (n) Calv'me. lurisjurandi religio faith he, eoufyue JanBa apud
Io 1. 9. nos effe diet, ne errorvi prxtextu a paEits difcedamtts , etiam in quibus fuimus
decepti. Which that it may be made more plaioe unto us, let us
(6)Amef. wicntheO/w/fadiftinguifh (0) a twofold error in fweanng. For if
M. 4. dt the error be about the very fubftance of *he thing \ ( as when a man
eonfe. cap. contracts manage with one particular perl on, taking her robe ano-
2.1. j Q. therperfon,) the oath bindeth nor. But if the error be only about
fomeexrrinfecall oracci djnrallci rcumftance, (fuchaswas the error
of the If aelites, taking the Gibeo'.ites to dwell a farre off, when they
d,\e:tahand,) the Oath ceaie:h not to bind.
Seel. VI. Thismuch beeing faid for the binding oower of that Oath of the Church of Scotland: let us now confider what fhifs our Oppofits ufe to elude our Argument, wrich w^ drawe from the fame; where rirft, there occureth to us one ground which the Bifhop oi Edinbrug doth every where bea:upjn, in the trace of this Argument: taken out of then. Article of rhe Confeflion of Faith, wherein we find thefe words Not that we thin^e that any Policu and an ordtr in Ceremonies , can be appointed for all ages , times , and places : for as Ceremonies , fuch as men have dtvifed, are but temporal , fo may and ougbt they to be changed , when they rather fojler fuperfiition, then that they edify the Kirkfxfng the fame. [p)pan.i. Whercir on the b*. concludeth, (J>) that nonewho (ware the forefaid pag. 5. Article, could without breach of this Oath, fweare that the Ceremo- ny of fitting at the receiving of the Sacrament, could be appoin- ted for all ages, times, and places.
Anf. None of us denieth that Article, we all fland to it. Forthat whichijt pronounceth of Ceremonies , muft be undeiftooue of alte- rable
Chap. 8. Becanfe o/Scotlands Oath. 3 9
rable circum fiances , unto which the name of Ceremonies is but gene- rally and improperly applied, as we have (hewed [q) elfewhere. ($)f*pr* Neither canwe> for pro felling our felves bound by auoaih , ever part. 3*c.7 . to rctaine fitting at the receiving of the Sacrament, in this Natio -,/*#. 5. nail Church of Scotland , be therefore thought to tranfgreiTe the faid Article.
For, 1. The Article fpeaketh of Ceremonies devifed by men, whereof fitting at the Sacrament is none, being warranted ( as hath beene (hewed ) by Chrifts owne example , and not by mans device.
2. The Article fpeaketh of fuch Ceremonies, as rather foflerfu- perftition , then edify the Church ufing the fame : whereas it is well kno>Aen, that fitting at the Communion did neveryet fofter faper- flition in this Church. Sothatthe B. did very unadvifedly reckon fitting at the Communion among thofe Ceremonies whereof the Article fpeaketh.
But the B. hath a further aime , and attempteth no lengthen both Se&.VII. to put the blot of perjurieoff himfelf andhis fellowes^ and like- wife to rub it upon us, (s) telling us , Thatnomandid by the Oath oblige (t) ubi fa- himfelf to obey and defend that part of Difcipline , which cone: erneth thefe al- frapag, 1 6. terabh things, all the day es of bis life ; but only > that Difcipline which K un- changeable and commanded in theWord. Yea ( faith he , ) we further af- firme , that every man who fware to the Difcipline of the Church in gene* rail , by vertue of that Oath fiandeth obliged , not only tocbty and defend tkt conslitutions tf the Church , that were in force at the time of making hts Oath ; but alfo to obey and defend whatfotoer the Church thereafter hath ordained r or f hall ordaine , &c. Whether thereby the former constitutions be esla- blifhed or altered > &c. The fame anfwereaoth (;) D. Forbejfe alo re- (s) Iren. turne us. lib, i.e. 9*
iAnf. 1. Here is a manifeft contradiction , focthe B. faith that §>h 4-^» every man did by this Oath oblige himfelf,. only to obey and defend that Difcipline which is unchangeable & commanded in the Word. And yet againe he feemeth to import , ( that which (t) D. ForbeJJe (t) ibid. §. plainely avoucheth , ) that every man obliged himfelf by the fame 4. &6* Oath , to obey and defend, all that the Church fiiould afterwards ordaine , though thereby the former conftitutions be altered. The B. therefore doth apparently contradict himfelf , or at the beft , hee contrad^eth his feilow-pleader for the Ceremo- nies.
2. That auncient Difcipline and policy of this Church , which is contrary to the Articles of Perth, andwhereunto we are bound by the Oath , was well grounded upon Gods Word , and therefore fhould not have beene ranked among other alterable things.
3. Where-
40 That the Ceremonies are not indifferent to tu> Part. 4.^
3. Whereas the B. is of opinion , that a man may by his Oath tic
himfelf to things which a Church (lull afterward ordaine : he may
confider.that fuchan oath were unlawfull , becaufe not fwome in
judgement, ler. 4. 2. Now this judgement winch is required , as one
of theinfcpirable companions of a lawfullOath,is not Executiojufti-
(u) fct.2*. •**• but Iudicium difcretionti , as («) Tbomai teacheth , whom Bulling**
« aC), ^t. and fynchitH [x) doe herein follow. But there is no judgement of
. difcretion, in h:s oath who fweares to that he knowes not wh.t , even
(x) Zanch. to tnat which may fall out as readily wrong as righr.
ini<a». 4» Whereas the B. and the D. alledge , that every man who
pric tp joo.^varc to the Difcipline of this Church , ftandeth obliged to obey
' all that the Church ordained afterward , they greatly deceive them*
ielves :
For, 1. The Difcipline fpoken of in the pro mi (Tori e part of the Oath , muftbe the fame which was fpoken of in theafTertorie part. Now that which is mentioned in the atTertorie part , can not be ima- gined to be any other , but that which was then prefently ul\ d in this (y)$&Un. Church , at the time of givingthe Oath. Forty) an aflercorie Oath fjnt. theol. is either of that which is pad, or of that which is prefent. And the i.p.cap.ii. aflertorie part of the Oath whereof we fpeake, was not of any Dif- pag. 80 1. cipline part and away : Ergo, of that which was prefent. Moreover j Zamk. in (?) Thomas doth rightly put this difference betwixt an aiTertorie and l.ttm.prtc, apromiflbrieOath; thatthe matterof a promiflbne Oath is athing p. 599- to come, which is alterable , asconcerning theevent. Materia autem (z) 2d in. jtiramenti ajfertorii, quod eft de pr<eterito Vel prafenti , in quandam necefllfa- <l.%9>*rt.9.tm jamtranjiiti <? immutabilis fatla eft. Since ihen the Diiciplme fpoken of in theafTertorie pait , was no other then that whienwas ufed in this Church , when the Oath wis fwome : and fince the pro- miiToriepart is illative upon and relative unto the matter of the aiTer- torie part : Therefore we conclude, the Difcipline fpoken of in the promifTory part, could be no other , then rhat which v*. as then pre- fently ufed m this Church, at the f vearingof the Oa.h.
2. Since the doctrine mentioned in that Oath , is faid to have beene profcfTed openly by the Kings majefty , and thewhole body of this Realme, before thefwearingof the fame : why fhould wenoc likewise underftand ihe Difcipline mentioned in the Oath , to be that which was pra&ifedin this Realme, before the {'wearing of the fame?
3. This is further proved by the word Qmfinuing. Wearefwornc to continue in toe obedience of the Doclnne and Difcipline of this Church: but how can men be faid to continue in the obedience of any other Difcipline , then that which they have already begunne to obey? This the B. feemes to have perceived, for he fpeakes only of defending and obeying, but not of continuing to obey , which
is the
Chap. 8. Becazfc of Scotlands Oath'. |r
is the word of the Oath ; and which proveth the Difcipline there fpoken of, and fvvornc to, to be no other then that which was pra- clifed in this Church, when the Oath was fworne. 4. Whiles we hold, that he who fweareth to the prefcnt Difcipline of a Church, is no by vertueof this Oath, obliged to obey all which that Church (i)Aqu'm. (hall ordaine afcervyard ; both the Schoole & the Canon Law doe ubi fupra fpeake for us. The Schoole teacheth , [a] that Canonicus qui jurat fe 7.48. art. z; firvaturum flatuta ed'uainaliquo Collegio , non temturex juramento ad fer- (b) deer. V andu m futura. The Canon Law judgeth/6) tin: qui jurat fervarefta. Greg. lib. 2. tut a edit*) O'c. non tenet ur ex juramento ad noviter edit a. tit. 24.
But we are more fully to confider that ground whereby be Bifh- Seel, Vi II, op thinkethto purge himfelf, and thofe of his Se£t, of the breach of the Oath, (c) Heftill alledgeth , that the points of Difcipline for (c) ubi fa- which we contend , are not contained in the matter of theO-h. pra pag. 9* Now as touching the Difcipline of this Church which is fpoken of in the Oath [d) he queftioneth what is meant by it. (d) ibid,
iAnf. 1. Put the cafe it were doubtfull and questionable , what is fag. 12. meant by the word Difcipline in the Oath ; yet pars tutior were to be chofen; The B. nor no man amongus can certainly know 5 that the Difcipline meant and fpoken of in the Oath , by thofe that (ware it, comprehended^ not under it thofc points of Difcipline for which we now contend , and which this Church had in ufe at the {'wearing of the Oath. Shall we then put the breach of the Oathin a faire I azar ■!? God forbid. For as (e) Jofepjj Ball notch from the example of lofua (e) ubi fa~ and the Princes , men may nottruft tofhifts for the eluding or an fn*. Oath : Surely the feare of Gods name fhould make us to trem- ble at an Oath , and to bee farce from adventuring upon any fuch fivfts.
2. The B. doth but needleiTely qucflion , what is meant by the Difcipline whereof the Oath fpeaketh. For howtoeverin Ecclefia- fticall ufe , it fignify oftentimes that policy which ftandeth in the cenfuring of manners: yet in the Oath, it muft betaken in the lar- H Zan- geft fence, namely, for the wholle policy of the Church. For, 1. chius gi^ 7< The wholle policy of this Church , did at that time goe under die ve*h the name of Difcipline : and thoie two bookes wherein this policy is natneofZc- contained , w^re called , The bookes of Difciplme And without all clefi.tticall doubt, they who fware the Oath meant by Difciplme that whole po- Difciplme to hey of the Church which is contained in thole bookes. Howbet (as theritesmd the preface of them fhe.veth) Difcipline doth alfo comptehendH'7 °fthe ■ other* Ecc'efiafticall ordinances and conftitutions , which are not in- Chuich and fert din them. 2. Do&rine and Difcipline , in ihe Oath, doe com l«tvesm»d& prehena all that, to which the Church required , and we promifed lothereanm^ performe obedience. Ergo , the whole policy of the Church was7* 4- pw,'
Ffff meant «&* 7^
4* Tint the Ceremonies an not itidiffcrent to m , &c. Part. 4,
meant by Difcipline , forafmuchas it was not compreiunded under Doctrine.
Seek. IX. (/)The B. objecleth three limitations, whereby hethinketh to fe«
[i)ubifttpra elude from the matter or* the Oath that polity and Diicipiine which fug, 10. vve plead tor.
Firll, l.e faith, that the matter of the Oath is the Doctrine & Dif- cipline revealed to the world by the Gofpe 1 : and that tV is limita- tion excludeth all Ecc'efiafticall constitutions, which are not ex- preffely, or by a necciTary ccnfcqucnce containsdin.be written Word.'
z. That the mattcer cf the Oath is the Doctrine and Discipline, which ii received, believed , and defended by many notable Chur- ches, &c. and that this limitation excludeth all thefe things , wherein the Church of Scotlandlnth not the confent of many notable Chur- ci.es, c\7c.
3 That the Doctrine and Difcipline which is the matter of the Oath, is particularly expreffed mine ConfefTion of Faith, c\rc. and that in thisConfeliion of Faith , eilabhfbed by Parliament, there, is no mention made of the Articles controverted, &c.
Anf. I might here (hew how he confoundcth the preaching of th« Evangell, with the written Word: iikewife, howfalfely heafnrmeth, that the pomts of Difcipline for which we plead , are neither warran- ted by "the Scripture, nor by the confent of many notable Chir- ches. But to the point. Theie words of the Oar h : iVebeleeve-, &c. that this only u the true Chrislian Faith and Religion, pleajlng God, and bring, zng falvati'on to m&n , whilk now is by the mercy of God, revealed to the world7. by the preaching of the blejfed Evangel, and received, believed, anddefen* ded, by many and fundry notable Kjrl^es and Realmes , but chiefly by the Kjrkj of Scotland ; the Kjngs Majesty -3 and three Estaites., <?c. as more particu- larly H exprcjfed in the Confeljion cf our Faith, O^.are altogether perverted by the B. tor there is no Difcipline fpoken of jnthefe words, but af- terward : why thentalkeshe of a Difcipline revealed to he world by the Gofpell, having the confent q£ many notable Churches, and ex- preflTed in heConfeinon of Faith? And if the 3. will have any Dif- cipline to be meant of in thefe words ,he mull comprehend itunder the Chriftian Faith and Religion , which bringcth Salvation unto man. But this he can not doe, with (o much as theleaft fhewofrea- fon. Thus put wean end to the Argument taken from theOuhof God : wifhing every man amongftus, out of tie feare of Gods, glorious and fcarfull name, duly to regard and ponder the fame.
chap;
Chap, p 43
CHAP. IX.
A recapitulation of findry other wfens agahHtbe Indijferencf of the Ceremonies,
J^p|k Hat the Ceremonies are not indifferent to us , or fuch Seel:. I.' l3j^ things as we may freely prtidife, we prove yet by other ^Jij? reafons.
For, I. They vvho plead for the in differency of the Ce- remonies mutt tell us vshecher they call them indifferent maclufig- iuto , or in aBuexercho , or in both thefe refpe&s. Now (g) we have (g) fupr* proven > that there is no adion deliberated upon , and wherem wee cap. $> proceed with the advileof reafon, which can be indifferent ina&u ex* ircho: and that becaufe it can not choofe , but either have ah the cir -' curnftances which it fhould have, (and lobe good, ) or elfe want fome of them, one or moe, (and i'o be evili. ) And as for the lndifferency of the Ceremonies in Attn fignato > though we fhould acknowledge it, (which we doe not, ) yetit could be no warrant for the pra&iie of them : or elfe the beieeving Gentiles might have freely eaten all meats, not.vithftandingof thefcandall of thelewes: for the ea- ting of all meats freely was ftilla thing indifferent in aclujignato*
2. The Ceremonies are not indifrerent , eoipfo that they are pre- Sect. IT.1 fcribed and com mended unto us as indifferenc. For as [b) Aquinas (h) i*.2*. refolveth out of Ifidore, every humane or politive Law, mult be both?, 95. *rt+ neceffaria ad remothnem malorum, and utih's ad confccutionem bonorum. The 3 . Guides of Gods Church have not power to prefenbe 2ny other thing, then ihat which is good and profitale for edifying. Forchey are fee not as Lords over Ch rifts inheritance , but as Minifters for their good, h famed good to the holy Ghost & to us [i) fay the Apoffies andC1) A<^- J5» Riders to the Churches , to lay upon you no greater burden then thefe ne- i8' ceffary things. They would not (you fee) have enaiied a Canon about: rhofe things, ho vbeic indifferent in their owne nature , had they noc found ihem neceffary , for the efTiewing of Scanda'l. And as for the Civill Magiftrate , he alfo hath not power to prefcribe anything which hepleafeth , though it be in it felt" indifferent : for he is the Mi - tuft-r of God unto thee for good t (I?) faith [he Apoltle : markethac word (^)^om.i^ for good. Itlecsus fee, thatthe Magistrate hach not povver given him, 4* to jp.jovu? any other thing , then tha: which may be for our good. Non enim fuzcau fa domhiantur faith (I) Calvine • fed publico bono : neqxe (1) com, in effneni potcntia pnediti funt , fed qua? fubditorum faluti fit obslricla. Now tilftnhcum. tricfirft and chiefeit good, which the Migiitrate is bound to fee for
Ff ff a unto
44 Othtf reafons again fl the wd-ferencj Parr. "4,'
(m) com. unto the Subjects , is, (as [m] Pare** (hewed ) Bonumfp'irhudt. Let us tbid. then, cither fee the good of the Ceremonies -,01: cile we muft account
them to be fuch things, as God never gave Princes not Palters em to injoyne.ForEovvioever rhey have pov\e; co puknbe avany tiling 1
which are indifferent, that is to (dyy neither good norevill in their generall natureryfct they may not command us topractife any ibing, which in the particular uleof it is not neceiTary or expedient for fome good end.
Se£r. III. 3. The Ceremonies are not indifferent , becaufe notwithitan-
dingth.it they are prefenbed and commended unto us as things
in themfelves indifterent, yet wee are by the will and auctoritv
of men compelled and neceflitated to ule them : Si vera ad ret
[n) tint. 3 fua.nMura media accedat coaciio , <SC then lay (n ) the Magdebur-
cap. 4. gia ns , Paul teachch , Coloff 2. that it is notlavvtu 1 to ule them
fil. So. ri cely . If ye bee dead with Chrtfl from the rudiments of the world , why <x
though living in the world are vefubjeci to ordinances, {Touch not , tafltj
not , handle not : which are all to perifh with the ttfing ) after the Com*
( ) ih'A mandements and DoBrines of men ? Hence is 0) Tertullian taxed , for
T lr inducing a necelfity in thing, indifferent. Now with how great ne-
tutrt 1 c\ b ceu^tv anc* coaction the Ceremonies are impofed upon us , we have
-&. ' made it evident p) elfewhere. 3 • & 4. ■*
Se6i.IV. 4- Whatfpevci be the quality of the Ceremonies in their owne na- ture; , they are not indifferent to us, neither may we freely praclife them , becaufe Papifh make advantage of them , and take occafion from tf.em, to connrme fundry of their errors and funerftitions : as we have likewise g)e!fe.vbere made evident. Now Cum Jdiaphora
(q)fupr* part, z.czp
*T* *' rapmntur adconfc!Jimem 3 libera effe defmunt '/) fairh the Harmony of Con-
ycaP ?• feiiions. Mark. Ripiuntur. Though they get no jufl occauon,yct if
Y ^' t they take o:cafio:i , though uujuftlv , that is enough to make us
!jfll\t , abitaine from things indifferent. Eti.tm eaC?'nh (f)Baidu'me,qu* na-
*kc °J f''e utra fita funt liber* obfcrvathm , in flam confejiomi , cum ab adverfarin
Crojjstup.i arum mutatio poflulatur , fiunt neceffaria. feci. 6. •"
(1) dc caf. confc . lib. 4. c. 1 1 . caf. 3 .
Se£t. V. 5. Thmgs which are mod indifferent in themfelves, becomeevilt
t cent. 1. in the cafe of Scandal , and Co mav no: be u'ed. So hold (fjthc C lb. 2 cap 4. tune Writers : So (*] Parens : So \x) Zgnclms : So (?) Chemnhius : So to!. 44L £) Augufltne: And Co hath thef*) A pottle taught. But that out of (u) com. in ti.e practile of the Ceremonies there growth a&ive Scandad unto Horn. 14.
dub. 1. (x)de \m.i£in. p. 320. [}') exam. £*rt, I. pag. lj$. (z) E$!{!. 8^. aA CafuUn. laji C-r.8.8.0/
the
Chap. 9. of the Ceremonies, 4^
the weake , (b) we have mod clearly proven. Wherefore let them (b)fi*pr4 be in their own? nature as indifferent as any thing can be, yet they part', z. are not indifferent io43e ufed and oractifed byus. Arid whofoever**/> 9, fwallovseth thlsScandall of Chriits htle ones, and repenteth not , the heavie milftone of Gods dreadfull wrath , iliali be hanged about his nccke to {inke him dowue in the bottomJeffe lake: and then >m fnalihe feete that which before he would nocundcrftand.
6. It is no" enough for warrant ofourpra&ife , that we doe thofe Sec*. VI. th'ngs which are indifferent or lawful! in themfelves, except they be
alio expedient to be done by us , according to the A potties rule, 1 Cor. 6. 1 2. But (c) I have proven that many and waighty inconve- fc)^pm- niences doe follow upon the Ceremoniesjas namely, that they m; ke part.z, way and are the Vfhers for greater evils: that they hindet edifica- tion ;,and in their flefhly fhevv and outward fplendor , obfeure and prejudge the life and power of Godlineffe ; that they are the unhap- pie occafions of much injury and cruelty againft the Faithfull Ser- vants of Chrifr • that they were bellowes to blowup, and arc frill fewelltoencreafe the Church. consuming fire of woefull diffentions (d) lbidi amongftus >tkc. Where alio [d) wefhevv, that fomeofourOppo- cxp.i. ftes themfelves aknowledge the inconveniency of the Ceremonies. Wherefore we can not freely nor in differently pracLfe them.
7. Thefe Ceremonies are the 3ccurfed monuments of Popifli Su. Sc&.VII. peritition; and have been both dedicated unto and employed m the publike and ioicmne worfhip of Idols. And therefore (having no neceffary ufe for which we fhould (till retainethem ) hey ouglirto
bee utterly abolifhed , and are not left free nor indifferent to us. Which Argument {e) I have al'o made good e'fewhere. And in this (t)fupr* place I onely adde, that both (/) HUrommu-s , gancbw, and ig) Aman part. 3. cafi diss Polanm ? doeapplie this Argument to the SptpXicr". holding , rhat 2. though it be in it felfe indifferent , yet qma in cultu Idololatrko vefle U- (fj lib, 1 . fa nea- utuntur Clerici Papani>& in ea nonpamm janStimohi/f pontine fuperfii-* cult. Dtfax- tiofi bomir.es : valedkendum esl non folum cu'tui idololatrko, fed etiamom- tern, cot. nihts idchlatrne monuments , inftrummtts & admir.kulii. Yea lofepb Had 4.6. himielfe, doth herein give teihmony ur.to us: for upon He^eliias [o] Synt, pjjlling dovvne of the Brafen Serpent , becau'eof the I ! I:\truis ab- lbwl.hb.9, ufe of »t; trus(/Vi he noteth, Cod commanded the ratfing of it , Godccm-cap.-$o. manded tie abolifhing of it. Supcrfiiiious ufe can marre the Very institutions [h)hb. 1. of God : hoto much more the rnofi wife and well grounded devices of men? A ud contempL cf further in the end ofthis treati.'e en tit led, 17: t; honour of the married Clear- thiZrain gie , he adjovneth a paffage taken out of the Epiftle ofErafinMfytero- Serpent, dammto Chrifcpher Bifhop ofBafil, which paffage beginreih thus. For thofe things which art altogether of humane confitnthn, ???uft [ULf to remedies
E r f £ 3 m
4& Other reafim tgMnft the indifferency Part. 4.
in iifeafes) be attempered to the prefent eflate of matters and times, Tbofe
things which were oncercligioufiy infi'uuted, afterwards according to occafion,
and the changed quality of manners and times, maybe with more Religion and.
Piety abrogated. Final y , itHe^ekjas bee prilled for breaking dovv.ie
tne Braze j Serpent, {chough m it it u ted by God,) when the I fr aefk.es
begannc \o abufe it againftthe honour of God ; how much more
(\) com. in fauh (i) Zgnchiw are our Reformers to be praiied, for iliac they did
ip'.i yd: thus WJtij Rites instituted by men, beeing found full ofSjperftitious
ltyt.cap.7, abufe , though in themleivestney had not been evill.
Sc&. 8. The Ceremonies are not indifferent , becaufe they depirttoo
YIT. farre from the example of Chtilt , and his A pottles, and the purer
times of the Church: for in (read of that auncienc Chnltian-Jike ,
and (buie-edifying firaplicity: Religion is now by their meanes buf-
ked with the vaine trumpery or Babi'onifh trinckets, apd her face
. r t covered with the whorifh and eye-bewitching farding , of flefhiy
[Kj Jupra ^ew anr^ fpien(iori And(fe) I have ado fhewed particularly, how
c*p~ 5" ' '7* fun dry of the Ceremonies are flat contrary to the example of Chtifl
^Pf'V* and his A pottles , and the bed times. cat>.v.V9*
fth, a., &jM.$.cap.i.fe3,l.&4.fe£l.5. Z$>& part.l. cap. 9. feft.l^
Seel:. IX. 9. The Ceremonies make us alfo too conforme, and like to the Idolatrous Papifts : whereas it isnotlawfull to fymbolize^wiih Ido- laters , or to be like them , in a Ceremony of mans deviling , or any tlung which hath no neceffary ufe in Religion: fu:h a distance and a diflimilitudethete is required to be betwixt the Church of Chrift and the Synagouge ofSathan, betwixt the Temple of God and the Kingdome of the Bead , betwixt the company of found Bjlecvers 5c the conventicles ofHeretikes who are without , betwixt the true worfhippers of God, and the Worfhippers of Idols : thatwe can not without beeing acceffary totheir fuperfluious and falfc R iigion, and partaking with the fame", appeare conforme unto them in their 7hlU*/<jk unneccn"'iry R'tCS and Ceremonies [I) D;/r4»^:els us , that they call lb 6 tit *de ^an^er ^7 tre Greeke , and not by the Hebrew name , and that they JieJaaft'. ' keeP nct tnaft Feaftnpon tne *ame ^y ^ith c^e lews : and all for p L * . th-scaufe,!eaft they (hould feeme to judaifce. How much more (m) fupra rea^°n have we to abftaine from the Ceremonies of the Church of tart "• c " R?mt '» ^ we feeme to Romanize? But I fay no more in this place , ' '->' '*' becaufe (a») I have heretofore confirmed this Argument at lengdi.
q pl v . 10. The Ceremonies as urged upon us , are alfo full of Super- , » r ■ ' ' ftition : HolineiTeand Worfhip are placed in them: as («) we lave i ;yTi Proven b7 unanfwerable grounds , and by Testimonies of our 0p- Par 1* * • polices
Chap. 8. of the Ceremonies, 47
poGcesthemfelvcs. Therefore were they never fo indifferent in 'heir o.vnegeaerall nature, this placing of them intheftate of wqiihip , maketii them ceafe to be indifferent,
11. The Ceremonies againft v.hic?» we difpute , arc more then Bed:, XL matters of mere order, forfomuch as (acred and mifterious {Jgnifi- cations are given unto them , and by their bonifications they are thought ro teach men effectual iy , iundry miseries , and duties of
Pietie. Therefore they are not free nor indifferent , but more then men have power to inftitute: For except Circumftances and mat- (o) fupra ters of mere order, there is nothing which concerneih the Worfhip /**;/. 3 cap. of God , left to the determination of men. And this Argument al- 5.6* '6>fi&. fo (0) hath been in all the parts of it fully explained and ftrength- y&J.fcft. ned by us, which ftrongly proveih that the Ceremonies are not 5. 10. ij. indifferent , fo much as quo ad fpeciem. Quare doElrina a nobis tradita 12. 13.14, (thefe be (p) X^nchm woidsN, non lictrt nobis 3 aim exttrni cultm Ceremo- (p) decult. nth Deum colen , quam quaslpfe in faens litem per Jpojtolos pnefcripjit ,fir- Dei extern* ma accertamanct. Col. 494.
12. Whatfoever indifferency the Ceremonies could bee thought Secl.XIL to have in their owne nature, yet i Fit be considered how the Church
of Scotland hath once been purged from them, and hath fpewed them out with deteftation , and hath enjoyed the comfortable light and fweet beames of the glorious and bright fhining Gofpelj of Chrift, without Iliad owes and figures; then (hall it appeare, that there is no indifferency in (p) turning backe toweakeand beggarly Elements. ;^ ^ * f;9' And thus faith ( r) Cdvine of the Ceremonies of the Interim-, that ^.j/ ? ■ graunting they were things in themfelves indifferent, yet the reditu- J ' , tion of them in thofeChurchcs, which were once purged from them,is 7/)' Revel!? noindif&rent ihmg. Wherefore 6 Scotland I {f) ilrengthen the 2.
things which remaine, thac are read e to die. (*) Remember alio from whence thou art fallen , and repent , (t) ibid. 2. and doe the fir ft workes: or e!fethy candleftick wiil 5,
be quickly removed out of this place, except thou repent.
FINIS.
Soli D £ o Victoria & Gloria.
V
V
A,
1
/
0*