The Works of Mr. George Gillespie (Vol. 1 of 2)

By Author	[ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z \| Other Symbols ]
By Title	[ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z \| Other Symbols ]
By Language

Download this book: [ ASCII | HTML | PDF ]

Look for this book on Amazon

We have new books nearly every day.
If you would like a news letter once a week or once a month fill out this form and we will give you a summary of the books for that week or month by email.

Title: The Works of Mr. George Gillespie (Vol. 1 of 2)
Author: Gillespie, George, 1613-1648
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.

*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Works of Mr. George Gillespie (Vol. 1 of 2)" ***

THE WORKS OF

MR. GEORGE GILLESPIE

MINISTER OF EDINBURGH,

AND ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS FROM SCOTLAND

TO THE WESTMINSTER ASSEMBLY, 1644

NOW FIRST COLLECTED.

WITH MEMOIR OF HIS LIFE AND WRITINGS,

BY M. W. HETHERINGTON, LL.D.

IN TWO VOLUMES.

VOL. I.

EDINBURGH:

ROBERT OGLE AND OLIVER AND BOYD.

M. OGLE & SON AND WILLIAM COLLINS, GLASGOW.

HAMILTON, ADAMS & CO, LONDON

1846.

CONTENTS

ADVERTISEMENT.
MEMOIR OF THE REV. GEORGE GILLESPIE.
APPENDIX. EXTRACTS FROM WODROW’S ANALECTA (MAITLAND CLUB EDITION)
DISPUTE AGAINST THE ENGLISH POPISH CEREMONIES OBTRUDED ON THE CHURCH OF
SCOTLAND.
DEDICATION
AUTHOR’S PREFACE
PROLOGUE.
ORDER.
THE FIRST PART. AGAINST THE NECESSITY OF THE CEREMONIES.
CHAPTER I. THAT OUR OPPOSITES DO URGE THE CEREMONIES AS THINGS
NECESSARY.
CHAPTER II. THE REASON TAKEN OUT OF ACTS XV. TO PROVE THE NECESSITY
OF THE CEREMONIES, BECAUSE OF THE CHURCH’S APPOINTMENT, CONFUTED.
CHAPTER III. THAT THE CEREMONIES THUS IMPOSED AND URGED AS THINGS
NECESSARY, DO BEREAVE US OF OUR CHRISTIAN LIBERTY, FIRST, BECAUSE
OUR PRACTICE IS ADSTRICTED.
CHAPTER IV. THAT THE CEREMONIES TAKE AWAY OUR CHRISTIAN LIBERTY
PROVED BY A SECOND REASON, NAMELY, BECAUSE CONSCIENCE ITSELF IS
BOUND AND ADSTRICTED.
CHAPTER V. THAT THE CEREMONIES TAKE AWAY CHRISTIAN LIBERTY, PROVED
BY A THIRD REASON, VIZ., BECAUSE THEY ARE URGED UPON SUCH AS, IN
THEIR CONSCIENCES, DO CONDEMN THEM.
CHAPTER VI. THAT THE CEREMONIES TAKE AWAY CHRISTIAN LIBERTY PROVED
BY A FOURTH REASON, VIZ., BECAUSE THEY ARE PRESSED UPON US BY NAKED
WILL AND AUTHORITY, WITHOUT GIVING ANY REASON TO SATISFY OUR
CONSCIENCES.
CHAPTER VII. THAT FESTIVAL DAYS TAKE AWAY OUR LIBERTY, WHICH GOD
HATH GIVEN US, PROVED; AND FIRST OUT OF THE LAW.
CHAPTER VIII. THAT FESTIVAL DAYS TAKE AWAY OUR CHRISTIAN LIBERTY,
PROVED OUT OF THE GOSPEL.
CHAPTER IX. SHOWING THE WEAKNESS OF SOME PRETENCES WHICH OUR
OPPOSITES USE FOR HOLIDAYS.
THE SECOND PART. AGAINST THE EXPEDIENCY OF THE CEREMONIES.
CHAPTER I. AGAINST SOME OF OUR OPPOSITES, WHO ACKNOWLEDGE THE
INCONVENIENCY OF THE CEREMONIES, AND YET WOULD HAVE US YIELD TO
THEM.
CHAPTER II. AGAINST THOSE OF OUR OPPOSITES WHO PLEAD FOR THE
CEREMONIES AS THINGS EXPEDIENT.
CHAPTER III. THAT THE CEREMONIES ARE INEXPEDIENT, BECAUSE THEY ARE
PREPARATIVES FOR GREATER EVILS.
CHAPTER IV. THAT THE CEREMONIES ARE INEXPEDIENT, BECAUSE THEY HINDER
EDIFICATION.
CHAPTER V. THAT THE CEREMONIES ARE INEXPEDIENT, BECAUSE THEY ARE
OCCASIONS OF INJURY AND CRUELTY.
CHAPTER VI. THAT THE CEREMONIES ARE INEXPEDIENT, BECAUSE THEY HARDEN
AND CONFIRM THE PAPISTS.
CHAPTER VII. THAT THE CEREMONIES ARE INEXPEDIENT, BECAUSE THEY
DISTURB THE PEACE OF THE CHURCH.
CHAPTER VIII. THAT THE INEXPEDIENCY OF THE CEREMONIES, IN RESPECT OF
THE SCANDAL OF THE WEAK, MAY BE PLAINLY PERCEIVED. TWELVE
PROPOSITIONS TOUCHING SCANDAL ARE PREMITTED.
CHAPTER IX. ALL THE DEFENCES OF THE CEREMONIES, USED TO JUSTIFY THEM
AGAINST THE SCANDAL IMPUTED TO THEM, ARE CONFUTED.
THE THIRD PART. AGAINST THE LAWFULNESS OF THE CEREMONIES.
CHAPTER I. THAT THE CEREMONIES ARE UNLAWFUL, BECAUSE SUPERSTITIOUS,
WHICH IS PARTICULARLY INSTANCED IN HOLIDAYS, AND MINISTERING THE
SACRAMENTS IN PRIVATE PLACES.
CHAPTER II. THAT THE CEREMONIES ARE UNLAWFUL BECAUSE THEY ARE
MONUMENTS OF BY-PAST IDOLATRY, WHICH NOT BEING NECESSARY TO BE
RETAINED, SHOULD BE UTTERLY ABOLISHED, BECAUSE OF THEIR IDOLATROUS
ABUSES: ALL WHICH IS PARTICULARLY MADE GOOD OF KNEELING.
CHAPTER III. THAT THE CEREMONIES ARE UNLAWFUL, BECAUSE THEY SORT US
WITH IDOLATERS, BEING THE BADGES OF PRESENT IDOLATRY AMONG THE
PAPISTS.
CHAPTER IV. THAT THE CEREMONIES ARE IDOLS AMONG THE FORMALISTS
THEMSELVES; AND THAT KNEELING IN THE LORD’S SUPPER BEFORE THE BREAD
AND WINE, IN THE ACT OF RECEIVING THEM, IS FORMALLY IDOLATRY.
CHAPTER V. THE FIFTH ARGUMENT AGAINST THE LAWFULNESS OF THE
CEREMONIES TAKEN FROM THE MYSTICAL AND SIGNIFICANT NATURE OF THEM.
CHAPTER VI. THAT THE LAWFULNESS OF THE CEREMONIES IS FALSELY
GROUNDED UPON THE HOLY SCRIPTURE; WHERE SUCH PLACES AS ARE ALLEGED
BY OUR OPPOSITES, EITHER FOR ALL THE CEREMONIES IN GENERAL, OR FOR
ANY ONE OF THEM IN PARTICULAR, ARE VINDICATED FROM THEM.
CHAPTER VII. THAT THE LAWFULNESS OF THE CEREMONIES CANNOT BE
WARRANTED BY ANY ECCLESIASTICAL LAW, NOR BY ANY POWER WHICH THE
CHURCH HATH TO PUT ORDER TO THINGS BELONGING TO DIVINE WORSHIP.
CHAPTER VIII. THAT THE LAWFULNESS OF THE CEREMONIES CANNOT BE
WARRANTED BY ANY ORDINANCE OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATE; WHOSE POWER IN
THINGS SPIRITUAL OR ECCLESIASTICAL IS EXPLAINED.
DIGRESSION I. OF THE VOCATION OF MEN OF ECCLESIASTICAL ORDER.
DIGRESSION II. OF THE CONVOCATION AND MODERATION OF SYNODS.
DIGRESSION III. OF THE JUDGING OF CONTROVERSIES AND QUESTIONS OF
FAITH.
DIGRESSION IV. OF THE POWER OF THE KEYS, AND ECCLESIASTICAL
CENSURES.
CHAPTER IX. THAT THE LAWFULNESS OF THE CEREMONIES CANNOT BE
WARRANTED BY THE LAW OF NATURE.
THE FOURTH PART. AGAINST THE INDIFFERENCY OF THE CEREMONIES.
CHAPTER I. OF OUR OPPOSITES’ PLEADING FOR THE INDIFFERENCY OF THE
CEREMONIES.
CHAPTER II. OF THE NATURE OF THINGS INDIFFERENT.
CHAPTER III. WHETHER THERE BE ANYTHING INDIFFERENT IN ACTU EXERCITO.
CHAPTER IV. OF THE RULE BY WHICH WE ARE TO MEASURE AND TRY WHAT
THINGS ARE INDIFFERENT.
CHAPTER V. THE FIRST POSITION WHICH WE BUILD UPON THE GROUND
CONFIRMED IN THE FORMER CHAPTER.
CHAPTER VI. ANOTHER POSITION BUILT UPON THE SAME GROUND.
CHAPTER VII. OTHER POSITIONS BUILT UPON THE FORMER GROUND.
CHAPTER VIII. THAT THE CEREMONIES ARE NOT THINGS INDIFFERENT TO THE
CHURCH OF SCOTLAND; BECAUSE SHE DID ABJURE AND REPUDIATE THEM BY A
MOST SOLEMN AND GENERAL OATH.
CHAPTER IX. A RECAPITULATION OF SUNDRY OTHER REASONS AGAINST THE
INDIFFERENCY OF THE CEREMONIES.
A BROTHERLY EXAMINATION OF SOME PASSAGES OF MR COLEMAN’S LATE SERMON UPON
JOB XI. 20.
NOTICE.
EXTRACT FROM COLEMAN’S SERMON.
A BROTHERLY EXAMINATION, &c.
NIHIL RESPONDES: OR A DISCOVERY OF THE EXTREME UNSATISFACTORINESS OF MR
COLEMAN’S PIECE.
THAT MR COLEMAN DOTH NOT ONLY PREVARICATE, BUT CONTRADICT HIMSELF,
CONCERNING THE STATE OF THE QUESTION.
THE PARTICULARS IN MY BRIEF EXAMINATION, WHICH MR COLEMAN EITHER
GRANTETH EXPRESSLY, OR ELSE DOTH NOT REPLY UNTO.
HIS ABUSING OF THE SCRIPTURES.
HIS ERRORS IN DIVINITY.
HIS ABUSING OF THE HONOURABLE HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.
HIS ABUSING THE REVEREND ASSEMBLY OF DIVINES.
HIS CALUMNIES.
THE REPUGNANCY OF HIS DOCTRINE TO THE SOLEMN LEAGUE AND COVENANT.
MALE AUDIS; OR, AN ANSWER TO MR COLEMAN’S MALE DICIS.
PREFACE TO THE READER.
CHAPTER I. THAT MR COLEMAN DOTH STILL CONTRADICT HIMSELF IN THE STATING
OF THIS PRESENT CONTROVERSY ABOUT CHURCH GOVERNMENT.
CHAPTER II. A CONFUTATION OF THAT WHICH MR COLEMAN HATH SAID AGAINST
CHURCH GOVERNMENT; SHOWING ALSO THAT HIS LAST REPLY IS NOT MORE, BUT
LESS SATISFACTORY THAN THE FORMER, AND FOR THE MOST PART IS BUT A
TERGIVERSATION AND FLEEING FROM ARGUMENTS BROUGHT AGAINST HIM, AND FROM
MAKING GOOD HIS OWN ASSERTIONS AND ARGUMENTS CONCERNING THE DISTINCTION
OF CIVIL AND CHURCH GOVERNMENT.
CHAPTER III. THAT MR COLEMAN’S AND MR HUSSEY’S OPPOSING OF CHURCH
GOVERNMENT NEITHER IS NOR CAN BE RECONCILED WITH THE SOLEMN LEAGUE AND
COVENANT.
CHAPTER IV. MR COLEMAN AND MR HUSSEY’S ERRORS IN DIVINITY.
CHAPTER V. THE PRELATICAL WAY AND TENETS OF MR COLEMAN AND MR HUSSEY,
REPUGNANT ALSO, IN DIVERS PARTICULARS, TO THE VOTES AND ORDINANCES OF
PARLIAMENT.
CHAPTER VI. MR COLEMAN’S WRONGING OF THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.
CHAPTER VII. CALUMNIES CONFUTED, AND THAT QUESTION BRIEFLY CLEARED,
WHETHER THE MAGISTRATE BE CHRIST’S VICEGERENT.
CHAPTER VIII. THAT MR COLEMAN DOTH GREAT VIOLENCE, BOTH TO HIS OWN
WORDS AND TO THE WORDS OF OTHERS WHOM HE CITETH.
ONE HUNDRED AND ELEVEN PROPOSITIONS CONCERNING THE MINISTRY AND GOVERNMENT
OF THE CHURCH.
PROPOSITIONS.
A SERMON PREACHED BEFORE THE HONOURABLE HOUSE OF COMMONS AT THEIR LATE
SOLEMN FAST
PREFACE TO THE READER.
SERMON.
A SERMON PREACHED BEFORE THE RIGHT HONOURABLE THE HOUSE OF LORDS, IN THE
ABBEY CHURCH AT WESTMINSTER.
PREFACE TO THE READER.
SERMON.
Footnotes

ADVERTISEMENT.

(Transcriber’s Note: This book is an 1846 reprint of George Gillespie’s
books, which were originally published separately. Each is reprinted here
with its original title page and other front matter. The paper book had
no page numbers; each book is transcribed here with its own page
numbering, which may have no correspondence with the publisher’s idea of
the page numbers.)

In presenting to the public, for the first time, a Complete Edition of the
Works of Mr GEORGE GILLESPIE, there are two or three points to which the
Publisher begs to direct special attention.

Although the great value of Gillespie’s various works was well known to
many, yet there had been no recent reprints of them, and they had become
so very scarce that it was with great difficulty any of them could be
obtained. Recent controversies had brought forward the very subjects which
had been so ably treated by Gillespie; and it was felt, that justice to
the Church of which he was so great an ornament, and to the cause which he
so strenuously supported, demanded the republication of his whole works,
in a form, and at a price, which should render them generally accessible.

In prosecuting this task the idea was suggested, that it would be
desirable to publish what remained of those Notes on the Proceedings of
the Westminster Assembly of Divines, which Gillespie was known to have
written, if the permission of the Advocates, in whose Library they were,
could be obtained. That permission was most readily granted. The
manuscript volumes, of what purported to be Gillespie’s Notes, form part
of the large collection entitled, the Wodrow MSS. They appear, however,
not to be Gillespie’s own Notes, but copies separately taken from the
original. The fact that they are manifestly separate and independent
transcriptions, furnishes good evidence of the genuineness and
authenticity of the original manuscripts, though it is not now known where
they are, if still in existence. In making a new copy for the press every
facility was granted by the Librarians of the Advocates’ Library, with
their well-known courtesy and liberality; and much aid was rendered by
David Laing, Esq., a gentleman thoroughly conversant with Scottish
ecclesiastical literature, and generously ready to communicate to others
the benefit of his own extensive and accurate knowledge.

Being desirous to render this Edition of Gillespie’s works as full and
complete as possible, several small and comparatively unimportant papers
have been copied from the Wodrow Manuscript, some account of which will be
found at the close of the Memoir. An appendix to the Memoir contains all
that could be gleaned from Wodrow’s Analecta, as printed by the Maitland
Club.

The Memoir itself has been drawn up with considerable care, and is as
extensive as the paucity of materials for its composition would admit. It
might, indeed, have been enlarged by a more full account of the great
events which occurred during the period in which Gillespie lived; but this
would have been an unfair changing of biography into history, and would
not have been suited to the object in view.

As the parts of the Collected Edition of Gillespie’s Works were issued
successively, they have been paged separately; and may be arranged in
volumes according to the taste of their purchasers. It will, however, be
found most expedient to adopt a chronological arrangement, such as is
indicated in the closing pages of the Memoir.

MEMOIR OF THE REV. GEORGE GILLESPIE.

George Gillespie was one of the most remarkable men of the period in which
he lived, singularly fertile as that period was in men of great abilities.
He seems to have been almost unknown, till the publication of his first
work, which dazzled and astonished his countrymen by the rare combination
it displayed of learning and genius of the highest order. From that time
forward, he held an undisputed position among the foremost of the
distinguished men by whose talents and energy the Church of Scotland was
delivered from prelatic despotism. Yet, although greatly admired by all
his compeers during his brilliant career, so very little has been recorded
respecting him, that we can but glean a scanty supply of materials, from a
variety of sources, out of which to construct a brief memoir of his life

We have not met with any particular reference to the family from which
George Gillespie was descended, except a very brief notice of his father,
the Rev. John Gillespie, in Livingston’s “Memorable Characteristics.” From
this we learn that he was minister at Kirkcaldy, and that he was, to use
Livingston’s language, “a thundering preacher.” In that town George
Gillespie was born; but, as the earlier volumes of the Session Register of
Births and Baptisms have been lost, the precise year of his birth cannot
be ascertained from that source. It could not, however, have been earlier
than 1612, in which year his father was chosen to the second charge in
Kirkcaldy, as appears from the town records, nor later than 1613, as the
existing Register commences January, 1614, and, in the end of that year,
the birth of a daughter of Mr John Gillespie is registered, and again in
1610, of a son, baptised Patrick. It may be assumed, therefore, with
tolerable certainty, that George Gillespie was born early in the year
1613, a date which agrees with that engraven on his tombstone. Wodrow,
indeed, states, on the authority of Mr Simpson, that Gillespie was born on
the 21st of January, 1613.

Nothing has been recorded respecting the youthful period of Gillespie’s
life. The earliest notice of him which appears, is merely sufficient to
intimate that his mind must have been carefully cultivated from his
boyhood, as it relates to the time of his being sent to the University of
St Andrews, to prosecute his studies, in 1629, when he was, of course, in
his 16th year. It appears to have been the custom of the Presbytery of
Kirkcaldy, as of many others at that time, to support young men of merit
at the University, as Presbytery Bursars, by means of the contributions of
the parishes within its bounds. In the Session Record of Kirkcaldy the
following statement occurs, dated November, 1629:—“The Session are content
that Mr George Gillespie shall have as much money of our Session, for his
interteynment, as Dysart gives, viz. 20 merks, being our Presbytery
Bursar.” In some of the brief biographical notices of him which have been
given, we are informed that during the course of his attendance at the
University, he gave ample evidence of both genius and industry, by the
rapid growth and development of mental power, and the equally rapid
acquirement of extensive learning, in both of which respects he surpassed
his fellow-students. That this must have been the case, his future
eminence, so early achieved, sufficiently proves; but nothing of a very
definite nature, relating to that period, has been preserved.

When he had completed his academic career, and was ready to enter into the
office of the ministry, his progress was obstructed by a difficulty which,
for a time, proved insurmountable. Being conscientiously convinced that
the prelatic system of church government is of human invention, and not of
Divine institution, and having seen the bitter fruits it bore in Scotland,
he would not submit to receive ordination from a bishop, and could not, at
that juncture, obtain admission into the ministerial office without it.
Though thus excluded from the object of his pursuit, he found congenial
employment for his pious and active mind in the household of Lord Kenmure,
where he resided as domestic chaplain, till the death of that nobleman in
September, 1634. Soon afterwards we find him discharging a similar duty in
the family of the Earl of Cassilis, and, at the same time, acting as tutor
to Lord Kennedy, the Earl’s eldest son. This latter employment furnished
him with both leisure and inducement to prosecute his studies, and that,
too, in the very direction to which his mind had been already predisposed.
But, in order to obtain an intelligible view of the state of matters in
Scotland at that period, we must take a brief survey of the events which
had been moulding the aspect of both church and kingdom for some time
before.

It may be assumed as a point which no person of competent knowledge and
candid mind will deny or dispute, that the Reformed Church of Scotland
was, from its very origin, Presbyterian; equally opposed to the prelatic
superiority of one minister over others, and to the authority of the civil
power in spiritual matters. This point, therefore, we need not occupy
space in proving; but we may suggest, that there is a much closer and more
important connexion between the two elements here specified, than is
generally remarked. For, as a little reflection will show, without the
pre-eminence of some small number of ministers over the rest, the civil
power cannot obtain the means of directly exercising an authoritative
control in spiritual matters. Even the indirect methods of corruption
which may be employed can be but partially successful, and may at any time
be defeated, whenever the general body shall be restored to purity and put
forth its inherent power. A truly presbyterian church, therefore, never
can be thoroughly depended on by civil rulers who wish to use it as a mere
engine of state for political purposes; consequently, a truly presbyterian
church has never found much favour in the estimation of the civil
power,—and, it may be added, never will, till the civil power itself
become truly Christian. Thus viewed, it was not strange that the civil
power in Scotland, whether wielded by a regent such as Morton, or a king
like James VI., should strenuously and perseveringly seek the subversion
of the Presbyterian Church. In the earlier stage of the struggle, first
Morton, and then James, attempted force, but found the attempt to be in
vain. At length the King seemed inclined to leave off the hopeless and
pernicious contest; and, in the year 1592, an Act of Parliament was
passed, ratifying all the essential elements of the Presbyterian Church,
in doctrine, government, discipline, and worship. But this proved to be
merely a cessation of hostilities on the part of the King, preparatory to
their resumption in a more insidious and dangerous manner, and by the dark
instrumentality of his boasted “king-craft.”

The first indication of the crafty monarch’s designs was in the year 1597,
when he, “of his great zeal and singular affection which he always has to
the advancement of the true religion, presently professed within this
realm,” to use his own words, enacted that all who should be appointed to
the prelatic dignity, should enjoy the privilege of sitting and voting in
Parliament. The pretence was, that these persons would attend better to
the interests of the Church than could be done by laymen; the intention
was, to introduce the prelatic order and subvert the Presbyterian Church.
And, that this might be done quietly and imperceptibly, the question
respecting the influence which these parliamentary representatives of the
Church should have in the government of the Church itself, was left to be
determined by the King and the General Assembly. Many of the most
judicious and clear-sighted of the ministers perceived the dangerous
tendency of this measure, and gave it their decided and strenuous
opposition; but others, wearied out by their conflict with the avaricious
and tyrannical conduct of the nobility, which they hoped thus more
effectually to resist, or gained over by the persuasions of the King and
the court party, supported the proposal. The result was, that the measure
was carried in the Assembly of 1598, by a majority of ten, and that
majority formed chiefly by the votes of the elders, whom the King had
induced to support his views. Scarcely had even this step been taken, when
the Church became alarmed at the possible consequences; and, in order to
avoid increasing that alarm, all further consideration of the measure,
with reference to its subordinate details, was postponed till the meeting
of the next Assembly. Nor was this enough. As the time for the next
Assembly drew near, the King felt so uncertain of success, that he
prorogued the appointed meeting, and betook himself to those private
artifices by which his previous conquest had been gained.

When the Assembly of 1600 met, the most intense interest was felt by the
whole kingdom in its proceedings, all men perceiving that upon its
decision would depend the continuation or the overthrow of the
presbyterian form of church government in Scotland. The King’s first step
was the arbitrary exclusion from the Assembly of the celebrated Andrew
Melville. The discussion commenced respecting the propriety of ministers
voting in Parliament. But when those who favoured the measure could not
meet the argument of its opponents, the King again interposed, and
authoritatively declared that the preceding General Assembly had already
decided the general question in the affirmative; and that they had now
only to determine subordinate arrangements. The measure was thus saved
from defeat. The next question, whether the parliamentary ministers should
hold their place for life, or be annually elected, was decided in favour
of annual election. Yet James prevailed upon the cleric to frame an
ambiguous statement in the minute of proceedings, virtually granting what
the Assembly had rejected. Even then, though thus both overborne and
tricked by the King, the Church framed a number of carefully expressed
“caveats,” or cautions, for protecting her liberties, and guarding against
the introduction of Prelacy. It was not, however, the intention of the
King to pay any regard to these “caveats,” so soon as he might think it
convenient to set them aside; and, accordingly, within a few months he
appointed three bishops to the vacant sees of Ross, Aberdeen, and
Caithness, directly in violation of all the “caveats” by which he had
agreed that the appointment of ecclesiastical commissioners to Parliament
should be regulated.

That mysterious event, the Gowry conspiracy, and the views taken of it by
some of the best and most influential of the ministers, tended to alter
the aspect of the struggle between the King and the Church; and though the
King twice interposed to change the Assembly’s time and place of meeting
by his own authority, contrary to the provisions of the act, 1592, yet the
church succeeded in maintaining a large measure of its primitive freedom
and purity, against the encroachments of the crafty and perfidious monarch
and his “creatures,” to use their own phrase, the bishops.

The Assembly of 1602, however, was the last that retained anything like
presbyterian liberty, and ventured to act on its own convictions of duty.
But, the death of Queen Elizabeth, and the accession of James to the
English throne, directed his main attention for a time to other matters,
and gave occasion to a temporary pause in his violations of all the laws
which he had repeatedly sworn to maintain. The pause was brief. The
flattering servility of the English bishops inflated his vanity to an
extravagant degree, and rendered him the more determined to subvert wholly
the Presbyterian Church of Scotland, and to erect Prelacy on its ruins. He
had already presumed more than once to postpone meetings of the General
Assembly, by his own arbitrary authority; he resumed this course,
postponed the Assembly for one year, naming another,—then prorogued it
again, without naming another day of meeting, which was nearly equivalent
to an intimation, that it should entirely depend upon his pleasure whether
it should ever meet again,—directly contrary to the act, 1592, in which it
was expressly stipulated that the Assembly should meet at least once a
year. The most zealous and faithful of the ministers were now fully aware
of the imminent peril to which spiritual liberty was exposed. On the 2d of
July, 1605, the day on which the General Assembly had been appointed to
meet at Aberdeen, nineteen ministers met, constituted the Assembly in the
usual form, and while engaged in reading a letter presented by the King’s
Commissioner, a messenger-at-arms entered, and in the King’s name, charged
them to dismiss, on pain of being held guilty of rebellion. The moderator
appointed another day of meeting, and dissolved the Assembly in the usual
manner. This bold and independent, though perfectly legal and
constitutional conduct, roused the wrath of the King to fury. Six of the
most eminent of the ministers, one of whom was John Welsh of Ayr,
son-in-law of Knox, were confined in a miserable dungeon in the castle of
Blackness, for a period of fourteen months, and then banished to France.
Eight others were imprisoned for a time, and banished to the remotest
parts of Scotland. The severity of Robert Bruce’s treatment was increased;
and six other ministers, who had not been directly involved in the
resistance to the King’s authority, by the suppressed Assembly of
Aberdeen, were called to London, and engaged in captious disputations by
the crafty monarch, and his sycophantic prelates, in order to find
occasion against them also. The result was, the confinement in the Tower
of Andrew Melville, and his subsequent banishment to France; and the
prohibition of his nephew, James Melville, to return to Scotland.

Having thus succeeded, by fraud and force, in cutting off the leading
ministers, James next summoned an Assembly to meet at Linlithgow, in
December 1606, naming the persons who were to be sent by the presbyteries.
In this packed Assembly he succeeded in his design of introducing more
generally the prelatic element, by the appointment of constant moderators
in each presbytery. Advancing now with greater rapidity, he instituted, in
1610, the Court of High Commission, which may be well termed the Scottish
Inquisition; and in the same year, in an Assembly held at Glasgow, both
nominated by the King, and corrupted by lavish bribery, the whole prelatic
system of church government was introduced; the right of calling and
dismissing Assemblies was declared to belong to the royal prerogative, the
bishops were declared moderators of diocesan synods; and the power of
excommunicating and absolving offenders was conferred on them.

The government of the Church was thus completely subverted in its external
aspect. Its forms indeed remained. There were still presbyteries and
synods, and there might be a General Assembly, if the King pleased; but
the power of presbyteries or synods was vested in the Prelates, and the
King could prevent any Assembly from being held, as long as he thought
proper. But the Presbyterian Church, though overborne, was not destroyed,
nor was its free spirit wholly subdued. When, in 1617, the King attempted
to arrogate to himself and his prelatic council the power of enacting
ecclesiastical laws, he was immediately met by a protestation against a
measure so despotic. By an arbitrary stretch of power, he banished the
historian Calderwood, the person who presented to him the protestation;
but he felt it necessary to have recourse once more to his previously
employed scheme, of a packed and bribed Assembly, in which to enact his
innovations. This was accordingly done in the Assembly of 1618, held in
Perth, in which, by the joint influence of bribery and intimidation, he
succeeded in obtaining a majority of votes in favour of _the five articles
of Perth_, as they are usually called. These _five articles_
were,—_kneeling at the communion_,—_the observance of
holidays_,—_episcopal confirmation_,—_private baptism_,—_and the private
dispensation of the Lord’s Supper_. It will at once be seen that these
innovations were directly contrary to the presbyterian principle, which
holds that human inventions ought not to be added to divine institutions.

This was the last attempt made by King James for the overthrow of the
Presbyterian Church. It was but partially successful. Not less than
forty-five, even of the ministers summoned to Perth by the King, voted
against the _five articles_; and in defiance of the authority of the King,
and the Prelates, and the terrors of the Court of High Commission, a large
proportion of the ministers, and a much larger proportion of the people
throughout the kingdom, never conformed to these articles. Various
attempts were made by the prelatic faction to suppress the resistance of
the faithful ministers and people. At one time a minister who would not
yield was suspended from his ministry; at another, he was banished from
his flock, and confined to some remote district of the country. But all
was ineffectual, although much suffering and distress of mind was caused
by these harrassing persecutions. Very gladly would the ministers and
people have abandoned the prelatised church, and maintained the government
and ritual of the Church of their fathers by their own unaided exertions,
had they been permitted. But no such permission could be obtained. They
were compelled either to abstain from preaching altogether, or to remain
in connection with the Church. And even this alternative was not always
left to their choice. They were frequently kept in a species of
imprisonment in their own houses, not permitted to leave the Church, and
yet forbidden to preach, or even to expound the word of God to the members
of their own households. Such was the monstrous and intolerable tyranny
exercised by Prelacy in Scotland, in its desperate attempts to destroy the
Presbyterian Church.

But the Presbyterian Church has always proved to be not easily destroyed.
At the very time when Prelacy and king-craft were uniting for its
destruction, its Divine Head was graciously supporting it under its
trials, giving it life to endure them, and preparing for its deliverance.
The sufferings endured by the faithful ministers in many parts of the
country, tended to make them objects of admiration, love, and respect to
the people, who could not but draw a very striking contrast between their
conduct, and that of the haughty and irreligious prelates. But mighty as
was this influence in the hearts of the people, one infinitely more mighty
began to be felt in many districts of the kingdom. God was pleased to
grant a time of religious revival. The power of vital godliness aroused
the land, shining in its strength, like living fire. At Stewarton, at
Shotts, and in many others quarters, great numbers were converted, and the
faith of still greater numbers was increased. A time of refreshing from
the presence of God had evidently come; and it soon became equally
evident, that the enemies of spiritual freedom were under the blinding
influence of infatuation.

The younger bishops, inflated with vanity, acted towards the Scottish
nobility in a manner so insolent, as to rouse the pride of these stern and
haughty barons. But the prelates had learned from Laud, what measures
would be agreeable to Charles I., who, to all his father’s despotic ideas
of royal prerogative, and love of Prelacy, and to at least equal
dissimulation, added the formidable elements of a temper dark and
relentless, and a proud and inflexible will. The consequences soon
appeared. Charles resolved, that the Church of Scotland should not only be
episcopalian in its form of government, but also in all its discipline,
and in its form of worship. In order to accomplish this long wished for
purpose, it was resolved that a Book of Canons, and a Liturgy, should be
prepared by the Scottish bishops, and transmitted to those of England, for
their revision and approval. The book of Canons appeared in 1635, and was
regarded by the nation with the utmost abhorrence, both on its own
account, and as intended to introduce innovations still more detested.
What was dreaded soon took place. The Liturgy was prepared, sent to
England, and revised, several of the corrections being written by Laud
himself, all tending to give it a decidedly popish character. Some copies
of this production appeared early in the year 1637, and were immediately
subjected to the examination of acute and powerful minds, well able to
detect and expose their errors, and to resist this tyrannical attempt to
do violence to the conscience of a free and religious people.

The crisis came. A letter from his Majesty was procured, requiring the
Liturgy to be used in all the churches of Edinburgh, and an act of the
Privy Council was passed, to enforce obedience to the royal mandate.
Archbishop Spotswood summoned the ministers together, announced to them
the King’s pleasure, and commanded them to give intimation from their
pulpits, that on the following Sabbath the public use of the Liturgy was
to be commenced. The 23d day of July, 1637, was that on which the perilous
attempt was to be made. In the cathedral church of St. Giles, the Dean of
Edinburgh, attired in his surplice, began to read the service of the day.
At that moment, an old woman, named Jenny Geddes, unable longer to
restrain her indignation, exclaimed, “Villain, dost thou say mass at my
lug!” and seizing the stool on which she had been sitting, threw it at the
Dean’s head. Instantly all was uproar and confusion. Threatened or
assailed on all sides, the Dean, terrified by this sudden outburst of
popular fury, tore himself out of their hands and fled, glad to escape,
though with the loss of his priestly vestments. In vain did the magistracy
interfere. It was impossible to restore sufficient quiet to allow the
service to be resumed; and the defeated prelatic party were compelled to
abandon the Liturgy, thus dashed out of their trembling grasp by a woman’s
hand.

Such was the state of affairs in both church and kingdom, when George
Gillespie first appeared in public life. He had already refused to receive
ordination at the hands of a bishop; he had marked well the pernicious
effects of their conduct on the most sacred interests of the community;
and his strong and active intellect was directed to the prosecution of
such studies as might the better enable him to assail the wrong and defend
the right. His residence in the household of the Earl of Cassilis, while
it furnished the means of continuing his learned researches, was not
likely to change their direction; for the Earl was one of those
high-hearted and independent noblemen, who could not brook prelatic
insolence, even when supported by the Sovereign’s favour. The first
production from the pen of Gillespie, the fruit, doubtless, of his
previous studies, was a work entitled “A Dispute against the English
Popish Ceremonies obtruded upon the Church of Scotland.” Its publication
was remarkably well timed, being in the summer of 1637, at the very time
when the whole kingdom was in a state of intense excitement, in the
immediate expectation that the Liturgy would be forced upon the Church.
Nothing could have been more suited to the emergency. It encountered every
kind of argument employed by the prelatic party; and, as the defenders of
the ceremonies argued that they were either necessary, or expedient, or
lawful, or indifferent, so Gillespie divided his work into four parts,
arguing against their _necessity_, their _expediency_, their _lawfulness_,
and their _indifferency_, with such extensiveness of learning and
acuteness and power of reasoning, as completely to demolish all the
arguments of all his prelatical antagonists. The effect produced by this
singularly able work may be conjectured from the fact, that within a few
months after its publication, a proclamation was issued by the Privy
Council, at the instigation of the bishops, commanding all the copies of
it that could be found to be called in and burned. Such was the only
answer that all the learned Scottish prelates could give to a treatise,
written by a youth who was only in his twenty-fifth year when it appeared.
The language of Baillie shows the estimation in which that learned, but
timid and cautious man, held Gillespie’s youthful work. “This same youth
is now given out also, by those that should know, for the author of the
‘English Popish Ceremonies,’ whereof we all do marvel; for, though he had
gotten the papers, and help of the chief of that side, yet the very
composition would seem to be far above such an age. But, if that book be
truly of his making, I admire the man, though I mislike much of his
matter; yea, I think he may prove amongst the best wits of this isle.”

So far as argument was concerned, the controversy was ended by Gillespie’s
work, as no answer was ever attempted by the prelates. But the contest,
which began as one of power against principle, ere long became one of
power against power. In vain did the King attempt to overawe the firm
minds of the Presbyterians. In vain did the bishops issue their commands
to the ministers to use the Liturgy. These commands were universally
disobeyed; for the spirit of Scotland was now fairly roused—a spirit which
has often learned to conquer, but never to yield. It was to be expected
that Gillespie would not be allowed to remain much longer in comparative
obscurity, after his remarkable abilities had become known. The church and
parish of Wemyss being at that time vacant, the congregation, to whom he
had been known from his infancy, “made supplication” that he might be
their minister. This request was granted, “maugre St Andrew’s beard,” as
Baillie says; that is, in spite of the opposition made by Spotswood,
Archbishop of St Andrews, who knew enough of the young man to regard him
with equal fear and hatred. He was ordained by the Presbytery of Kirkcaldy
on the 26th of April, 1638, the celebrated Robert Douglas, at that time
minister of Kirkcaldy, presiding at the ordination; and was the first who
was admitted by a presbytery, at that period, without regard to the
authority of the bishops. This, indeed, soon ceased to be a singularity;
but, it must be remembered, that though the attempt to impose the Liturgy
upon the Church had been successfully resisted, the ostensible government
of the Church was still held by the prelates, and continued to be held by
them, till they were all deposed by the famous General Assembly which met
in Glasgow on the 21st day of November, 1638. But their power had received
a fatal blow, and it could not fail to be highly gratifying to George
Gillespie, that the first free act of the Presbyterian Church, to the
recovery of whose liberty he had so signally contributed, should be his
own ordination to the ministerial office.

From that time forward, the life of George Gillespie was devoted to the
public service of the Church; and he was incessantly engaged in all the
great measures of that momentous period. He, however, was not the man of
the age. That man was Alexander Henderson, the acknowledged leader of the
Church of Scotland’s Second Reformation. And, as it is not our purpose to
write a history of that period, we must confine ourselves chiefly to those
events in which Gillespie acted a prominent part.

The next intimation that we receive of Gillespie is in Baillie’s account
of the Glasgow Assembly. “After a sermon of Mr Gillespie,” says Baillie,
“wherein the youth very learnedly and judiciously, as they say, handled
the words, ‘The King’s heart is in the hand of the Lord,’ yet did too much
encroach on the King’s actions: he (Argyle) gave us a grave admonition, to
let authority alone, which the Moderator seconded, and we all religiously
observed, so long as the Assembly lasted.” This proves, at least, that
Gillespie was highly esteemed by his brethren, who had selected him as one
to preach before that important Assembly, notwithstanding his youth. It
should be added, that on consulting the records of that Assembly’s
proceedings, we do indeed find Argyle’s grave admonition not to interfere
with the authority due to the King in his own province, and the
Moderator’s answer; but nothing to lead us to think that it had any
reference to Gillespie’s sermon. Baillie had not, at that time, learned to
know and appreciate Gillespie, as he did afterwards and, as he had been
somewhat startled by the point and power of the “English Popish
Ceremonies,” he might not unnaturally conclude, that Argyle’s caution
against what might be, had been caused by what had already been beginning
to appear in the language of the youthful preacher.

The course of public affairs swept rapidly onward, though certainly not in
such a channel as to gratify the lovers of arbitrary power and
superstition. The King, enraged to find his beloved Prelacy overthrown at
once and entirely, prepared to force it upon the Scottish Covenanted
Church and people by force of arms. The Covenanters stood on the
defensive, and met the invading host on the Border, prepared to die rather
than submit to the loss of religious liberty. But the English army was
little inclined to fight in such a cause. They had felt the king’s tyranny
and the oppression of their own prelates, and were not disposed to destroy
that liberty, so nobly won by Scotland, for which they were themselves
most earnestly longing. A peace ensued. The King granted that spiritual
liberty which he was unable to withhold; and the ministers who had
accompanied the Scottish army, returned to the discharge of their more
peaceful duties. But this peace proved of short duration. The King levied
a new and more powerful army, and again declared war against his Scottish
subjects. Again the Covenanters resumed their weapons of defence, and
marched towards the Border, a number of the most eminent ministers, among
whom was Gillespie, being required to accompany the army, and empowered to
act as a presbytery. It was, however, judged necessary to anticipate the
approach of the English by entering England. This bold movement changed
the nature of the contest for the time, because the English parliament
felt the utmost jealousy of the King’s despotic designs, and would not
grant him the necessary support. Negotiations for peace were begun at
Ripon, and transferred to London. This rendered it necessary for the
Scottish Commissioners for the peace to reside at London. Henderson,
Blair, Baillie and Gillespie accompanied the Commissioners to London,
resided with them there in the capacity of chaplains, and availed
themselves of the opportunity thus afforded, for proving to the people of
England that presbyterian ministers were not such rude and ignorant men as
their prelatic calumniators had asserted. The effect of their preaching
was astonishing, as even Clarendon, their prejudiced and bitter reviler,
admits. Wherever they preached, the people flocked in crowds to hear them,
and even clustered round the doors and windows of the churches in which
they were proclaiming the unsearchable riches of Christ. It soon became
apparent that both the cause, and the men by whom it was defended, were
too mighty to be despised. Courtly parasites might scoff, but the heart of
England was compelled to know that living faith and true eloquence are
equally powerful to move and guide the minds of men, whether on the bleak
waste of a Scottish moor, or in the midst of a mighty city.

Soon after the return of the Scottish Commissioners and ministers, in the
Assembly of 1641, the town of Aberdeen gave a call to George Gillespie to
be one of their pastors. This call, however, he strenuously and
successfully resisted, and was permitted to remain at Wemyss. But next
year, the town of Edinburgh applied to the General Assembly, to have him
translated to one of the charges there, and this application was
successful, so that he became one of the ministers of Edinburgh in the
year 1642, and continued so during the remainder of his life.

But although Edinburgh had succeeded in obtaining Gillespie, the citizens
were not long permitted to enjoy the benefit of his ministry. Another
class of duties awaited him, in a still more public and important sphere
of action. It is impossible here to do more than refer to the great events
which at that time agitated not only Scotland, but also England. The
superstition, bigotry and intolerance of Archbishop Laud and his
followers, combining with and urging on the despotism of the King, had at
length completely exhausted the patience of the English people and
parliament. Every pacific effort had proved fruitless; and it had become
undeniably evident, to every English patriot, that Prelacy must be
abolished and the royal prerogative limited, unless they were prepared to
yield up every vestige of civil and religious liberty. They made the
nobler choice, passed an act abolishing Prelacy, and summoned an Assembly
of Divines to deliberate respecting the formation of such a Confession of
Faith, Catechism, and Directory, as might lead to uniformity between the
Churches of the two kingdoms, and thereby tend to secure the religious
liberty of both. The Assembly of Divines met at Westminster, on the 1st
day of July, 1643. Soon afterwards Commissioners from the English
Parliament, and from the Westminster Assembly, were appointed to proceed
to Edinburgh, to be present at the meeting of the General Assembly in
August, and to seek a conference, respecting the best method of forming
the basis of a religious and civil confederacy between the two kingdoms,
in their time of mutual danger. These Commissioners, accordingly, attended
the meeting of the Assembly in Edinburgh, and the result of their
conferences was the framing of that well-known bond of union between the
two countries, THE SOLEMN LEAGUE AND COVENANT—“a document which we may be
pardoned for terming the noblest, in its essential nature and principles,
of all that are recorded among the international transactions of the
world.”

As the main object for which the Solemn League and Covenant was framed,
was to secure the utmost practicable degree of uniformity in the religious
worship of both countries; and, as the English Divines had already met at
Westminster to take the whole subject into consideration, and had
requested the assistance of Commissioners from the Church of Scotland, the
General Assembly named some of the most eminent of their ministers and
elders as Commissioners to the Westminster Assembly. These were, Alexander
Henderson, Robert Douglas, Robert Baillie, Samuel Rutherford, and George
Gillespie, ministers; and the Earl of Cassilis, Lord Maitland, and Sir
Archibald Johnston of Warriston, elders; but neither the Earl of Cassilis
nor Robert Douglas went. Three of these, Lord Maitland, Henderson, and
Gillespie, set off for London, along with the English Commissioners,
immediately after the rising of the General Assembly; the other three,
Warriston, Rutherford, and Baillie, followed about a month afterwards. On
the 15th of September the Scottish Commissioners were received into the
Westminster Assembly with great kindness and courtesy; and, on the 25th of
the same month, the Solemn League and Covenant was publicly sworn and
subscribed by both Parliament and Assembly, after addresses by Nyo and
Henderson. It was not, however, till the 12th of October, that the
Westminster Assembly commenced its serious deliberations concerning Church
Government, Discipline, and a Directory of Worship, in the hope of
arriving at such conclusions as might produce religious uniformity in the
Churches of England, Scotland, and Ireland, if not also with the Reformed
Churches of the Continent.

Scarcely had the Westminster Assembly begun its deliberations, when it
became abundantly apparent, that, however sincere its members might all be
in the desire to promote the religious welfare of the community, they
were, nevertheless, divided in their views as to how that could be best
accomplished. There were three parties in the Assembly, the Presbyterians,
the Independents, and the Erastians. Of these the Presbyterians(1) formed
by far the most numerous, comprising at least nine-tenths of the entire
body. There were at first only five Independent divines, commonly termed
“the Five Dissenting Brethren;” but their number finally amounted to ten
or eleven. Only two ministers were decided Erastians, but a considerable
number of the parliamentary members, chiefly those who were professionally
lawyers, advocated that secular policy. The Scottish Commissioners refused
to exercise the right of voting, but were continually present in the
Assembly, and took a very prominent part in all its deliberations and
debates, supporting, as might be expected, the views of the Presbyterians.
The chief strength of the Independents consisted in the tenacity with
which they adhered to their own opinions, disputing every proposition
brought forward by others, but cautiously abstaining from giving any
definite statement of their own; and in the close intercourse which they
contrived to keep with Cromwell and the military Independents. And the
Erastian party, though few in numbers within the Assembly itself,
possessed, nevertheless, considerable influence, arising out of their
reputation for learning, having as their ornament and support, that
distinguished man, emphatically called “the learned Selden.” But the true
source of their power was the Parliament, which, having deprived the King
of that ecclesiastical supremacy which he had so grievously abused, wished
to retain it in its own possession, and therefore, supported the Erastian
party in the Assembly.

Numerous and protracted were the debates which arose in the Westminster
Assembly, during the discussion of the various topics on which these three
parties differed in opinion; and in all those debates no person took a
more active part, or gained more distinction than George Gillespie. His
previous course of studies had rendered him perfectly familiar with all
that had been written on the subjects under discussion; his originally
acute and powerful intellect had been thoroughly trained and exercised to
its highest degree of clearness and vigour; and to a natural, perspicuous,
and flowing readiness of language, the warmth and earnestness of his heart
added the energy and elevation which form the very essence of true
eloquence. We have already referred to the high expectations which Baillie
entertained of his future career. But high as these had been, they were
far surpassed by the reality, as he himself declares. “None in all the
company did reason more, and more pertinently than Mr Gillespie. That is
an excellent youth; my heart blesses God in his behalf!”—“Very learned and
acute Mr Gillespie, a singular ornament of our church, than whom not one
in the whole Assembly speaks to better purpose, and with better acceptance
by all the hearers.”—“Mr George Gillespie, however I had a good opinion of
his gifts, yet I profess he has much deceived me: Of a truth there is no
man whose parts in a public dispute I do so admire. He has studied so
accurately all the points that ever yet came to our Assembly, he has got
so ready, so assured, so solid a way of public debating, that however
there be in the Assembly divers very excellent men, yet, in my poor
judgment, there is not one who speaks more rationally, and to the point,
than that brave youth has done ever.”

We cannot here follow the course of the prolonged deliberations in which
Gillespie so greatly distinguished himself; but there is one instance of
his eminence which has so often been related, and not always very
accurately, that it would be unpardonable not to give it here,—especially
as some pains have been taken to obtain as full and correct a version of
it as is now practicable. After the Westminster Divines had agreed
respecting the office-bearers whose permanent continuation in the church
can be proved from scriptural authority; they proceeded to inquire
concerning the subject of Church Discipline. In this the Presbyterians
were constrained to encounter both the Independents and the Erastians; for
the Independents, on the one hand, denied any authoritative
excommunication or suspension, and the Erastians, on the other, admitted
such a power, but placed it in the hands of the civil magistracy. For a
considerable time the discussion was between the Presbyterians and the
Independents; but when the arguments of the latter party had been
conclusively met and answered by their antagonists, the Erastians hastened
to the rescue, and their champion, “the learned Selden,” came to the
Assembly, when the discussion drew near its close, prepared to pour forth
all his learning for the discomfiture of the hitherto triumphant
Presbyterians. His intention had been made known extensively, and even
before the debate began, the house was crowded by all who could claim or
obtain admission. Gillespie, who had been probably engaged in some
Committee business as usual, was rather late in coming, and upon his
arrival, not being recognised as a member by those who were standing about
the door and in the passages, was told that it was impossible for him to
get in, the throng was so dense. “Can ye not admit a _pinning_?” said he,
using a word employed by masons, to indicate the thin slips of stone with
which they pin, or fill up the chinks and inequalities that occur in the
building of a plain wall. He did, however, work his way to the seat
allotted to the Scottish Commissioners, and took his place beside his
brethren. The subject under discussion was the text, Matt. xviii. 15-17,
as bearing upon the question respecting excommunication. Selden arose, and
in a long and elaborate speech, and with a great display of minute
rabbinical lore, strove to demonstrate that the passage contained no
warrant for ecclesiastical jurisdiction, but that it related to the
ordinary practice of the Jews in their common civil courts, by whom, as he
asserted, one sentence was excommunication, pronounced by their own
authority. Somewhat confused, if not appalled, by the vast erudition
displayed, even the most learned and able of the divines seemed in no
haste to encounter their formidable opponent. At length both Herle and
Marshall, two very distinguished men, attempted answers, but failed to
counteract the effect of Selden’s speech. Gillespie had been observed by
his Scottish brethren writing occasionally in his note-book, as if marking
the heads of Selden’s argument; and one of them, some accounts say
Rutherford, turning to him in this emergency, said, “Rise, George, rise
up, man, and defend the right of the Lord Jesus Christ to govern, by his
own laws, the church which he hath purchased with his blood.” Thus urged,
Gillespie arose, gave first a summary of Selden’s argument, divesting it
of all the confusion of that cumbrous learning in which it had been
wrapped, and reducing it to its simple elements; then in a speech of
singular acuteness and power, completely refuted it, proving that the
passage could not be interpreted or explained away to mean a mere
reference to a civil court. By seven distinct arguments he proved, that
the whole subject was of a spiritual nature, not within the cognisance of
civil courts; and he proved also, that the church of the Jews both
possessed and exercised the power of spiritual censures. The effect of
Gillespie’s speech was so great, as not only to convince the Assembly, but
also to astonish and confound Seldon himself, who is reported to have
exclaimed in a tone of bitter mortification, “That young man, by this
single speech, has swept away the learning and labour of ten years of my
life!” Those who were clustered together in the passage near the door,
remembering Gillespie’s expression when he was attempting to enter, said
one to another, “It was well that we admitted the _pinning_, otherwise the
building would have fallen.” Even his Scottish brethren, although well
acquainted with his great abilities, were surprised with his masterly
analysis of Selden’s argument, and looked into his note-book, expecting
there to find the outline of the summary which he had given. Their
surprise was certainly not diminished when they found that he had written
nothing but, _Da lucem, Domine_, Lord give light,—and similar brief
petitions for the direction of that divine Head and King of the church,
whose crown-rights he was about to defend.

Various other anecdotes have been recorded respecting Gillespie’s singular
skill and ability in debate; but the preceding is at once the most
striking and the best authenticated, and may suffice to prove his
eminence, both in learning and in power of argument, among the Westminster
Divines.(2)

The first part of the task in which the Westminster Assembly was engaged,
was the framing of a Directory for Public Worship. This having been
completed about the close of the year 1644, the General Assembly of the
Church of Scotland met on the 23d of January, 1645, to take this Directory
into consideration, and to give it their sanction, should it be found
satisfactory. Baillie and Gillespie were sent to Scotland, to be present
at the Assembly, that they might introduce the subject, and give any
explanation that might appear necessary, and to do everything in their
power to procure for it the desired approbation. In this they were
completely successful, and the Assembly passed an act sanctioning the
Directory,—that act having been written, as Baillie informs us, by
Gillespie. Having accomplished the object of their mission, they returned
to London, where Gillespie was speedily engaged in the Erastian
Controversy, during which he produced his greatest work.

We have already referred to the distinguished ability with which Gillespie
encountered and defeated Selden, in the discussion which arose within the
Westminster Assembly itself. But the principles of Erastianism were
entertained by many who were not members of that Assembly, and were
advocated in other quarters, so as to lead to a literary controversy. The
Rev. Thomas Coleman, one of the Erastians divines, the other being
Lightfoot, preached a sermon before the House of Commons, on the 30th of
July, 1645, in which there was a peculiar display of Erastianism of the
very strongest kind. This sermon was printed, as were all sermons preached
before either House, and excited at once the disapprobation of all the
friends of religious liberty. It did not remain long unanswered. On the
27th of August, the same year, Gillespie preached before the House of
Lords; and when his sermon was also published, he added to it an appendix
entitled, “A Brotherly Examination of some passages of Mr Coleman’s late
printed sermon.” In this appendix Gillespie not only answered and refuted
Coleman, but turned his arguments completely against himself. Coleman soon
afterwards published a pamphlet entitled, “A Brotherly Examination
Re-examined.” To this Gillespie replied in another bearing the title,
“Nihil Respondes,” in which he somewhat sharply exposed the weak and
inconclusive character of his opponent’s argument. Irritated by the
castigation he had received, Coleman published a bitter reply, to which he
gave the somewhat unintelligible title of “Male Dicis
Maledicis,”—intending, probably, to insinuate that Gillespie’s answer was
of a railing character. This roused Gillespie, and induced him to put
forth his controversial power in a singularly vigorous pamphlet, entitled,
“Male Audis,” in which he took a rapid survey of the whole Erastian
controversy, so far as Coleman and some of his friends had brought it
forward, convicted him and them of numerous self-contradictions, of
unsoundness in theology, of violating the covenant which they had sworn,
and of inculcating opinions fatal to both civil and religious liberty. To
this powerful production Coleman attempted no reply; nor have its
arguments ever been answered by any subsequent advocate of Erastianism.

But however able and well-timed these controversial pamphlets were, they
were not enough to occupy even the few spare hours that Gillespie was able
to snatch from his attendance on the business of the Assembly. He had
planned, and was all the while prosecuting, a much larger work. That work
appeared about the close of the year 1646, under the title of “Aaron’s Rod
Blossoming: or, the Divine Ordinance of Church Government Vindicated.” In
this remarkably able and elaborate production, Gillespie took up the
Erastian controversy as stated and defended by its ablest advocates,
fairly encountering their strongest arguments, and assailing their most
formidable positions, in the frank and fearless manner of a man thoroughly
sincere, and thoroughly convinced of the truth and goodness of his cause.
As it may be presumed that the readers of this memoir are also in
possession of “Aaron’s Rod,” we need not occupy space in giving even a
brief outline of that admirable work; but as we are convinced that the
Erastian conflict, which has been recently resumed, must still be fought,
and will be ultimately won, we strenuously recommend the studious perusal
of Gillespie’s masterly production to all who wish fully to comprehend the
subject.(3) One or two points of general information, however, it may be
expedient to give. In the “Aaron’s Rod,” while Gillespie intentionally
traversed the whole ground of the Erastian controversy, he directed also
special attention to the productions of the day. This he could not avoid;
but this has tended unfortunately, to give to his work the appearance of
being to some extent an ephemeral production, suited to the period when it
appeared, but not so well suited to the present times. It addresses itself
to answer the arguments of Selden, and Coleman, and Hussey, and Prynne;
and as the writings of these men have sunk into oblivion, we are liable to
regard the work which answered them as one which has done its deed, and
may also be allowed to disappear. Let it be observed, that Erastianism
never had abler advocates than the above-named men. Selden was so
pre-eminent for learning that his distinguishing designation was “the
learned Selden.” Coleman was so thoroughly conversant with Hebrew
literature, that he was commonly termed “Rabbi Coleman.” Hussey, minister
at Chessilhurst in Kent, was a man of great eloquence, both as a speaker
and a writer, and possessed no small influence among the strong-minded men
of that period. And Prynne had a double claim on public attention both
then and still; for he had been so formidable an antagonist of the Laudean
Prelacy, as to have been marked out by Laud as a special victim,—had been
condemned to the pillory, and suffered the loss of both his ears by the
sentence of that cruel prelate,—and had been rescued from his sufferings,
and restored to political life and influence, by the Long Parliament. He
was, moreover, both a learned man, an acute lawyer, and an able and subtle
controversialist, and his writings exercised at the time no mean
influence. When such men undertook the advocacy of the Erastian argument,
encouraged as they were by the English Parliament, it may well be
conceived that they would present it both in its ablest, and in its most
plausible form. And it is doing no discredit to Erastians of the present
day, to say that they are not likely to produce anything either more
profound in learning, or more able and acute in reasoning than was done by
their predecessors of the Long Parliament, and the Westminster Assembly.
If, therefore, Gillespie’s Aaron’s Rod completely defeated the acute and
able men of that day, we may well recommend it to the perusal of those
whose duty it may be to engage in a similar controversy in the present
age.

But while such were Gillespie’s labours in the field of controversy, the
value of which could not be easily over-estimated, his memory would be
grievously wronged were we to regard him only as a controversialist. For
although the topics which first engaged the attention of the Westminster
Assembly were those on which the greatest difference of opinion existed,
and to which, almost of necessity, the public mind, both then and ever
since, has been most strongly directed, there was a very large portion of
their duty, and that, too, of the highest importance, and demanding the
utmost care, in which a much greater degree of unanimity prevailed. For a
considerable time after the Assembly commenced its deliberations, its
attention was almost exclusively occupied with the framing of Directories
for public worship and ordination, and with discussions respecting the
form of Church government, including the power of Church censure. These
topics involved both the Independent and the Erastian controversies; and
till some satisfactory conclusions had been reached on these points, the
Assembly abstained from entering upon the less agitating, but not less
important work of framing a Confession of Faith. But having completed
their task, so far as depended upon themselves, they then turned their
attention to their doctrinal labours.

The manner in which the Assembly entered upon this solemn duty deserves
the utmost attention, as intimating the earnest and prudent spirit by
which their whole deliberations were pervaded. They appointed a committee
to prepare and arrange the main propositions which were to be examined and
digested into a system by the Assembly. The members of this committee
were, Dr Hoyle, Dr Gouge, Messrs Herle, Gataker, Tuckney, Reynolds, and
Vines, with the Scottish Commissioners Henderson, Baillie, Rutherford, and
Gillespie. Those learned and able divines began their labours by
arranging, in the most systematic order, the various great and sacred
truths which God has revealed to man; and then reduced these to thirty-two
distinct heads or chapters, each having a title expressive of its subject.
These were again subdivided into sections; and the committee formed
themselves into several subcommittees, each of which took a specific topic
for the sake of exact and concentrated deliberation. When these
sub-committees had completed their respective tasks, the whole results
were laid before the entire committee, and any alterations suggested and
debated till all were of one mind. And when any title, or chapter, had
been thus fully prepared by the committee, it was reported to the
Assembly, and again subjected to the most minute and careful
investigation, in every paragraph, sentence, and even word. All that
learning the most profound, intellect the most searching, and piety the
most sincere could accomplish, was thus concentrated in the Westminster
Assembly’s Confession of Faith, which may be safely termed the most
perfect statement of systematic Theology ever framed by the Christian
Church.

In the preliminary deliberations of the Committee the Scottish divines
took a leading part, and none more than Gillespie. But no report of these
deliberations either was or could be made public. The results alone
appeared when the Committee, from time to time, laid its matured
propositions before the Assembly. And it is gratifying to be able to add,
that throughout the deliberations of the Assembly itself, when composing,
or rather, formally sanctioning the Confession of Faith, there prevailed
almost an entire and perfect harmony. There appears, indeed, to have been
only _two_ subjects on which any difference of opinion existed among them.
The one of these was the doctrine of Election, concerning which Baillie
informs us they had “long and tough debates;” the other was concerning
that which heads the chapter entitled “Of Church Censures,” as its
fundamental proposition, viz. “The Lord Jesus Christ, as King and Head of
his Church, has therein appointed a government in the hand of
church-officers distinct from the civil magistrate.” This proposition the
Assembly manifestly intended and understood to contain a principle
directly and necessarily opposed to the very essence of Erastianism, and
it was regarded in the same light by the Erastians themselves, hence it
had to encounter their most strenuous opposition. It was, however,
somewhat beyond the grasp of the lay-members of the Assembly, especially
since their champion Selden had in a great measure withdrawn from the
debates after his signal discomfiture by Gillespie, and consequently it
was triumphantly carried, the single dissentient voice being that of
Lightfoot, the other Erastian divine, Coleman, having died before the
conclusion of the debate. The framing of the Confession occupied the
Assembly nearly a year. After having been carefully transcribed, it was
presented to the parliament on the 3d of December, 1646.

A plan similar to that already described was also employed in preparing
that admirable digest of Christian doctrine, the Shorter Catechism, and so
far as can be ascertained, by the same Committee. For a time, indeed, they
attempted to prosecute the framing of both Confession and Catechism at
once; but after some progress had been made with both, the Assembly
resolved to finish the Confession first, and then to construct the
Catechism upon its model, so far at least as to have no proposition in the
one which was not in the other. By this arrangement they wisely avoided
the danger of subsequent debate and delay. Various obstacles, however,
interposed, and so greatly impeded the progress of the Assembly, that the
Catechism was not so speedily completed as had been expected. It was,
however, presented to the House of Commons on the 5th of November 1647,
and the Larger, in the spring of the following year.

There is one anecdote connected with the formation of the Shorter
Catechism both full of interest and so very beautiful, that it must not be
omitted. In one of the earliest meetings of the Committee, the subject of
deliberation was to frame an answer to the question “_What is God_?” Each
man felt the unapproachable sublimity of the divine idea suggested by
these words; but who could venture to give it expression in human
language! All shrunk from the too sacred task in awe-struck reverential
fear. At length it was resolved, as an expression of the Committee’s deep
humility, that the youngest member should first make the attempt. He
consented; but begged that the brethren would first unite with him in
prayer for divine enlightenment. Then in slow and solemn accents he thus
began his prayer:—“O God, Thou art a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and
unchangeable, in Thy being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and
truth.”—When he ceased, the first sentence of his prayer was immediately
written down and adopted, as the most perfect answer that could be
conceived, as, indeed, in a very sacred sense, God’s own answer,
descriptive of Himself.(4) Who, then, was the youngest member of the
Committee? When we compare the birth-dates of the respective members of
the Committee, we find that George Gillespie was the youngest by more than
a dozen years. We may, therefore, safely conclude, that George Gillespie
was the man who was thus guided to frame this marvellous answer.

Without further enlarging on these points, we may, without hazard, affirm,
that however eminent Gillespie was in the department of controversy, he
was scarcely, if at all, less so in that of systematic theology, while his
personal piety was of the most elevated and spiritual character. Rarely,
indeed, have such qualities met in any one man, as were united in him; but
when God requires such a man, he creates, endows and trains him, so as to
meet the necessity.

When the public labours of the Westminster Assembly drew near a close, the
Scottish commissioners returned to their native country. Henderson had
previously found the repose of the grave, Rutherford remained a short time
behind. Baillie and Gillespie appeared at the General Assembly which met
in August, 1647, and laid before that supreme ecclesiastical court the
result of their protracted labours. The Confession of Faith was ratified
by that Assembly. The same Assembly caused to be printed a series of
propositions, or “Theses against Erastianism,” as Baillie terms them,
amounting to one hundred and eleven, drawn up by George Gillespie,
embodying eight of them in the act which authorised their publication. The
perusal of these propositions would enable any person of unprejudiced and
intelligent mind to master and refute the whole Erastian theory; and could
not fail, at the same time, to draw forth sentiments of admiration towards
the clear and strong mind by which they were framed.

But the incessant toils in which Gillespie’s life had been spent had
shattered his constitution beyond the power of recovery; and the state in
which he found Scotland on his return was such as to permit no relaxation
of these toils. The danger in which the obstinacy and duplicity of Charles
I. had placed that unhappy monarch’s life, drew forth towards him the
strong compassion of all who cherished sentiments of loyalty to the
sovereign and pity for the man. But in many instances these generous
feelings were allowed to bias the dictates of religious principle and
sound judgment; and a party began to be formed for the purpose of
attempting to save the King even at the hazard of entering into a war with
England. This was, of course, eagerly encouraged by all who had previously
adhered to the King’s party in the contest between him and the
Covenanters; and a series of intrigues began and were carried on, breaking
the harmony which had previously existed, and preparing for the disastrous
consequences which soon afterwards ensued. Gillespie exerted himself to
the utmost of his power to avert the coming calamities which he
anticipated, by striving to prevent the commission of crimes which provoke
judgment. His influence was sufficient to restrain the Church from
consenting to countenance the weak and wicked movements of politicians.
But his health continued to sink under these incessant toils and
anxieties. He was chosen moderator of the General Assembly of 1648,
though, as Baillie states, “he did much deprecate the burden, as he had
great reason, both for his health’s sake, and other great causes.”

This Assembly met on the 12th of July, 1648, and so arduous and difficult
were the duties which it had to discharge, that it did not end its labours
till the 12th of August. Although Gillespie was then rapidly sinking under
the disease of which he died, which, from its symptoms, must have been
consumption, he continued to take an active part in all its deliberations,
and drew up the last public paper which it directed to be framed, in
answer to a document, issued by the State, respecting the engagement that
had been formed for the support of the King. The arduous labours of the
Assembly being thus ended, Gillespie left Edinburgh and retired to
Kirkcaldy, with the view of seeking, by change of scene and air, some
renovation to his health. But the disease had taken too firm a hold of his
enfeebled constitution, and he continued to suffer from increasing
weakness. Still the cares of the distracted Church and country pressed
heavily on his mind. He was now unable to attend the public meetings of
Church courts; but on the 8th of September he addressed a letter to the
Commission of Assembly, in which he stated clearly and strongly his
opinion concerning the duties and the dangers of the time. Continuing to
sink, and feeling death at hand, he partly wrote and partly dictated what
may be termed his dying “Testimony against association with malignant
enemies of the truth and godliness.”(5) At length, on the 17th day of
December, 1648, his toils and sorrows ceased, and he fell asleep in Jesus.

So passed away from this world one of those bright and powerful spirits
which are sent in troublous times to carry forward God’s work among
mankind. Incessant toil is the destiny of such highly-gifted men while
here below; and not unfrequently is their memory assailed by those mean
and little minds who shrunk with instinctive fear and hatred before the
energetic movements which they could neither comprehend nor encounter. But
their recompense is in heaven, when their work is done; and future
generations delight to rescue their reputation from the feeble obloquy
with which malevolence and folly had endeavoured to hide or defame it.
Thus has it been with George Gillespie to a considerable extent already;
and we entertain not the slightest shadow of doubt that his transcendent
merit is but beginning to be known and appreciated as it deserves, and
that ere very long his well-earned fame will shine too clearly and too
strong to be approached by detractors.

* * * * *

We have but little more to relate respecting George Gillespie. His death
was deeply lamented by all who loved their church and country at the time;
and such was the feeling generally entertained of his great merit, that
the Committee of Estates, or government of the kingdom, by an Act dated
20th December, 1648, did, “as an acknowledgment for his faithfulness in
all the public employments entrusted to him by this Church, both at home
and abroad, his faithful labours, and indefatigable diligence in all the
exercises of his ministerial calling, for his Master’s service, and his
learned writings, published to the world, in which rare and profitable
employments, both for Church and State, he truly spent himself and closed
his days, ordain, That the sum of one thousand pounds sterling be given to
his widow and children.” And though the Parliament did, by their Act,
dated June 8th, 1650, unanimously ratify the preceding Act, and
recommended to their Committee to make the same effectual, yet in
consequence of Cromwell’s invasion, and the confusion into which the whole
kingdom was thereby thrown, this benevolent design was frustrated, as his
grandson, the Rev. George Gillespie, minister at Strathmiglo, afterwards
declared.(6) So much for the trust to be placed in national gratitude and
the promises of statesmen.

George Gillespie was buried at Kirkcaldy, his birth-place, and the place
also where he died. A tomb-stone, erected to his memory by his relatives
and friends, bore an inscription in Latin, recording the chief actions of
his life, and stating the leading elements of his character. But when
Prelacy was re-imposed on Scotland, after the restoration of Charles II.,
the mean malice of the Prelatists gratified itself by breaking the
tomb-stone. This petty and spiteful act is thus recorded in the “Mercurius
Caledonius,” one of the small quarto newspapers or periodicals of the
time, of date January 16th to 25th, 1661. “The late Committee of Estates
ordered the tomb-stone of Mr George Gillespie, whereon was engraven a
scandalous inscription, should be fetched from the burial place, and upon
a market-day, at the cross of Kirkcaldy, where he had formerly been
minister, and there solemnly broken by the hands of the hangman; which was
accordingly done,—a just indignity upon the memory of so dangerous a
person.”

The Committee of Estates by which this paltry deed was done was that of
Middleton’s parliament, frequently called the “drunken parliament,” from
the excesses of its leading men, and which on the following year
signalised itself by the Glasgow act,—that act which emptied nearly four
hundred pulpits in one day. The inaccuracy of the statement made by the
prelatic newspaper, asserting that he had formerly been minister at
Kirkcaldy, will not surprise any person who is acquainted with the
writings of the Prelatists of that period, who seem not to have been able
to write the truth when relating the most common and well-known facts. But
one is somewhat surprised to find statements equally inaccurate made
respecting George Gillespie, by reverend and learned historians. In Dr
Cook’s History of the Church of Scotland, we find in one passage George
Gillespie’s character and conduct completely misunderstood and
misrepresented, (vol. iii. pages 160-162), and in a subsequent passage an
assertion that the proceedings of that party in the church called the
Protestors were, in the year 1650, “directed by Gillespie, a factious
minister, whose name has been frequently mentioned,” (page 196). George
Gillespie was the only person of whom mention was made, or could be made,
in the previous portion of the history, as his brother had not then began
to take any active part in public affairs; but he was dead nearly two
years before the date to which the latter passage refers. It is plain that
Dr Cook confounded George Gillespie with his brother Patrick, and ascribed
to the former the actions of the latter, regarding them both as but one
and the same person. He further asserts, that Gillespie was “suspected of
corresponding with the Sectaries.” That Patrick Gillespie corresponded
with the Sectaries, and was much trusted and countenanced by Cromwell, is
perfectly true; but before that time George Gillespie had joined the One
Church and family in heaven. In every period of his life, and in every
transaction in which he was engaged, George Gillespie was far above all
private or discreditable intriguing, which is the vice of weak, cunning,
and selfish minds. And while we do not think it necessary further to
prosecute this vindication of his memory, we yet think it our duty, when
writing a memoir of him, thus briefly to set aside the groundless
accusation, whether it be adduced by prelatic or Erastian writers,—his
baffled antagonists when living, his impotent calumniators when dead.

The tomb-stone, as has been related, was broken in 1661, but the
inscription was preserved. A plain tablet was erected in 1745, by his
grandson, the Rev. George Gillespie, minister of Strathmiglo, on which the
inscription was re-produced, with a slight addition, mentioning both
events. It is still to be seen in the south-east porch of the present
church. The inscription is as follows:—

MAGISTER GEORGIUS GILLESPIE, PASTOR EDINBURGENSIS, JUVENILIBUS
ANNIS RITUUM ANGLORUM PONTIFICIORUM TURMAM PROSTRAVIT: GLISCENTE
AETATE, DELEGATUS CUM MANDATIS IN SYNODO ANGLICANA, PRÆSULEM E
ANGLIA ERADICANDUM, SINCERUM DEI CULTUM UNIFORMEM PROMOVENDUM,
CURAVIT; ERASTUM AARONIS GERMINANTE VIRGA CASTIGAVIT. IN PATRIAM
REVERSUS FOEDIFRAGOS ANGLIAM BELLO LACESSENTES LABEFACTAVIT:
SYNODI NATIONALIS ANNO 1648, EDINBURGI HABITÆ PRÆSES ELECTUS,
EXTREMAM PATIRÆ SUÆ OPERAM CUM LAUDE NAVAVIT: CUMQUE OCULATIS
TESTIS VIDISSET MALIGNANTIUM QUAM PRÆDIXERAT RUINAM, EODEM QUO
FOEDUS TRIUM GENTIUM SOLENNE RENOVATUM TUIT DIE DECEDENS IN PACE,
ANNO ÆTATIS 36, IN GAUDIUM DOMINI INTRAVIT: INGENIO PROFUNDUS,
GENIO MITIS, DISPUTATIONE ACUTUS, ELOQUIO FACUNDUS, ANIMO
INVICTUS, BONOS IN AMOREM, MALOS IN INVIDIAM, OMNES IN SUI
ADMIRATIONEM, RAPUIT: PATLÆ SUÆ ORNAMENTUM; TANTO PATRE DIGNA
SOBOLES.

THIS TOMB BEING PULLED DOWN BY THE MALIGNANT INFLUENCE OF
ARCHBISHOP SHARP, AFTER THE INTRODUCTION OF PRELACY, MR GEORGE
GILLESPIE, MINISTER OF THE GOSPEL AT STRATHMIGLO, CAUSED IT TO BE
RE-ERECTED, IN HONOUR OF HIS SAID WORTHY GRANDFATHER, AND AS A
STANDING MONUMENT OF DUTIFUL REGARD TO HIS BLESSED MEMORY; ANNO
DOMINI, 1746.

It may be expedient to give a translation:—

“Master George Gillespie, minister at Edinburgh, in his youthful
years overthrew a host of ‘English popish ceremonies;’ as he
approached full manhood, having been sent as commissioner to the
Westminster Assembly, his attention was directed to the task of
extirpating Prelacy from England, and promoting purity and
uniformity in the worship of God. He chastised Erastianism in his
‘Aaron’s Rod Blossoming.’ Having returned to his native country he
weakened the violators of the covenant, who were bent on provoking
a war with England.(7) Having been chosen moderator of the General
Assembly which met at Edinburgh in the year 1648, he devoted his
last exertions to the service of his country so as to draw forth
public approbation: and having, as an eye-witness, seen that ruin
of the malignants which he had foretold, departing in peace on the
same day on which the League of the three kingdoms was solemnly
renewed, in the 36th year of his age, he entered into the joy of
the Lord. He was a man profound in genius, mild in disposition,
acute in argument, flowing in eloquence, unconquered in mind. He
drew to himself the love of the good, the envy of the bad, and the
admiration of all. He was an ornament of his country,—a son worthy
of such a father.”

Such was the “scandalous inscription” which the peevish spleen, yet bitter
malice of Scottish Prelacy, found gratification in attempting to destroy.
But there is a righteous retribution even in this world. Men rear their
own monuments, and write inscriptions on them which time cannot
obliterate. Gillespie’s enduring monument is in his actions and his
writings, which latest ages will admire. The monuments of Scottish Prelacy
are equally imperishable, whether in the wantonly defaced tomb-stones of
piety and patriotism, or in the moss-grown martyr-stones that stud the
moors and glens of our native land; and the inscriptions thereupon are
fearfully legible with records of indelible infamy.

It remains but to offer a few remarks respecting Gillespie’s various
works. The first production of his pen was his remarkable “Dispute against
the English Popish Ceremonies.” It was published in 1637, when its author
was only in the 25th year of his age; and it must have been completed some
time previous to its publication, as it appears to have been printed
abroad, most probably in Holland. This gives countenance to one statement
which affirms it to have been written when Gillespie had scarcely passed
his 22d year.

His next work was published in London, in the year 1641, where he was
during the progress of the treaty with the King. It is referred to by
Baillie in the following terms:—“Think not we live any of us here to be
idle; Mr Henderson has ready now a short treatise, much called for, of our
church discipline; Mr Gillespie has the grounds of Presbyterial Government
well Asserted; Mr Blair, a pertinent answer to Hall’s Remonstrance: all
these are ready for the press.” The valuable treatise here referred to has
not been so much noticed as several other of Gillespie’s writings, but is
included in this collective edition.

His Sermons and Controversial Pamphlets were produced in the years
1641-5-6, during the sittings of the Westminster Assembly.

Aaron’s Rod Blossoming was published at London also, about the close of
the year 1646. This is his greatest work.

The celebrated Hundred and Eleven Propositions were prepared before he
left London, and laid before the General Assembly on his return to
Scotland in the summer of 1647. Perhaps it is not possible to obtain a
clear conception of Erastianism better than by the study of these
propositions. They have been reprinted several times, yet were rarely to
be obtained.

The short, yet very able and high-principled papers which he prepared for
the Assembly and its Commission in 1648, were his latest writings.

A short time after his death, and during the year 1649, his brother
Patrick published in one volume, entitled a “Treatise of Miscellany
Questions,” a series of papers, twenty-two in number, on a variety of
important topics, which appeared to be in a condition fit for the press.
Though this is a posthumous production, and consequently without its
author’s finishing corrections, it displays the same clearness, precision,
and logical power, which characterise his other works. We are inclined to
conjecture that these Essays, as we would now term them, were written at
different times during the course of several years, and while he was
studying the various topics to which they relate. Several of them are on
subjects which were debated in the Westminster Assembly; and it is very
probable that Gillespie wrote them while maturing his views on these
points preparatory for those discussions in which he so greatly
distinguished himself. This conjecture is strengthened by the curious and
interesting fact, that a paper, which will be found beginning at page 109
of the part now printed for the first time from the MS., is almost
identical, both in argument and language, though somewhat different in
arrangement, with chapter viii. pages 115 to 120, of Aaron’s Rod. The
arrangement in the Aaron’s Rod is more succinct than in the paper referred
to, but its principles, and very much of the language, are altogether the
same. May not this indicate Gillespie’s mode of study and composition? May
he not have been in the habit of concentrating his mind on the leading
topics of the subjects which he was studying, writing out pretty fully and
carefully his thoughts on these topics, and afterwards connecting and
arranging them so as to form one complete work? If so, then we may
conclude that the Miscellany Questions contain such of these masses of
separate thinking as Gillespie found no opportunity of using in any other
manner, and, therefore, consented to their publication in their present
form.

In Wodrow’s Analecta it is stated that Gillespie had a manuscript volume
of sermons prepared for the press, which were bought from the printer by
the Sectaries, and probably destroyed. It is also stated, that there were
six octavo volumes of notes written by Gillespie at the Westminster
Assembly then extant, containing an abstract of its deliberations. Of
these manuscript volumes there are two copies in the Wodrow MSS.,
Advocates’ Library, but neither of them appears to be Gillespie’s own
hand-writing; the quarto certainly is not, and the octavo seems to be an
accurate copy of _two_ of the original volumes. These have been collated
and transcribed by Mr Meek, with his well-known care and fidelity, and the
result is now, for the first time, given to the public. What has become of
the missing volumes is not known, and it is to be feared the loss is
irrecoverable. There is one consideration, however, which mitigates our
regret for the loss of these volumes. The one which has been preserved
begins February 2d, 1644, and ends January 3d, 1645.(8) Lightfoot’s
Journal continues till the end of 1644, and then terminates abruptly, as
if he had not felt it necessary any longer to continue noting down the
outline of the debates. Yet Lightfoot continued to attend the Assembly
throughout the whole of its protracted deliberations. From other sources
also, we learn that the whole of the points on which there existed any
considerable difference of opinion in the Assembly, had been largely
debated during the year 1644, so that little remained to be said on either
side. The differences, indeed, continued; but they assumed the form of
written controversy, the essence of which we have in the volume entitled,
“The Grand Debate.” It is probable, therefore, that the lost volumes of
Gillespie’s manuscript contained chiefly his own remarks on the writings
of the Independents, and, not unlikely, the outlines of the answers
returned by the Assembly. Supposing this to be the case, it would
doubtless have been very interesting to have had Gillespie’s remarks and
arguments, but they could not have given much information which we do not
at present possess.

A few brief notices respecting the papers now first published may both be
interesting, and may conduce to rendering them intelligible to the general
reader.

There is _first_, an extract attested by the scribes, or clerks, of the
Westminster Assembly, copied from the original, by Wodrow, and giving a
statement of the Votes on Discipline and Government, from session 76, to
session 186.

_Second_, Notes of Proceedings from February 2, to May 14, 1644, to p. 64.

_Third_, Notes of Proceedings from September 4, 1644, to January 3, 1645,
to p. 100. (By consulting Lightfoot, we learn that the time between May
and September was occupied chiefly in debates respecting Ordination, the
mode of dispensing the Lord’s Supper, Excommunication, and Baptism, with
some minor points.)

_Fourth_, Debates in the Sub-committee respecting the Directory, 4th
March, to 10th June, p. 101-2.

_Fifth_, Notes of Proceedings in the Grand Committee, from September 20,
to October 25, 1644, p. 103-7. This part of the manuscript, though short,
is of very considerable importance, as giving us a specimen of the manner
in which the Grand Committee acted. The Grand Committee was composed of
some of the most influential persons of the Lords, of the Commons, and of
the Assembly, together with the Scottish Commissioners. The duty of that
Committee was to consult together respecting the subjects to be brought
before the Assembly, and to prepare a formal statement of those subjects
for the purpose of regular deliberation. By this process a large amount of
debate was precluded, and the leading men were enabled to understand each
other’s sentiments before the more public discussions began. And as the
Scottish Commissioners were necessarily constituent members of this
Committee, their influence in directing the whole proceedings was both
very great, and in constant operation. Lightfoot’s journal gives no
account of the proceedings of this Committee.

_Sixth_, A paper on excommunication, &c. It has already been mentioned
that this paper is nearly identical with part of a chapter in the Aaron’s
Rod.

_Seventh_, A short note on some discussions which took place in the
Committee of the General Assembly at Edinburgh, on the 7th and 8th of
February, 1645, at the time when Baillie and Gillespie laid before the
Assembly the Directory which had been recently completed.

_Eighth_, The Ordinance of the two Houses of the English Parliament, 12th
June, 1643, summoning the Assembly of Divines. This is added chiefly for
the purpose of shewing the intention of the Parliament in calling the
Assembly.

It has been already stated that there are two MS. volumes, purporting to
be copies of Gillespie’s Notes. The one of these is in octavo, and seems
to have been carefully taken; the other is in quarto, and appears to be
partly a copy, partly an abstract. In it Gillespie is always spoken of in
the third person, which has caused many variations. The transcriber has
also made many omissions, not only of one, but of several paragraphs at a
time, frequently passing over the remarks of the several speakers. It
appears to have been his object to copy chiefly the argumentative part of
the manuscript. This defective transcription had belonged to Mr William
Veitch, as appears from his name written on the cover and first page, with
the addition “minister at Peebles, 1691.” In the copy transcribed for the
press, the octavo manuscript has been followed. The quarto, however, along
with Lightfoot, has been found useful in correcting the Scripture
references, which had all to be carefully examined and verified; but
sometimes all three failed to give satisfaction, and a conjectural
substitute has been given, enclosed in brackets, and with a point of
interrogation. In concluding these remarks, we cannot help expressing
great gratification to see for the first time a complete edition of the
works of George Gillespie; and in order also to complete the memoir, we
add, as an appendix, some very interesting extracts from the Maitland Club
edition of Wodrow’s Analecta, chiefly relative to his last illness and
death.

APPENDIX. EXTRACTS FROM WODROW’S ANALECTA (MAITLAND CLUB EDITION)

“MR GEORGE GILLESPIE.

“Mr George Gillespie, first minister of Kirkcaldy, and afterward minister
of Edinburgh; when he was a child, he seemed to be somewhat dull and soft
like, so that his mother would have stricken and abused him, and she would
have made much of Patrick, his younger brother. His father, Mr John
Gillespie, minister of Kirkcaldy, was angry to see his wife carry so to
his son George; and he would have said, ‘My heart, let alone; though
Patrick may have some respect given him in the Church, yet my son George
will be the great man in the Church of Scotland.’ And he said of him when
he was a-dying, ‘George, George, I have gotten many a brave promise for
thee.’ And indeed he was very soon a great man; for it’s reported, that
before he was a preacher, he wrote the ‘English Popish Ceremonies.’ He
was, of all ministers in his time, one of the greatest men for disputing
and arguing; so that he was, being but a young man, much admired at the
Assembly at Westminster, by all that heard him; he being one of the
youngest members that was there. I heard old Mr Patrick Simson say, that
he heard his cousin, Mr George Gillespie say, ‘Let no man who is called of
God to any work, be it never so great and difficult, distrust God for
assistance, as I clearly found at that great Assembly at Westminster. If I
were to live a long time in the world, I would not desire a more noble
life, than the life of pure and single dependence on God; for, said he,
though I may have a claim to some gifts of learning and parts, yet I ever
found more advantage by single looking to God for assistance than by all
the parts and gifts that ever I could pretend to, at that time.’

“When he was at London, he would be often on his knees; at another time,
reading and writing. And when he was sitting in that great Assembly at
Westminster, he was often observed to have a little book, and to be
marking down something with his pen in that book, even when some of the
most learned men, as Coleman and Selden, were delivering their long and
learned orations, and all he was writing was for the most part his pithy
ejaculations to God, writing these words; _Da lucem, Domine; Da lucem!_
When these learned men had ended their oration, the Moderator proposed who
should give an answer to their discourse; they all generally voted Mr
Gillespie to be the person. He being a young man, seemed to blush, and
desired to be excused, when so many old and learned divines were present,
yet all the brethren, with one voice, determined he should be the person
that should give an answer to that learned oration. Though he seemed to
take little heed, yet being thus pressed, he rose up, and resumed all the
particulars of that learned oration very distinctly, and answered every
part of it so fully, that all that heard him were amazed and astonished;
for he died in 1648, and was then but about thirty-six years of age. Mr
Calamy, if I be not forgotten, said, we were ready to think more of Mr
Gillespie than was truly meet; if he had not been stained by being against
our way and judgment for the Engagement.

“He was one of the great men that had a chief hand in penning our most
excellent Confession of Faith and Catechisms. He was a most grave and bold
man, and had a most wonderful gift given him for disputing and arguing. My
father told me, he observed that when there was a considerable number of
ministers met, there were several of our great nobles were strongly
reasoning with our ministers about the engagement 1648. When Mr Gillespie
was busy studying his sermon that he was to preach before the Parliament
to-morrow, the ministers sent privately for Mr Gillespie, whom he observed
to come in very quietly, and when Lauderdale, Glencairn, and some others,
rose up and debated very strongly for the engagement, Mr Gillespie rose up
and answered them so fully and distinctly, firstly, secondly, and thirdly,
that he fully silenced them all; and Glencairn said, ‘There is no standing
before this great and mighty man!’ I heard worthy Mr Rowat say, that Mr
Gillespie said, ‘The more truly great a man is, he was really the more
humble and low in his own eyes,’ as he instanced in the great man Daniel;
and, said he, ‘God did not make choice of some of us as his instruments in
the glorious work of Reformation, because we were more fit than others,
but rather because we were more unfit than others.’ He was called _Malleus
Mallignantium_, and Mr Baillie, writing to some in this church anent Mr
George Gillespie, said, ‘He was truly an ornament to our church and
nation.’ And Mr James Brown, late minister of Glasgow, told me that there
was an English gentleman said to him, that he heard Mr Gillespie preach,
and he said, he believed he was one of the greatest Presbyterians in the
world. He was taken from the Greyfriars’ Church to the New Church. He has
written several pieces, as ‘Aaron’s Rod Blossoming,’ and ‘Some Miscellany
Questions,’ and his ‘Assertion of the Government of the Church of
Scotland, about Ruling Elders.’ He had several little books wherein he set
down his remarks upon the proceedings of the Assembly at
Westminster.”—WODROW’S ANALECTA, vol. iii. pp. 109-18.

“What follows here I have in conversation with Mr Patrick Simpson, whose
memory was most exact. What concerns Mr Gillespie, and the Marquis of
Montrose, I read over to him, and he corrected. The rest are hints I set
down after conversation, when two or three days with him in his house at
Renfrew, in the year 1707.

(ACCOUNT OF THE LAST ILLNESS AND DEATH OF MR GEORGE GILLESPIE.)

“Mr George Gillespie being moderator of the Assembly held at Edinburgh,
July 12th, 1648, was all the time thereof, as also half a year before, in
a greater weakness of body than ordinary; that being now come to a height,
which long before had been gathering. He had a great hoasting and
sweating, which in the time of the General Assembly began to grow worse;
but being extraordinarily (so I may say) upheld, was not so sensible as
when the Assembly dissolved it appeared to be. On occasion whereof, the
next Wednesday after the rising of the Assembly, he went with his wife
over to Kirkcaldy, there intending to tarry for a space, till it should
please the Lord, by the use of means, to restore him to some more health
to come over again. But when he was come there, his weakness and disease
grew daily more and more, so that no application of any strength durst be
used towards him. It came to that, he kept his chamber still to his death,
wearing and wasting hoasting, and sweating. Ten days before his death his
sweating went away, and his hoasting lessened, yet his weakness still
encreased, and his flux still continued. On Wednesday morning, which day
he began to keep his bed, his pain began to be very violent, his breath
more obstructed, his heart oppressed; and that growing all the next night
to a very great height, in the midst of the night there were letters
written to his brother, and Mr Rutherford, and Mr John Row, his death
approaching fast. On Friday all day, and Thursday all night, he was at
some ease. Friday at night, till Saturday in the afternoon, in great
violence, the greatness of pain causing want of sleep. Mr Rutherford and
Lord Craigihall came to visit him. Thus much for his body. Now I’ll speak
a little of what concerns his soul, and the exercise of his mind all the
while.

Monday, December 11, 1648, came my Lords Argyle, Cassils, Elcho, and
Warriston to visit him. He did faithfully declare his mind to them, as
public men, in that point whereof he hath left a testimony to the view of
the world, as afterwards; and the speaking was very burdensome, yet he
spared not very freely to fasten their duty upon them. The exercise of his
mind all the time of his sickness was vary sad and constant, without
comfortable manifestations, and sensible presence for the time, yet he
continued in a constant faith of adherence, which ended in an adhering
assurance, his grips growing still the stronger.

“One day, a fortnight before his death, he had leaned down on a little
bed, and taking a fit of faintness, and his mind being heavily exercised,
and lifting up his eyes, this expression fell with great weight from his
mouth, ‘O my dear Lord, forsake me not forever!’ His weariness of this
life was very great, and his longing to be relieved, and to be where the
veil would be taken away.

“Tuesday, December 14, (1648) he was in heavy sickness, and three pastors
came in the afternoon to visit him, of whom one said to him, ‘The Lord
hath made you faithful in all he hath employed you in, and it’s likely we
be put to the trial; therefore what encouragement give you us thereanent!’
Whereto he answered in few words, ‘I have gotten more by the Lord’s
immediate assistance than ever I had by study, in the disputes I had in
the Assembly of Divines in England; therefore let never man distrust God
for assistance that cast themselves on him, and follow his calling. For my
own part, the time that I have had in the exercise of the ministry is but
a moment.’ To which sentence another pastor answered, ‘But your moment
hath exceeded the gray heads of others! This I may speak without
flattery.’ To which he answered disclaiming it with a ‘no;’ for he desired
still to have Christ exalted, as he said at the same time, and another.
And at other times, when any such things were spoken to him, ‘What are all
my righteousnesses but rotten rags? All that I have done cannot abide the
touchstone of his justice. They are all but abominations, and as an
unclean thing, when they are reckoned between my God and me. Christ is all
things, and I am nothing!’ The other pastor when the rest were out, asked,
‘Whether he was enjoying the comforts of God’s presence, or if they were
for a time suspended! He answered, Indeed they were suspended.’ Then
within a little while he said, ‘Comforts! aye comforts!’ meaning, that
they were not easily attained. His wife said, ‘What reck’d the comfort if
believing is not suspended!’ He said, ‘No.’ Speaking farther to that his
condition, he said, ‘Although that I should never see any more light of
comfort than I do see, yet I shall adhere, and do believe that He is mine,
and I am his!’

“The next morrow being Friday, he not being able to write, did dictate out
the rest of a paper, which he had been before writing himself, and did
subscribe it before two witnesses, who also did subscribe; wherein he gave
faithful and clear testimony to the work and cause of God, and against the
enemies thereof, to stop the mouths of calumniators and to confirm his
children.

“In all his discourses this was mixed as one thing, that he longed for the
time of relief, and rejoiced because it was so near. His breath being very
short, he said, ‘Where the hallelujahs are sung to the Lamb, there is no
shortness of breath!’ And being in very great pain all the Friday night,
his mother said in the morning, ‘In all appearance you will not have
another night.’ To which he said, ‘Think you that your word will hold
good?’ She said, ‘I fear it will hold over good.’ He said, ‘Not over
good.’ That day he blessed his children and some others, (Mr Patrick
Simson, the writer of this) and said, ‘God bless you: and as you carry the
name of your grandfather, so God grant you his graces.’ That afternoon,
being Saturday, came Mr Samuel Rutherford, who, among other things, said,
‘The day, I hope, is dawning, and breaking in your soul, that shall never,
have an end.’ He said, ‘It is not broken yet; but though I walk in
darkness and see no light, yet I will trust in the name of the Lord and
stay upon my God!’ Mr Samuel said, ‘Would not Christ be a welcome guest to
you?’ He answered, ‘Welcome! the welcomest guest that ever I saw.’ He said
further, ‘Doth not your soul love Christ above all things?’ He answered,
‘I love him heartily: who ever knew any thing of him but would love him!’

“Mr James Wilson going to pray, asked ‘What petitions he would have him to
put up for him?’ He said, ‘For more of himself, and strength to carry me
through the dark valley.’

“Saturday night he became weaker, and inclined to drowsiness and sleeping,
and was discerned in his drowsiness a little to rave; yet being till the
last half hour in his full and perfect senses, and having taken a little
jelly and drink, about half an hour before his death he spake as sensibly
betwixt as ever, and blessed some persons that morning with very spiritual
and heavenly expressions. About seven or eight of the clock his drowsiness
encreased, and he was overheard in it speaking (after he had spoken more
imperfectly some words before) those words, ‘Glory! Glory! a seeing of
God! a seeing of God! I hope it shall be for his glory!’ After he had
taken a little refreshment of jelly, and a little drink through a reed, he
said that the giving him these things made him drowsy; and a little
afterwards, ‘There is a great drowsiness on me, I know not how it comes.’

“His wife seeing the time draw near, spake to him and said, ‘The time of
your relief is now near, and hard at hand.’ He answered, ‘I long for that
time. O! happy they that are there.’ This was the last word he was heard
sensibly to speak. Mr Frederick Carmichael being there, they went to
prayer, expecting death so suddenly. In the midst of prayer he left his
rattling(9) and the pangs and fetches of death begin thence, his senses
went away. Whereupon they rose from prayer, and beheld till, in a very
gentle manner, the pins of his tabernacle were loosed.

“He said (_supra_) ‘Say not over good,’ because he thought she wronged him
so far in wishing the contrary of what he longed for.

“Mr Carmichael said, ‘You have been very faithful, and the Lord has
honoured you to do him very much service, and now you are to get your
reward.’ He answered ‘I think it reward enough, that ever I got leave to
do him any service in truth and sincerity.’ ”

This account was dictated to me by Mr Patrick Simson, Mr Gillespie’s
cousin, who was with him to his last sickness, and at his death, and took
minutes at the time of these his expressions. I read it over, after I had
written it, to him. He corrected some words, and said to me, “This is all
I mind about his expressions toward his close. They made some impression
on me at the time, and I then set them down. I have not read the paper
that I mind these forty years, but I am pretty positive these were his
very words.” A day or two after, I went in with him to his closet to look
for another paper, for now he had almost lost his sight, and in a bundle,
I fell on the paper he wrote at the time, and told him of it. When we
compared it with what I wrote, there was not the least variation betwixt
the original and what I wrote, save an inconsiderable word or two, here
altered; which is an instance of a strong memory, the greatest ever I
knew.

(Subscribed) R WODROW

Sept. 8, 1707 WODROW’s ANALECTA, vol. I, pp. 154-159

* * * * *

_What follows about Mr Gillespie I wrote also from Mr Simson’s mouth._

“George Gillespie was born January 21st, 1613. He was first minister at
Weemyse, the first admitted under Presbytery 1638. He was minister at
Weemyse about two years. He was very young when laureate, before he was
seventeen. He was chaplain first to my lord Kenmure, then to the Lord of
Cassilis. When he was with Cassilis, he wrote his ‘English Popish
Ceremonies,’ which when printed, he was about twenty-two. He wrote a
‘Dialogue between a Civilian and Divine,’ a piece against Toleration,
entitled ‘Wholesome Severity reconciled with Christian Liberty.’ He died
in strong faith of adherence, though in darkness as to assurance, which
faith of adherence he preached much. He died December seventeen, 1648. If
he had lived to January 21, 1649, he had been thirty six years.

“The last paper he wrote, was ‘The Commission of the Kirk’s Answer to the
State’s Observations on the Declaration of the General Assembly anent the
Unlawfulness of the Engagement.’ The Observations were penned, (as my
relator supposes) by Mr William Colville, who wrote all these kind of
papers for the Committee of Estates, and printed during the Assembly
whereof he was moderator. They could not overtake it, but remitted it to
the Commission to sit on Monday, and Mr Gillespie wrote the answer on
Saturday and the Sabbath, when he (the thing requiring haste) staid from
sermon, and my informer, Mr Patrick Simson, transcribed it against Monday
at ten, when it passed without any alteration. And just the week after, he
went over to Fife, where he died. He was not full ten years in the
ministry. He had all his sermons in England, part polemical, part
practical prepared for the press, and but one copy of them, which he told
the printer’s wife he used to deal with, and bade her have a care of them.
And she was prevailed on by some money from the Sectaries, who were mauled
by him, to suppress them. He was very clear in all his notions, and the
manner of expressing them. There are six volumes in 8vo manuscript which
he wrote at the Assembly of Divines remaining.”—WODROW’S ANALECTA, vol. i.
p. 159-160.

DISPUTE AGAINST THE ENGLISH POPISH CEREMONIES OBTRUDED ON THE CHURCH OF
SCOTLAND.

DISPUTE AGAINST THE ENGLISH POPISH CEREMONIES

OBTRUDED ON THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND;

WHEREIN NOT ONLY OUR OWN ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE SAME ARE STRONGLY
CONFIRMED, BUT LIKEWISE THE ANSWERS AND DEFENCES OF OUR OPPOSITES, SUCH AS
HOOKER, MORTOUNE, BURGES, SPRINT, PAYBODY, ANDREWS, SARAVIA, TILEN,
SPOTSWOOD, LINDSEY, FOSBESSE, ETC., PARTICULARLY CONFUTED

BY GEORGE GILLESPIE,

MINISTER AT EDINBURGH,

1662.

Jer. ix. 12-14.

“Who is the wise man, that may understand this? and who is he to whom the
mouth of the Lord hath spoken, that he may declare it, for what the land
perisheth?” “And the Lord saith, Because they have forsaken my law which I
set before them, and have not obeyed my voice, neither walked therein, but
here walked after the imagination of their own heart, and after Baalim.”

EDINBURGH:

ROBERT OGLE, AND OLIVER & BOYD.

M. OGLE & SON AND WILLIAM COLLINS, GLASGOW.

D. DEWAR, PERTH. G. & R. KING, ABERDEEN. W. M’COMB, BELFAST.

HAMILTON, ADAMS & CO., AND JAMES NISBET & CO., LONDON.

MDCCCXLIV.

Reprinted from Edition of 1660.

A. MURRAY, PRINTER, MILNE SQUARE, EDINBURGH.

DEDICATION

TO
ALL AND EVERY ONE
IN THE
REFORMED CHURCHES
OF
SCOTLAND, ENGLAND, AND IRELAND,
WHO
LOVE THE LORD JESUS, AND MEAN TO ADHERE UNTO THE REFORMATION OF RELIGION.
GRACE, MERCY, AND PEACE, FROM GOD OUR FATHER,
AND FROM
THE LORD JESUS CHRIST.

AUTHOR’S PREFACE

As Satan’s malice, and man’s wickedness, cease not to molest the thrice
happy estate of the church of Christ, so hath the eternal council of the
only wise God predetermined the coming of offences, persecutions,
heresies, schisms and divisions, that professors may be proved before they
be as approved and made manifest, 1 Cor. xi. 19. And hence “It must needs
be that offences come,” Matt. xviii. 17; neither hath the church ever
enjoyed both purity and peace any long time together. But whiles the
church of God, thus disquieted, at well with dangerous alterations, as
with doleful altercations, is presented in the theatre of this world, and
crieth out to beholders, “Have ye no regard, all ye that pass by!” Lam. i.
12. A pity it is to see the crooked and sinistrous courses of the greatest
part, every man moving his period within the enormous confines of his own
exorbitant desires; the atheistical nullisidian, nothing regardeth the
assoiling of ecclesiastical controversies,—he is of Gallio’s humour, Acts
xviii. 17, and cares for none of those things; the sensual Epicurean and
riotous ruffian (go church matters as they will) eats and drinks, and
takes his pleasure; the cynical critic spueth out bitter aspersions,
gibeth and justleth at everything that can be said or done in the cause of
religion; the acenical jester playeth fast and loose, and can utter
anything in sport, but nothing in earnest; the avaricious worldling hath
no tune but _Give_, _give_, and no anthem pleaseth him but _Have_, _have_;
the aspiring Diotrephes puffeth down every course which cannot puff up;
the lofty favourite taketh the pattern of his religion from the court
iconography, and if the court swim, he cares not though the church sink;
the subdulous Machiavillian accounteth the show of religion profitable,
but the substance of it troublesome: he studieth not the oracles of God
but the principles of Satanical guile, which be learneth so well that he
may go to the devil to be bishopped; the turn-coat temporiser wags with
every wind, and (like Diogenes turning about the mouth of his voluble
hogshead, after the course of the sun) wheresoever the bright beams of
coruscant authority do shine and cherish, thither followeth and sitteth
he; the gnathonic parasite sweareth to all that his benefactor holdeth;
the mercenary pensioner will bow before he break; he who only studieth to
have the praise of some witty invention, cannot strike upon another anvil;
the silly idiot (with Absolom’s two hundred, 2 Sam. xv. 11,) goeth, in the
simplicity of his heart, after his perverse leaders; the lapped Nicodemite
holds it enough to yield some secret assent to the truth, though neither
his profession nor his practice testify so much; he whose mind is
possessed with prejudicate opinions against the truth, when convincing
light is holden forth to him, looketh asquint, and therefore goeth awry;
the pragmatical adiaphorist, with his span-broad faith and ell-broad
conscience, doth no small harm—the poor pandect of his plagiary profession
in matters of faith reckoneth little for all, and in matters of practice
all for little. Shortly, if an expurgatory index were compiled of those,
and all other sorts of men, who either through their careless and neutral
on looking, make no help to the troubled and disquieted church of Christ,
or through their nocent accession and overthwart intermeddling, work out
her greater harm, alas! how few feeling members were there to be found
behind who truly lay to heart her estate and condition? Nevertheless, in
the worst times, either of raging persecution or prevailing defection, as
God Almighty hath ever hitherto, so both now, and to the end, he will
reserve to himself a remnant according to the election of grace, who
cleave to his blessed truth and to the purity of his holy worship, and are
grieved for the affliction of Joseph, as being themselves also in the
body, in confidence whereof I take boldness to stir you up at this time,
by putting you in remembrance. If you would be rightly informed of the
present estate of the reformed churches, you must not acquiesce in the
pargetting verdict of those who are wealthy and well at ease, and mounted
aloft upon the uncogged wheels of prosperous fortune (as they call it).
Those whom the love of the world hath not enhanced to the serving of the
time can give you the soundest judgment. It is noted of Dionysius
Hallicarnasseus(10) (who was never advanced to magistracy in the Roman
republic) that he hath written far more truly of the Romans than Fabius,
Salustius, or Cato, who flourished among them with riches and honours.

After that it pleased God, by the light of his glorious gospel, to dispel
the more than cimmerian darkness of antichristianism, and, by the antidote
of reformation, to avoid the poison of Popery; forasmuch as in England and
Ireland, every noisome weed which God’s hand had never planted was not
pulled up, therefore we now see the faces of those churches overgrown with
the repullulating twigs and sprigs of popish superstition. Mr Sprint
acknowledgeth the Reformation of England to have been defective, and
saith, “It is easy to imagine of what difficulty it was to reform all
things at the first, where the most part of the privy council, of the
nobility, bishops, judges, gentry, and people, were open or close Papists,
where few or none of any countenance stood for religion at the first, but
the Protector and Cranmer.”(11) The church of Scotland was blessed with a
more glorious and perfect reformation than any of our neighbour churches.
The doctrine, discipline, regiment, and policy established here by
ecclesiastical and civil laws, and sworn and subscribed unto by the king’s
majesty and several presbyteries and parish churches of the land, as it
had the applause of foreign divines; so was it in all points agreeable
unto the word, neither could the most rigid Aristarchus of these times
challenge any irregularity of the same. But now, alas! even this church,
which was once so great a praise in the earth is deeply corrupted, and
hath “turned aside quickly out of the way,” Exod. xxxii. 8. So that this
is the Lord’s controversy against Scotland. “I had planted thee a noble
vine, wholly a right seed? How then art thou turned into the degenerate
plant of a strange vine unto me?” Jer. ii. 21.

It is not this day feared, but felt, that the rotten dregs of Popery,
which were never purged away from England and Ireland and having once been
spued out with detestation, are licked up again in Scotland, prove to be
the unhappy occasions of a woeful recidivation. Neither is there need of
Lyncean eyes, for if we be not poreblind, it cannot be hid from us. What
doleful and disastrous mutation (to be bewailed with tears of blood) hath
happened to the church and spouse of Christ in these dominions? Her comely
countenance is miscoloured with the fading lustre of the mother of
harlots, her shamefaced forehead hath received the mark of the beast, her
lovely locks are frizled with the crisping pins of antichristian fashions,
her chaste ears are made to listen to the friends of the great whore, who
bring the bewitching doctrine of enchanting traditions, her dove eyes look
pleasantly upon the well attired harlot, her sweet voice is mumming and
muttering some missal and magical liturgies, her fair neck beareth the
halter like to kens of her former captivity, even a burdensome chain of
superfluous and superstitious ceremonies, her undefiled garments are
stained with the meritricious bravery of Babylonish ornaments, and with
the symbolising badges of conformity with Rome, her harmless hands reach
brick and mortar to the building of Babel, her beautiful feet with shoes
are all besmeared, whilst they return apace in the way of Egypt, and wade
the ingruent brooks of Popery. Oh! transformed virgin, whether is thy
beauty gone from thee? Oh! forlorn prince’s daughter, how art thou not
ashamed to look thy Lord in the face? Oh! thou best beloved among women,
what hast thou to do with the inveigling appurtenances and habilement of
Babylon the whore?—But among such things as have been the accursed means
of the church’s desolation, which peradventure might seem to some of you
to have least harm or evil in them, are the ceremonies of kneeling in the
act of receiving the Lord’s supper, cross in baptism, bishopping,
holidays, &c., which are pressed under the name of things indifferent; yet
if you survey the sundry inconveniences and grievous consequences of the
same, you will think far otherwise. The vain shows and shadows of these
ceremonies have hid and obscured the substance of religion; the true life
of godliness is smothered down and suppressed by the burden of these human
inventions, for their sakes, many, who are both faithful servants to
Christ and loyal subjects to the king, are evil spoken of, mocked,
reproached, menanced, molested; for their sakes Christian brethren are
offended, and the weak are greatly scandalised; for their sakes the most
powerful and painful ministers in the land are either thrust out, or
threatened to be thrust out from their callings; for their sakes the best
qualified and most hopeful expectants are debarred from entering into the
ministry; for their sakes the seminaries of learning are so corrupted,
that few or no good plants can come forth from thence, for their sakes
many are admitted into the sacred ministry, who are either popish and
Arminianised, who minister to the flock poison instead of food; or silly
ignorants, who can dispense no wholesome food to the hungry; or else
vicious in their lives, who draw many with them into the dangerous
precipice of soul perdition; or, lastly, so earthly minded, that they
favour only the things of this earth, not the things of the Spirit of God,
who feed themselves, but not the flock, and to whom the Great Shepherd of
the sheep wilt say, “The diseased have ye not strengthened, neither have
ye healed that which was sick, neither have ye bound up that which was
broken, neither have ye brought again that which was driven away, neither
have ye sought that which was lost,” Ezek. xxxiv. 4. Simple ones, who have
some taste and relish of popish superstition (for many such there be in
the land), do suck from the intoxicated drugs of conformity, the softer
milk which makes them grow in error. And who can be ignorant what a large
spread Popery, Arminianism and reconciliation with Rome, have taken among
the arch urgers of the ceremonies? What marvel that Papists clap their
hands! for they see the day coming which they wish for. Woe to thee, O
land, which bears professed Papists and avouched Atheists, but cannot bear
them who desire to “abstain from all appearance of evil,” 1 Thes. v. 22,
for truth and equity are fallen in thee, and “he that departeth from evil
maketh himself a prey,” Isa. lix. 14, 15.

These are the best wares which the big hulk of conformity, favoured with
the prosperous gale of mighty authority, hath imported amongst us, and
whilst our opposites so quiverly go about to spread the bad wares of these
encumbering inconveniences, is it time for as luskishly to sit still and
to be silent? “Woe unto us, for the day goeth away, for the shadows of the
evening are stretched out,” Jer. vi. 4.

Moreover, besides the prevailing inconveniency of the controverted
ceremonies, the unlawfulness of them is also plainly evinced in this
ensuing dispute by such convincing arguments, as, being duly pondered in
the equal balance of an attentive mind, shall, by God’s grace, afford
satisfaction to so many as purpose to buy the truth, and not to sell it.
Wherefore, referring to the dispute the points themselves which are
questioned, I am in this place to beseech you all by the mercies of God,
that, remembering the words of the Lord, “Them that honour me I will
honour, and they that despise me shalt be lightly esteemed,” 1 Sam. ii.
30, remembering, also, the curse and condemnation of Meroz, which came not
to help the Lord against the mighty, Judg. v. 23, of the nobles of Tekoa,
who put not their necks to the work of the Lord, Neh. iii. 5 and, shortly,
of all such as have no courage for the truth, Jer. ix. 3, but seek their
own things, not the things which are Jesus Christ’s, Phil. ii. 21, and,
finally, taking to heart how the Lord Jesus, when he cometh in the glory
of his Father with his holy angels, Mark viii. 38, will be ashamed of
every one who hath been ashamed of him and his words in the midst of a
sinful and crooked generation, you would, with a holy zeal and invincible
courage, against all contrary error, superstition, and abuse whatsoever,
set yourselves both to speak and do, and likewise (having a calling) to
suffer for the truth of Christ and for the purity of his worship, being in
nothing terrified by your adversaries, Phil. i. 28, 1 Pet. iii. 14, which,
that ye may the better perform, I commend to your thoughts these wholesome
admonitions which follow—

I. When you see so much diversity both of opinion and practice in things
pertaining to religion, the rather ye ought to give all diligence for
trying the things which are different, Phil. i. 10. If you judge us before
you hear us, then do you contrary to the very law of nature and nations,
John vii. 51, Acts v. 16. Neither will it help you at your reckoning to
say, We believed our spiritual guides, our prelates and preachers, whom
God had set over us. Nay, what if your guides be blind? then they not only
fall in the ditch themselves, but you with them, Matth. iv. 14. Our Master
would not have the Jews to rest upon the testimony of John Baptist
himself, but would have them to search the Scriptures, John v. 33, 34, 39,
by which touch stone the Bereans tried the Apostle’s own doctrine, and are
commended for so doing, Acts xvii. 11. But as we wish you not to condemn
our cause without examining the same by the Word, so neither do we desire
you blindly to follow us in adhering unto it, for what if your seeing
guides be taken from you? How, then, shall you see to keep out of the
ditch? We would neither have you to fight for us nor against us, like the
blind sword players, Andabatæ, a people who were said to fight with their
eyes closed. Consider, therefore, what we say, and the Lord give you
understanding in all things, 2 Tim. ii. 7.

II. Since the God of heaven is the greatest king, who is to rule and reign
over you by his Word, which he hath published to the world, and, _tunc
vere_, &c., then is God truly said to reign in us when no worldly thing is
harboured and haunted in our souls, saith Theophylact,(12) since also the
wisdom of the flesh is enmity against God, Rom. viii. 7, who hath made
foolish the wisdom of this world, 1 Cor. i. 20, therefore never shall you
rightly deprehend the truth of God, nor submit yourselves to be guided by
the same, unless, laying aside all the high soaring fancies and
presumptuous conceits of natural and worldly wisdom, you come in an
unfeigned humility and babe-like simplicity to be edified by the word of
righteousness. And far less shall you ever take up the cross and follow
Christ (as you are required), except, first of all, you labour and learn
to deny yourselves, Matth. xvi. 24, that is, to make no reckoning what
come of yourselves, and of all that you have in the world, so that God
have glory and yourselves a good conscience, in your doings or sufferings.

III. If you would not be drawn away after the error of the wicked, neither
fall from your own stedfastness, the apostle Peter teacheth you, that ye
must grow both in grace and knowledge, 2 Pet. iii. 18, 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
against the tentations of the time. Wherefore, as the perverters of the
truth and simplicity of religion do daily multiply errors, so must you
(shunning those shelves and quicksands of deceiving errors which witty
make-bates design for you), labour daily for increase of knowledge, and as
they to their errors in opinion do add the overplus of a licentious
practice and lewd conversation, so must you (having so much the more ado
to flee from their impiety), labour still for a greature measure of the
lively work of sanctifying grace; in which respects Augustine saith well,
that the adversaries of the truth do this good to the true members of the
church, that the fall of those makes these to take better hold upon
God.(13)

IV. Be not deceived, to think that they who so eagerly press this course
of conformity have any such end as God’s glory, or the good of his church
and profit of religion. When a violent urger of the ceremonies pretendeth
religious respects for his proceedings, it may be well answered in
Hillary’s(14) words. _Subrepis nomine blandienti, occidis specie
religionis_—Thou privily creepest in with an enticing title, thou killest
with the pretence of religion, for, 1. It is most evidently true of these
ceremonies, which our divines(15) say of the gestures and rites used in
the mass, “They are all frivolous and hypocritical, stealing away true
devotion from the heart, and making men to rest in the outward gestures of
the body.” There is more sound religion among them who refuse, than among
them who receive the same, even our enemies themselves being judges, the
reason whereof let me give in the words of one of our opposites(16)
_Supervacua hoec occupatio circa traditiones humanas, gignit semper
ignorantiam et contemptum proeceptorum divinorum_—This needless business
about human traditions doth ever beget the ignorance and contempt of
divine commandments. 2. Where read we that the servants of God have at any
time sought to advance religion by such hideous courses of stern violence,
as are intended and assayed against us by those who press the ceremonies
upon us? The jirking and nibbling of their unformal huggermugger cometh
nearer to sycophancy than to sincerity, and is sibber to appeaching
hostility than fraternal charity, for just so they deal with us as the
Arians did with the catholics of old. _Sinceros_, &c.(17) “The sincere
teachers of the churches they delated and accused before magistrates, as
if they alone did continually perturb the church’s peace and tranquillity,
and did only labour that the divided churches might never again piously
grow together, and by this calumny they persuaded politic and civil men
(who did not well enough understand this business), that the godly
teachers of the churches should be cast forth into exile, and the Arian
wolves should be sent into the sheepfolds of Christ.” Now, forasmuch as
God hath said, “They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain,”
Isa. ix. 11, and will not have his flock to be ruled with force and with
cruelty, Ezek. xxxiv. 4. _Nec potest_ (saith Lactantius(18)) _aut veritas
cum vi, aut justitia cum crudelitate conjungi_—Neither can either truth be
conjoined with violence, or righteousness with cruelty therefore, if our
opposites would make it evident that they are in very deed led by
religious aims let them resile from their violent proceedings, and deal
with us in the spirit of meekness showing us from God’s word and good
reason the equity of their cause, and iniquity of ours, wherein we require
no other thing of them, than that which Lactantius required of the
adversaries of his profession, even that they would debate the matter
_verbis pontius quam verberibus_—by words rather than by whips
_Distringant aciem ingeniorem suorum: siratio eorum vera est, asseratur:
parati sumus audire, si doceant_—Let them draw out the sharpness of their
engines; if their reason be true let it be averred, we are ready to hear,
if they teach us. 3. If their aims were truly for the advancement of
religion, how comes it to pass, that whilst they make so much ado and move
every stone against us for our modest refusing of obedience to certain
ordinances of men, which in our consciences we are persuaded to be
unlawful, they manumiss and set free the simony, lying, swearing,
profanation of the Sabbath, drunkenness, whoredom, with other gross and
scandalous vices of some of their own side, by which God’s own
commandments are most fearfully violated? This just recrimination we may
well use for our own most lawful defence. Neither do we hereby intend any
man’s shame (God knows), but his reformation rather. We wish from our
hearts we had no reason to challenge our opposites of that superstition
taxed in the Pharisees, _Quod argubant &c._—that they accused the
disciples of little things, and themselves were guilty in great things,
saith Nicolaus Goranus.(19)

V. Do not account ceremonies to be matters of so small importance that we
need not stand much upon them, for, as Hooker(20) observeth, a ceremony,
through custom, worketh very much with people. Dr Burges allegeth(21) for
his writing about ceremonies, that the matter is important for the
consequence of it. Camero(22) thinketh so much of ceremonies, that he
holdeth our simplicity to notify that we have the true religion, and that
the religion of Papists is superstitious because of their ceremonies. To
say the truth, a church is in so far true or hypocritical as it mixeth or
not mixeth human inventions with God’s holy worship, and hence the
Magdeburgians profess,(23) that they write of the ceremonies for making a
difference betwixt a true and a hypocritical church. _Vere enim ecclesia,
&c._—for a true church, as it retains pure doctrine, so also it keeps
simplicity of ceremonies, &c., but a hypocritical church, as it departs
from pure doctrine, so for the most part it changeth and augmenteth the
ceremonies instituted of God, and multiplieth its own traditions, &c. And
as touching our controverted ceremonies in particular, if you consider
what we have written against them, you shall easily perceive that they are
matters of no small, but very great consequence. Howbeit these be but the
beginnings of evils, and there is a worse gallimaufry gobber-wise
prepared. It hath been observed of the warring Turks(24) that often they
used this notable deceit—to send a lying rumour and a vain tumult of war
to one place, but, in the meanwhile, to address their true forces to
another place, that so they might surprise those who have been unwarily
led by pernicious credulity. So have we manifest (alas too, too manifest)
reasons to make us conceive, that whilst the chief urgers of the course of
conformity are skirmishing with us about the trifling ceremonies (as some
men count them), they are but labouring to hold our thoughts so bent and
intent upon those smaller quarrels, that we may forget to distinguish
betwixt evils immanent and evils imminent, and that we be not too much
awake to espy their secret sleight in compassing further aims.

VI. Neither let the pretence of peace and unity cool your fervour, or make
you spare to oppose yourselves unto those idle and idolised ceremonies
against which we dispute, for whilst our opposites make a vain show and
pretence of peace, they do like the Romans,(25) who built the Temple of
Concord just in the place where the seditious outrages of the two Gracchi,
Tiberius and Caius, had been acted, which temple,(26) in the subsequent
times, did not restrain, but, by the contrary, gave further scope unto
more bloody seditions, so that they should have built _discord_ a temple
in that place rather than _concord_, as Augustine pleasantly tickleth
them. Do our opposites think that the bane of peace is never in yielding
to the course of the time, but ever in refusing to yield? Or will they not
rather acknowledge, that as a man is said to be made drunk by drinking the
water of Lyncestus, a river of Macedonia,(27) no less than if he had
filled himself with the strongest wine, so one may be inebriate with a
contentious humour in standing stiffly for yielding, as well as in
standing stedfastly for refusing? Peace is violated by the oppugners of
the truth, but established by the possessors of the same, for (as was
rightly said by Georgius Scolarius in the Council of Florence(28)) the
church’s peace “can neither stay among men, the truth being unknown,
neither can it but needs return, the truth being known.” _Nec veritate
ignorata manere inter homines potest, nec illa agnita necessario non
redire._ We must therefore be mortised together, not by the subscudines of
error, but by the bands of truth and unity of faith. And we go the true
way to regain peace whilst we sue for the removal of those popish
ceremonies which have both occasioned and nourished the discord, we only
refuse that peace (falsely so called) which will not permit us to brook
purity, and that because (as Joseph Hall(29) noteth) St James’ (chap. iii.
17,) describeth the wisdom which is from above to be “first pure, then
peaceable,” whence it cometh that there can be no concord betwixt Christ
and antichrist, nor any communion betwixt the temple of God and idols, 2
Cor. vii. 15, 16. _Atque ut coelum_, &c.: “And though heaven and earth
should happen to be mingled together, yet the sincere worship of God and
his sacred truth, wherein eternal salvation is laid up for us, should
worthily be unto us of more estimation than a hundred worlds,” saith
Calvin.(30) John Fox(31) judgeth it better to contend against those who
prefer their own traditions to the commandments of God, than to be at
peace with them. True it is,—_Pax optima rerum, quas homini novisse datum
est._—Yet I trust we may use the words of that great adiaphorist, Georgius
Cassander—_Ea __ demion vera_, &c. “That alone (saith he) is true and
solid Christian peace which is conjoined with the glory of God and the
obedience of his will, and is rejoined from all depravation of the
heavenly doctrine and divine worship.”

VII. Beware, also, you be not deceived with the pretence of the church’s
consent, and of uniformity as well with the ancient church as with the now
reformed churches, in the forms and customs of both, for, 1. Our opposites
cannot show that the sign of the cross was received and used in the church
before Tertullian, except they allege either the Montanists or the
Valentian heretics for it. Neither yet can they show, that apparel proper
for divine service, and distinguished from the common, is more ancient
than the days of Pope Cœlestinus, nor lastly, that kneeling in the act of
receiving the communion was ever used before the time of Pope Honorious
III. They cannot prove any one of the controverted ceremonies to have been
in the church the first two hundred years after Christ, except the feast
of Easter (which yet can neither be proved to have been observed in the
apostles’ own age, nor yet to have been established in the after age by
any law, but only to have crept in by a certain private custom), and for
some of them they cannot find any clear testimony for a long time
thereafter. Now, in the third century,(32) historiographers observe, that
_Paulatum ceremoniæ auctæ sunt, hominum superstitionorum opinionibus: unde
in baptismo unctionem olei, cruces signaculum, et osculum
addiderunt_—Ceremonies were by little and little augmented by the opinions
of superstitious men, whence it was that they added the unction of oil,
the sign of the cross, and a kiss in baptism. And in the fourth century
they say, _Subinde magis magisque, traditiones humanæ cumulatæ
sunt_—Forthwith human traditions were more and more augmented. And so from
that time forward vain and idle ceremonies were still added to the worship
of God, till the same was, under Popery, wholly corrupted with
superstitious rites, yes, and Mr Sprint hath told us, even of the first
two hundred years after Christ, that the “devil, in those days, began to
sow his tares (as the watchmen began to sleep), both of false doctrine and
corrupt ceremonies.” And now, though some of the controverted ceremonies
have been kept and reserved in many (not all), the reformed churches, yet
they are not therefore to be the better liked of. For the reason of the
reservation was, because some reverend divines who dealt and laboured in
the reformation of those churches, perceiving the occurring lets and
oppositions which were caused by most dangerous schisms and seditions, and
by the raging of bloody wars, scarcely expected to effectuate so much as
the purging of the church from fundamental errors and gross idolatry,
which wrought them to be content, that lesser abuses in discipline and
church policy should be then tolerated, because they saw not how to
overtake them all at that time. In the meanwhile, they were so far from
desiring any of the churches to retain these popish ceremonies, which
might have convenient occasion of ejecting them (far less to recal them,
being once ejected), that they testified plainly their dislike of the
same, and wished that those churches wherein they lived, might have some
blessed opportunity to be rid of all such rotten relics, riven rags and
rotten remainders of Popery. All which, since they were once purged away
from the church of Scotland and cast forth as things accursed into the
jakes of eternal detestation, how vile and abominable may we now call the
resuming of them? Or what a piacular prevarication is it to borrow from
any other church which was less reformed, a pattern of policy for this
church which was more reformed. But, 2. Though there could be more alleged
for the ceremonies than truly there can be, either from the customs of the
ancient or reformed churches, yet do our opposites themselves profess,
that they will not justify all the ceremonies either of the ancient or
reformed churches. And, indeed, who dare take this for a sure rule, that
we ought to follow every ancient and universally received custom? For as
Casaubon showeth, though the church’s consent ought not to be contemned,
yet we are not always to hold it for a law or a right rule. And do not our
divines teach, that _nihil faciendum est ad ahorum exemplum, sed juxta
verbum_—Nothing is to be done according to the example of others, but
according to the word _Ut autem_, &c. “As the multitude of them who err
(saith Osiander), so long prescription of time purchaseth no patrociny to
error.”

VIII. Moreover, because the foredeck and hind deck of all our opposites’
probations do resolve and rest finally into the authority of a law, and
authority they use as a sharp knife to cut every Gordian knot which they
cannot unloose, and as a dreadful peal to sound so loud in all ears that
reason cannot be heard, therefore we certiorate you with Calvin, that _a
acquievistis imperio, pessimo laqueo vos in duistis_—If you have
acquiesced in authority, you have wrapped yourselves in a very evil snare.
As touching any ordinance of the church we say with Whittaker, _Obediendum
ecclesioe est sed jubents ac docenti recta_—We are to obey the church but
commanding and teaching right things. Surely, if we have not proved the
controverted ceremonies to be such things as are not right to be done we
shall straight obey all the ceremonial laws made thereanent, and as for
the civil magistrate’s part, is it not holden that he may not enjoin us
“to do that whereof we have not good ground to do it of faith?” and that,
“although all thy external condition is in the power of the magistrate,
yet internal things, as the keeping of faith, and obedience, and a good
conscience, are not in his power.” For every one of us “shall give account
of himself to God,” Rom. xiv. 12, but until you hear more in the dispute
of the power which either the church or the magistrate hath to enact laws
anent things belonging to the worship of God, and of the binding power of
the same, let me add here touching human laws in general, that where we
have no other reason to warrant unto us the doing of that which a human
law prescribeth, beside the bare will and authority of the law maker, in
this case a human law cannot bind us to obedience. Aquinas holdeth with
Isidore, that a human law (among other conditions of it) must both be
necessary for removing of some evil, and likewise profitable for guiding
us to some good. Gregorius Sayrus following them herein, saith, _Debet lex
homines a malo retrahere, et idio dicatur necessaria debet __ etiam
promovere in bonum, et ideo dicitur utilis_—A law ought to draw back men
from evil, and therefore is called necessary, it ought also to promove
them unto good, and therefore is called profitable. Human laws, in Mr
Hooker’s judgment,(33) must teach what is good, and be made for the
benefit of men. Demosthenes(34) describeth a law to be such a thing _cui
convenit omnibus parere_ which it is convenient for every one to obey.
Camero(35) not only alloweth us to seek a reason of the church’s laws
(_Non enim_ saith he, _verae ecclesiae libet leges ferre quarum non reddat
rationem_—It pleaseth not the true church to make and publish laws,
whereof she giveth not a reason), but he(36) will likewise have us, in
such things as concern the glory and honour of God, not to obey the laws
of any magistrate blindly and without a reason. “There was one (saith the
Bishop of Winchester(37)), that would not have his will stand for reason,
and was there none such among the people of God? Yes, we find, 1 Sam. ii,
one of whom it is said, Thus it must be, for Hophni will not have it so,
but thus his reason is, For he will not. And God grant none such may be
found among Christians.” From Scripture we learn, that neither hath the
magistrate any power, but for our good only, Rom. xiii. 4, nor yet hath
the church any power, but for our edification only, Ephes. iv. 12. Law
makers, therefore, may not enjoin _quod libet_, that which liketh them,
nay, nor always _quod licet_, that which is in itself lawful, but only
_quod expedit_, that which is expedient and good to the use of edifying.
And to them we may well say with Tertullian,(38) _Iniquam exercetis
dominationem si ideo negatis licere quia vultis, non quia debuit non
licere_—You exercise an unjust dominion, if, therefore, you deny anything
to be free, because you will so, not because it ought not to be free.
Besides all this, there is nothing which any way pertaineth to the worship
of God left to the determination of human laws, beside the mere
circumstances, which neither have any holiness in them, forasmuch as they
have no other use and praise in sacred than they have in civil things, nor
yet were particularly determinable in Scripture, because they are
infinite, but sacred, significant ceremonies, such as cross, kneeling,
surplice, holidays, bishopping, &c., which have no use and praise except
in religion only, and which, also, were most easily determinate (yet not
determined) within those bounds which the wisdom of God did set to his
written word, are such things as God never left to the determination of
any human law. Neither have men any power to burden us with those or such
like ordinances, “For (saith not our Lord himself to the churches), I will
put upon you none other burden, but that which ye have already, hold fast
till I come,” Rev. ii. 24, 25. Wherefore, _pro hac_, &c., for this liberty
we ought stoutly to fight against false teachers.(39) Finally, it is to be
noted, that though in some things we may and do commendably refuse
obedience to the laws of them whom God hath set over us, yet are we ever
obliged (and accordingly intend) still to subject ourselves onto them, for
to be subject doth signify (as Zanchius showeth(40)), to be placed under,
to be subordinate, and so to give honour and reverence to him who is
above, which may well stand without obedience to every one of his laws.
Yea, and Dr Field(41) also tells us, that “subjection is generally and
absolutely required where obedience is not.”

IX. Forasmuch as some ignorant ones are of opinion, that when they
practise the ceremonies, neither perceiving any unlawfulness in them (but,
by the contrary, being persuaded in their consciences of the lawfulness of
the same), nor yet having any evil meaning (but intending God’s glory and
the peace of the church), therefore they practise them with a good
conscience. Be not ye also deceived, but rather advert unto this, that a
peaceable conscience, allowing that which a man doth, is not ever a good
conscience, but oftentimes an erring, bold, presuming, secure, yea,
perhaps, a seared conscience. A good conscience, the testimony whereof
giveth a man true peace in his doings, is, and is only, such a one as is
rightly informed out of the word of God. Neither doth a good meaning
excuse any evil action, or else they who killed the apostles were to be
excused, because in so doing they thought they did God good service, John
xiv. 2. It is the observation even of Papists, that men may commit many a
soul-ruining scandal, though they intend no such thing as the ruin of
souls.(42)

X. If once you yield to these English ceremonies, think not that
thereafter you can keep yourselves back from any greater evils, or grosser
corruptions which they draw after them; for as it is just with God to give
such men over to strong delusions as have not received the love of the
truth, nor taken pleasure in the sincerity of his worship, 2 Thess. ii.
10, 11; so there is not a more deceitful and dangerous temptation than in
yielding to the beginnings of evil. “He that is unjust in the least, is
also unjust in much” saith he who could not lie, Luke xvi. 20. When Uriah
the priest had once pleased king Ahaz, in making an altar like unto that
at Damascus, he was afterwards led on to please him in a greater matter,
even in forsaking the altar of the Lord, and in offering all the
sacrifices upon the altar of Damascus, 2 Kings xvi. 10-16. All your
winning or losing of a good conscience, is in your first buying; for such
is the deceitfulness of sin, and the cunning conveyance of that old
serpent, that if his head be once entering in, his whole body will easily
follow after; and if he make you handsomely to swallow gnats at first, he
will make you swallow camels ere all be done. Oh, happy they who dash the
little ones of Babylon against the stones! Psal. cxxxvii. 9.

XI. Do not reckon it enough to bear within the inclosure of your secret
thoughts a certain dislike of the ceremonies and other abuses now set
afoot, except both by profession and action you evidence the same, and so
show your faith by your fact. We are constrained to say to some among you,
with Elijah, “How long halt ye between two opinions?” 1 Kings xviii. 21;
and to call unto you, with Moses, “Who is on the Lord’s side?” Exod.
xxxii. 26. Who? “Be not deceived; God is not mocked;” Gal. vi. 7; and, “No
man can serve two masters,” Mat. vi. 24. However, he that is not against
us, _pro tanto_, is with us, Mark ix. 40, that is, in so far he so
obligeth himself unto us as that he cannot speak lightly evil of our
cause, and we therein rejoice, and will rejoice, Phil. i. 18; yet,
_simpliciter_, he that is not with us is against us, Matt. xii. 30; that
is, he who by profession and practice showeth not himself to be on our
side, is accounted before God to be our enemy.

XII. Think not the wounds which the church hath received by means of these
nocent ceremonies to be so deadly and desperate, as if there were no balm
in Gilead; neither suffer your minds so far to miscarry as to think that
ye wish well to the church, and are heartily sorry that matters frame with
her as they do, whilst, in the meantime, you essay no means, you take no
pains and travail for her help. When king Ahasuerus had given forth a
decree for the utter extirpation of the Jews, Mordecai feared not to tell
Esther, that if she should then hold her peace enlargement and deliverance
should arise unto the Jews from another place, but she and her father’s
house should be destroyed; whereupon she, after three days’ humiliation
and prayer to God, put her very life in hazard by going in to supplicate
the king, which was not according to the law, Esth. iv. But now, alas!
there are too many professors who detract themselves from undergoing
lesser hazards for the church’s liberty, yea, from using those very
defences which are according to the laws of the kingdom. Yet most certain
it is, that without giving diligence in the use of the means, you shall
neither convince your adversaries, nor yet exonerate your own consciences,
nor, lastly, have such comfort in the day of your suffering as otherwise
you should. I know that principally, and, above all, we are to offer up to
God prayers and supplications, with strong crying and tears, which are the
weapons of our spiritual warfare, Heb. v. 7; but as this ought to be done,
so the achieving of other secondary means ought not to be left undone.

If you disregard these things whereof, in the name of God, I have
admonished you, and draw back your helping hands from the reproached and
afflicted cause of Christ, for which we plead, then do not put evil far
from you, for wrath is determined against you. And as for you, my dear
brethren and countrymen of Scotland, as it is long since first
Christianity was preached and professed in this land, as also it was
blessed with a most glorious and much-renowned Reformation:(43) and,
further, as the gospel hath been longer continued in purity and peace with
us than with any church in Europe: moreover, as the Church of Scotland
hath treacherously broken her bonds of oath and subscription wherewith
other churches about us were not so tied; and, finally, as Almighty God,
though he hath almost consumed other churches by his dreadful judgments,
yet hath showed far greater long-suffering kindness towards us, to reclaim
us to repentance, though, notwithstanding all this, we go on in a most
doleful security, induration, blindness, and backsliding: so now, in the
most ordinary course of God’s justice, we are certainly to expect, that
after so many mercies, so great long-suffering, and such a long day of
grace, all despised, he is to send upon us such judgments as should not be
believed though they were told. O Scotland! understand and turn again, or
else, as God lives, most terrible judgments are abiding thee.

But if you lay these things to heart,—if you be humbled before God for the
provocation of your defection, and turn back from the same,—if with all
your hearts and according to all your power, you bestow your best
endeavours for making help to the wounded church of Christ, and for
vindicating the cause of pure religion, yea, though it were with the loss
of all that you have in the world, (_augetur enim religio Dei, quo magis
premitur_(_44_)—God’s true religion is enlarged the more it is pressed
down), then shall you not only escape the evils which shall come upon this
generation, but likewise be recompensed a hundred fold with the sweet
consolations of God’s Spirit here, and with the immortal crown of never
fading glory hence. Now, our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God, even our
Father, which hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation and
good hope through grace, stablish you and keep you from evil, that ye may
be presented before his throne. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with
you all, Amen.

PROLOGUE.

How good reason those wise men had for them who did not allow of the
English popish ceremonies at the first introducing of these novations into
the Church of Scotland, foreseeing the bad effects and dangerous evils
which might ensue thereupon, and how greatly the other sort were mistaken
who did then yield to the same, apprehending no danger in them, it is this
day too too apparent to us whose thoughts concerning the event of this
course cannot be holden in suspense betwixt the apprehensions of fear and
expectations of hope, because doleful experience hath made us feel that
which the wiser sort before did fear. Since, then, this church, which was
once a praise in the earth, is now brought to a most deplorable and daily
increasing desolation by the means of these ceremonies, which have been
both the sparkles to kindle, and the bellows to blow up, the consuming
fire of intestine dissensions among us, it concerneth all her children,
not only to cry out Ah! and Alas! and to “bewail with the weeping of
Jazer,” Isa. xvi. 9, but also to bethink themselves most seriously how to
succour their dear, though distressed mother, in such a calamitous case.
Our best endeavours which we are to employ for this end, next unto praying
earnestly “for the peace of Jerusalem,” Psal. cxxii. 6, are these: 1. So
far as we have attained “to walk by the same rule, to mind the same
thing,” Phil. iii. 19, and to labour as much as is possible that the
course of the gospel, the doctrine of godliness, the practice of piety lie
not behind, because of our differing one from another about the
ceremonies, lest otherwise τὸ ἔργον grow to be πάρεργον. 2. In such things
whereabout we agree not, to make diligent search and inquiry for the
truth. For to have our judgments in our heels, and so blindly to follow
every opinion which is broached, and squarely to conform unto every custom
which is set afoot, becometh not men who are endued with reason for
discerning of things beseeming from things not beseeming, far less
Christians, who should have their senses exercised to discern both good
and evil. Heb. v. 14, and who have received a commandment “to prove all
things,” 1 Thess. v. 21, before they hold fast anything; and least of all
doth it become us who live in these most dangerous days, wherein error and
defection so much abound. 3. When we have attained to the acknowledging of
the truth, then to give a testimony unto the same, according to our
vocation, contending for the truth of God against the errors of men, for
the purity of Christ against the corruptions of Antichrist: For to
understand the truth, and yet not contend for it, argueth cowardliness,
not courage; fainting, not fervour; lukewarmness, not love; weakness, not
valour. Wherefore, since we cannot impetrate from the troublers of our
Israel that true peace which derogateth not from the truth, we may not, we
dare not, leave off to debate with them. Among the laws of Solon, there
was one which pronounced him defamed and unhonest who, in a civil uproar
among the citizens, sitteth still a looker-on and a neuter (_Plut. in
Vita. Solon_); much more deserve they to be so accounted of who shun to
meddle with any controversy which disquieted the church, whereas they
should labour to win the adversaries of the truth, and, if they prove
obstinate, to defend and propugn the truth against them. In things of this
life (as Calvin noteth in _Epist. ad Protect. Angl._) we may remit so much
of the right as the love of peace requireth, but as for the regiment of
the church which is spiritual, and wherein everything ought to be ordered
according to the word of God, it is not in the power of any mortal man
_quidquam hic aliis dare, aut in illorum gratiam deflectere_. These
considerations have induced me to bestow some time, and to take some pains
in the study of the controversies which are agitated in this church about
the ceremonies, and (after due examination and discussion of the writings
of such as have played the proctors for them) to compile this ensuing
dispute against them, both for exonering myself, and for provoking of
others to contend yet more for the truth, and for Zion’s sake not to hold
their peace, nor be at rest, until the amiable light of long-wished-for
peace break forth out of all these confusions, Isa. lxii. 1; which, O
Prince of Peace! hasten, who “wilt ordain peace for us: for thou also hast
wrought all our works in us,” Isa. xxvi. 12.

ORDER.

Because polemic and eristic discourses must follow the adversaries at the
heels whithersoever they go, finding them out in all the lurking-places of
their elaborate subterfuges, and conflicting with them wheresoever they
pitch, until not only all their blows be awarded, but themselves also all
derouted, therefore, perceiving the informality of the Formalists to be
such that sometimes they plead for the controverted ceremonies as
necessary, sometimes as expedient, sometimes as lawful, and sometimes as
indifferent, I resolve to follow the trace, and to evince, by force of
reason, that there is none of all those respects to justify either the
urging or the using of them. And albeit the Archbishop of Spalato (_Pref.
Libror. de Rep. Eccl._) cometh forth like an Olympic champion, stoutly
brandishing and bravading, and making his account that no antagonist can
match him except a prelate, albeit likewise the Bishop of Edinburgh
(_Proc. in Perth, Assembly_, part iii. p. 55) would have us to think that
we are not well advised to enter into combat with such Achillean strength
as they have on their side, yet must our opposites know, that we have more
daring minds than to be dashed with the vain flourish of their great
words. Wherefore, in all these four ways wherein I am to draw the line of
my dispute, I will not shun to encounter and handle strokes with the most
valiant champions of that faction, knowing that—_Trophoeum ferre me à
forti viro, pulchrum est: sin autem et vincar, vinci à tali nullum est
probrum_—But what? Shall I speak doubtfully of the victory, or fear the
foil? Nay, I consider that there is none of them so strong as he was who
said, “We can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth,” 2 Cor.
xxiii. 8. I will therefore boldly adventure to combat with them even where
they seem to be strongest, and to discuss their best arguments,
allegations, answers, assertions, and distinctions. And my dispute shall
consist of four parts, according to those four pretences which are given
out for the ceremonies, which, being so different one from another, must
be severally examined. The lawfulness of a thing is in 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 is done profitably; and the necessity of
it in that it may not be left undone. I will begin with the last respect
first, as that which is the weightiest.

THE FIRST PART.

AGAINST THE NECESSITY OF THE CEREMONIES.

CHAPTER I.

THAT OUR OPPOSITES DO URGE THE CEREMONIES AS THINGS NECESSARY.

_Sect_. 1. This I prove, 1. From their practice; 2. From their pleading.
In their practice, who seeth not that they would tie the people of God to
a necessity of submitting their necks to this heavy yoke of human
ceremonies? which are with more vehemency, forwardness, and strictness
urged, than the weighty matters of the law of God, and the refusing
whereof is far more inhibited, menaced, espied, delated, aggravated,
censured, and punished, than idolatry, Popery, blasphemy, swearing,
profanation of the Sabbath, murder, adultery, &c. Both preachers and
people have been, and are, fined, confined, imprisoned, banished,
censured, and punished so severely, that he may well say of them that
which our divines say of the Papists, _Hoec sua inventa Decalago
anteponunt, et gravius eos-multarent qui ea violarent, quam qui divina
praecepta transgrederentur._(45) Wherefore, seeing they make not only as
much, but more ado, about the controverted ceremonies than about the most
necessary things in religion, their practice herein makes it too, too
apparent what necessity they annex to them.

_Sect_. 2. And if we will hearken to their pleading it tells no less; for
howbeit they plead for their ceremonies, as things indifferent in their
own nature, yet, when the ceremonies are considered as the ordinances of
the church, they plead for them as things necessary. M. G. Powel, in the
_Consideration of the Arguments directed to the High Court of Parliament
in behalf of the Ministers suspended and deprived_ (ans. 3 to arg. 16),
hath these words, yea, these particulars: “Subscription, ceremonies, &c.,
being imposed by the church, and commanded by the magistrate, are
necessary to be observed under the pain of sin.” The Bishop of Edinburgh
resolves us concerning the necessity of giving obedience to the laws of
the church, enacted anent the ceremonies, thus: “Where a man hath not a
law, his judgment is the rule of his conscience, but where there is a law,
the law must be the rule. As, for example, before that apostolical canon
that forbade to eat blood or strangled things, every man might have done
that which in his conscience he thought most expedient, &c., but after the
making and the publication of the canon that enjoined abstinence, the same
was to rule their consciences. And, therefore, after that time, albeit a
man had thought in his own private judgment that to abstain from these
things was not expedient, &c. yet, in that case, he ought not to have
eaten, because now the will of the law, and not the judgment of his own
mind, was the rule of his conscience.”(46) The Archbishop of St Andrews,
to the same purpose saith, “In things indifferent we must always esteem
that to be best and most seemly which seemeth so in the eye of public
authority, neither is it for private men to control public judgment, as
they cannot make public constitutions, so they may not control nor disobey
them, being once made, indeed authority ought to look well to this, that
it prescribe nothing but rightly, appoint no rights nor orders in the
church but such as may set forward godliness and piety, yet, put the case,
that some be otherwise established, they must be obeyed by such as are
members of that church, as long as they have the force of a constitution,
&c. But thou wilt say, My conscience suffers me not to obey, for I am
persuaded that such things are not right, nor appointed. I answer thee, In
matters of this nature and quality the sentence of thy superiors ought to
direct thee, and that is a sufficient ground to thy conscience for
obeying.”(47) Thus we see that they urge the ceremonies, not only with a
necessity of practice upon the outward man, but also with a necessity of
opinion upon the conscience, and that merely because of the church’s
determination and appointment; yea, Dr Mortoune maketh kneeling in the act
of receiving the communion to be in some sort necessary in itself, for he
maintaineth,(48) that though it be not essentially necessary as food, yet
it is accidentally necessary as physic. Nay, some of them are yet more
absurd, who plainly call the ceremonies necessary in themselves,(49)
beside the constitution of the church. Others of them, who confess the
ceremonies to be not only unnecessary,(50) but also inconvenient, do,
notwithstanding, plead for them as things necessary. Dr Burges tells
us,(51) that some of his side think that ceremonies are inconvenient, but
withal he discovers to us a strange mystery brought out of the
unsearchable deepness of his piercing conception, holding that such things
as not only are not at all necessary in themselves,(52) but are
inconvenient too, may yet be urged as necessary.

_Sect_. 3. The urging of these ceremonies as necessary, if there were no
more, is a sufficient reason for our refusing them. “To the precepts of
God (saith Balduine) nothing is to be added,(53) Deut. xii. Now God hath
commanded these things which are necessary. The rites of the church are
not necessary, wherefore, if the abrogation or usurpation of any rite be
urged as necessary, then is an addition made to the commandment of God,
which is forbidden in the word, and, by consequence, it cannot oblige me,
neither should anything herein be yielded unto.” Who can purge these
ceremonies in controversy among us of gross superstition, since they are
urged as things necessary? But of this superstition we shall hear
afterward in its proper place.

CHAPTER II.

THE REASON TAKEN OUT OF ACTS XV. TO PROVE THE NECESSITY OF THE CEREMONIES,
BECAUSE OF THE CHURCH’S APPOINTMENT, CONFUTED.

The Bishop of Edinburgh, to prove that of necessity our consciences must
be ruled by the will of the law, and that it is necessary that we give
obedience to the same, albeit our consciences gainsay, allegeth that
apostolical canon,(54) Acts xv., for an example, just as Bellarmine
maintaineth, _Festorum observationem ex se indifferentem esse sed posita
lege fieri necessariam_(_55_)_._ Hospinian, answering him, will
acknowledge no necessity of the observation of feasts, except divine law
could be showed for it.(56) So say we, that the ceremonies which are
acknowledged by formalists to be indifferent in themselves, cannot be made
necessary by the law of the church, neither doth that example of the
apostolical canon make anything against us, for, according to Mr Sprint’s
confession,(57) it was not the force or authority of the canon, but the
reason and ground whereupon the canon was made, which caused the necessity
of abstaining, and to abstain was necessary for eschewing of scandal,
whether the apostles and elders had enjoined abstinence or not.(58) The
reason, then, why the things prescribed in that canon are called
necessary, ver. 28, is not because, being indifferent before the making
and publication of the canon, they became necessary by virtue of the canon
after it was made, as the Bishop teacheth, but _quia tunc __ charitas
exigebat, ut illa sua libertate qui ex gentibus conversi erant, propter
proximi edificationem inter judeos non uterentur, sed ab ea abstinerent,_
saith Chemnitius.(59) This law, saith Tilen,(60) was _propter charitatem
et vitandi offendiculi necessitatem ad tempus sancita._ So that these
things were necessary before the canon was made. _Necessaria fuerunt,_
saith Ames,(61) _antequam Apostoli quidquam de iis statuerant, non
absolute, sed quatenus in iis charitas jubebat morem gerere infirmis, ut
cajetanus notat. Quamobrem,_ saith Tilen,(62) _cum charitas semper sit
colenda, semper vitanda sandala._ “Charity is necessary (saith Beza), even
in things which are in themselves indifferent.”(63) What they can allege
for the necessity of the ceremonies, from the authority and obligatory
power of ecclesiastical laws, shall be answered by and by.

CHAPTER III.

THAT THE CEREMONIES THUS IMPOSED AND URGED AS THINGS NECESSARY, DO BEREAVE
US OF OUR CHRISTIAN LIBERTY, FIRST, BECAUSE OUR PRACTICE IS ADSTRICTED.

_Sect._ 1. Who can blame us for standing to the defence of our Christian
liberty, which we ought to defend and pretend in _rebus quibusvis?_ saith
Bucer.(64) Shall we bear the name of Christians, and yet make no great
account of the liberty which hath been bought to us by the dearest drops
of the precious blood of the Son of God? _Sumus empti_, saith Parcus:(65)
_non igitur nostri juris ut nos mancipemus hominum servitio: id enim
manifesta cum injuria redemptoris Christi fieret: sumus liberti Christi.
Magistratui autem,_ saith Tilen,(66) _et ecclesioe proepositis, non nisi
usque ad aras obtemperandum, neque ullum certamen aut periculum pro
libertatis per Christum nobis partæ defensione defugiendum, siquidem
mortem ipsius irritam fieri, Paulus asserit, si spiritualis servitutis
jugo, nos implicari patiamur._ Gal. v. 1, “Let us stand fast, therefore,
in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and not be entangled
again with the yoke of bondage.” But that the urging of the ceremonies as
necessary doth take away our Christian liberty, I will make it evident in
four points.

_Sect._ 2. First, They are imposed with a necessity of practice. Spotswood
tells us,(67) that public constitutions must be obeyed, and that private
men may not disobey them, and thus is our practice adstricted in the use
of things which are not at all necessary, and acknowledged _gratis_ by the
urgers to be indifferent, adstricted (I say) to one part without liberty
to the other, and that by the mere authority of a human constitution,
whereas Christian liberty gives us freedom both for the omission and for
the observation of a thing indifferent, except some other reason do
adstrict and restrain it than a bare human constitution. Chrysostome,
speaking of such as are subject to bishops,(68) saith, _In potestate
positum est obedire vel non._ Liberty in things indifferent,(69) saith
Amandus Polanus, _est per quam Christiani sunt liberi in usu vel
abstinentia rerum adiaphorarom._ Calvin, speaking of our liberty in things
indifferent,(70) saith, We may _eas nunc usurpare nunc omittere
indifferenter_, and places this liberty,(71) _tam in abstinendo quam in
utendo._ It is marked of the rites of the ancient church,(72) that
_liberae fuerunt horum rituum observationes in ecclesia._ And what meaneth
the Apostle while he saith, “If ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments
of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to
ordinances, (touch not, taste not, handle not, which all are to perish
with the using,) after the commandments and doctrines of men?” Col. ii.
20-22. Surely he condemneth not only _humana decreta de ritibus_, but also
subjection and obedience to such ordinances of men as take from us liberty
of practice in the use of things indifferent,(73) obedience (I say) for
conscience of their ordinances merely. What meaneth also that place, 1
Cor. vii. 23, “Be not ye the servants of men?” “It forbids us, (saith
Paybody) to be the servants of men, that is, in wicked or superstitious
actions, according to their perverse commandments or desires.”(74) If he
mean of actions that are wicked or superstitious in themselves, then it
followeth, that to be subject unto those ordinances, “Touch not, taste
not, handle not,” is not to be the servants of men, because these actions
are not wicked and superstitious in themselves. Not touching, not tasting,
not handling, are in themselves indifferent. But if he mean of actions
which are wicked and superstitious, in respect of circumstances, then is
his restrictive gloss senseless; for we can never be the servants of men,
but in such wicked and superstitious actions, if there were no more but
giving obedience to such ordinances as are imposed with a necessity upon
us, and that merely for conscience of the ordinance, it is enough to
infect the actions with superstition, _Sunt hominum servi_, saith
Bullinqer,(75) _qui aliquid in gratiam hominum faciunt_. This is nearer
the truth; for to tie ourselves to the doing of anything for the will or
pleasure of men, when our conscience can find no other reason for the
doing of it, were indeed to make ourselves the servants of men. Far be it
then from us to submit our necks to such a heavy yoke of human precepts,
as would overload and undo us. Nay, we will stedfastly resist such
unchristian tyranny as goeth about to spoil us of Christian liberty,
taking that for certain which we find in Cyprian,(76) _periculosum est in
divinis rebus ut quis cedat jure suo_.

_Sect._ 3. Two things are here replied, 1. That there is reason for
adstricting of our practice in these things, because we are commanded to
obey them that have the rule over us, and to submit ourselves, Heb. xiii.
17,(77) and to submit ourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s
sake, 1 Pet. ii. 16, and that except public constitutions must needs be
obeyed, there can be no order,(78) but all shall be filled with strife and
contention. _Ans._ 1. As touching obedience to those that are set over us,
if they mean not to tyrannise over the Lord’s inheritance, 1 Pet. v. 3;
and to make the commandments of God of no effect by their traditions, Mark
vii. 9, they must give us leave to try their precepts by the sure will of
God’s word; and when we find that they require of us anything in the
worship of God which is either against or beside his written word, then
modestly to refuse obedience, which is the only way for order, and
shunning of strife and contention. It will be said again, that except we
prove the things commanded by those who are set over us to be unlawful in
themselves, we cannot be allowed to refuse obedience to their ordinances.
_Ans._ This unlawfulness of the ceremonies in themselves hath been proved
by us already, and shall yet again be proved in this dispute. But put the
case, they were lawful in themselves, yet have we good reason for refusing
them: “David thought the feeding of his body was cause sufficient to break
the law of the shew-bread; Christ thought the satisfying of the disciples’
hunger to be cause sufficient to break the ceremony of the Sabbath. He
thought, also, that the healing of the lepers’ bodies was a just excuse to
break the law that forbade the touching of them; much more, then, may we
think now in our estimation, that the feeding of other men’s souls, the
satisfying of our own consciences, together with the consciences of other
men, and the healing of men’s superstition and spiritual leprosy, are
causes sufficient to break the law of the ceremonies and of the cross,
which are not God’s but men’s,” saith Parker.(79) 2. As touching
submission or subjection, we say with Dr Field,(80) _that subjection is
generally and absolutely required where obedience is not,_ and even when
our consciences suffer us not to obey, yet still we submit and subject
ourselves, and neither do nor shall (I trust) show any the least contempt
of authority.

_Sect._ 4. Secondly, It is replied, that our Christian liberty is not
taken away when practice is restrained, because conscience is still left
free. “The Christian liberty (saith Paybody(81)), is not taken away by the
necessity of doing a thing indifferent, or not doing, but only by that
necessity which takes away the opinion or persuasion of its indifferency,”
So saith Dr Burges,(82) “That the ceremonies in question are ordained to
be used necessarily, though the judgment concerning them, and immediate
conscience to God, be left free.” _Ans._ 1. Who doubts of this, that
liberty of practice may be restrained in the use of things which are in
themselves indifferent? But, yet, if the bare authority of an
ecclesiastical law, without any other reason than the will and pleasure of
men, be made to restrain practice, then is Christian liberty taken away.
Junius saith,(83) that _externum opus ligatur_ from the use of things
indifferent, when the conscience is not bound; but in that same place he
showeth, that the outward action is bound and restrained only _quo usque
circumstantiae ob quas necessitas imperata est, se extendunt_. So that it
is not the authority of an ecclesiastical law, but the occasion and ground
of it, which adstricts the practice when the conscience is left free. 2.
When the authority of the church’s constitution is obtruded to bind and
restrain the practice of Christians in the use of things indifferent, they
are bereaved of their liberty, as well as if an opinion of necessity were
borne in upon their consciences. Therefore we see when the Apostle, 1 Cor.
vii., gives liberty of marriage, he doth not only leave the conscience
free in its judgment of the lawfulness of marriage, but also give liberty
of practice to marry or not to marry. And Col. ii. 21, when he giveth
instances of such human ordinances as take away Christian liberty, he
saith not, _you must think that you may not touch_, &c., but “touch not,”
&c., telling us, that when the practice is restrained from touching,
tasting, handling, by the ordinances of men, then is Christian liberty
spoiled, though the conscience be left free. Camero, speaking of the
servitude which is opposed to Christian liberty, saith,(84) that it is
either _animi servitus_, or _corporis servitus_. Then if the outward man
be brought in bondage, this makes up spiritual thraldom, though there be
no more. But, 3. The ceremonies are imposed with an opinion of necessity
upon the conscience itself, for proof whereof I proceed to the next point.

CHAPTER IV.

THAT THE CEREMONIES TAKE AWAY OUR CHRISTIAN LIBERTY PROVED BY A SECOND
REASON, NAMELY, BECAUSE CONSCIENCE ITSELF IS BOUND AND ADSTRICTED.

_Sect._ 1. Bishop Lindsey hath told us,(85) that the will of the law must
be the rule of our conscience, so that conscience may not judge other ways
than the law determines. Bishop Spotswood will have the sentence of
superiors to direct the conscience,(86) and will have us to esteem that to
be best and most seemly which seemeth so to them. Bishop Andrews, speaking
of ceremonies,(87) not only will have every person inviolably to observe
the rites and customs of his own church, but also will have the ordinances
about those rites to be urged under pain of the anathema. I know not what
the binding of the conscience is, if this be not it: _Apostolus gemendi
partes relinquit, non cogendi auctoritatem tribuit ministris quibus plebs
non auscultat_.(88) And shall they who call themselves the apostles’
successors, compel, constrain and enthral, the consciences of the people
of God? Charles V., as popish as he was, did promise to the
Protestants,(89) _Nullam vim ipsorum conscientiis illatum iri_. And shall
a popish prince speak more reasonable than protestant prelates? But to
make it yet more and plentifully to appear how miserably our opposites
would enthral our consciences, I will here show, 1. What the binding of
the conscience is. 2. How the laws of the church may be said to bind. 3.
What is the judgment of formalists touching the binding-power of
ecclesiastical laws.

_Sect._ 2. Concerning the first of these we will hear what Dr Field
saith:(90) “To bind the conscience (saith he) is to bind the soul and
spirit of man, with the fear of such punishments (to be inflicted by him
that so bindeth) as the conscience feareth; that is, as men fear, though
none but God and themselves be privy to their doings; now these are only
such as God only inflicteth,” &c. This description is too imperfect, and
deserves to be corrected. To bind the conscience is _illam auctoritatem
habere, ut conscientia illi subjicere sese debeat, ita ut peccatum sit, si
contra illam quidquam fiat_, saith Ames.(91) “The binder (saith
Perkins(92)) is that thing whatsoever which hath power and authority over
conscience to order it. To bind is to urge, cause, and constrain it in
every action, either to accuse for sin, or to excuse for well-doing; or to
say, this may be done, or it may not be done.” “To bind the conscience
(saith Alsted(93)) _est illam urgere et adigere, ut vel excuset et
accuset, vel indicet quid fieri aut non fieri possit_.” Upon these
descriptions, which have more truth and reason in them, I infer that
whatsoever urges, or forces conscience to assent to a thing as lawful, or
a thing that ought to be done, or dissent from a thing as unlawful, or a
thing which ought not to be done, that is a binder of conscience, though
it did not bind the spirit of a man with the fear of such punishments as
God alone inflicteth. For secluding all respect of punishment, and not
considering what will follow, the very obliging of the conscience for the
time, _ad assensum_, is a binding of it.(94)

_Sect._ 3. Touching the second, it is certain that human laws, as they
come from men, and in respect of any force or authority which men can give
them, have no power to bind the conscience. _Neque enim cum hominibus, sed
cum uno Deo negotium est conscientis nostris_, saith Calvin.(95) Over our
souls and consciences, _nemini quicquam juris nisi Deo_, saith Tilen.(96)
From Jerome’s distinction, that a king _praeest nolentibus_ but a bishop
_volentibus_, Marcus Antonius de Dominis well concludeth: _Volentibus
gregi praeesso, excludit omnem jurisdictionem et potestatem imperativam ac
coactivam et solam significat directivam, ubi, viz., in libertate subditi
est et parere et non parere, ita ut qui praeest nihil habeat quo nolentem
parere adigat ad parendum._(97) This point he proveth in that chapter at
length, where he disputeth both against temporal and spiritual coactive
jurisdiction in the church. If it be demanded to what purpose serveth then
the enacting of ecclesiastical laws, since they have not in them any power
to bind the conscience, I answer, The use and end for which ecclesiastical
laws do serve is, 1. For the plain discovery of such things as the law of
God or nature do require of us, so that law which of itself hath power to
bind, cometh from the priests and ministers of the Lord neither
ἀντοκρατορικῶς nor νομοθετικῶς, but _declarativè_, Mal. ii. 7. 2. For
declaring to us what is fittest in such things as are, in their own
nature, indifferent, and neither enforced by the law of God nor nature,
and which part should be followed in these things as most convenient. The
laws of the church, then, are appointed to let us see the necessity of the
first kind of things, and what is expedient in the other kind of things,
and therefore they are more properly called directions, instructions,
admonitions, than laws. For I speak of ecclesiastical laws _qua tales_,
that is, as they are the constitutions of men who are set over us; thus
considered, they have only _vim dirigendi et monendi_.(98) It is said of
the apostles, that they were constituted _doctrinae Christi testes, non
novae doctrinae legist tores_.(99) And the same may be said of all the
ministers of the gospel, when discipline is taken in with doctrine. He is
no nonconformist who holdeth _ecclesiam in terris agere partes oratoris,
seu legati obsecrantis et suadentis_.(100) And we may hitherto apply that
which Gerson, the chancellor of Paris, saith:(101) “The wisest and best
among the guides of God’s church had not so ill a meaning as to have all
their constitutions and ordinances taken for laws properly so named, much
less strictly binding the conscience, but for threatenings, admonitions,
counsels, and directions only, and when there groweth a general neglect,
they seem to consent to the abolishing of them again;” for seeing, _lex
instituitur, cum promulgatur, vigorem habet, cum moribus utentium
approbatur._

_Sect._ 4. But as we have seen in what respect the laws of the church do
not bind, let us now see how they may be said to bind. That which bindeth
is not the authority of the church, nor any force which the church can
give to her laws. It must be then somewhat else which maketh them able to
bind, when they bind at all, and that is _ratio legis_, “the reason of the
law,” without which the law itself cannot bind, and which hath the
chiefest and most principal power of binding. An ecclesiastical law, saith
Junius,(102) διαταξις _sive depositio, non vere lex est, sed_ διατυπωσις
aut canon, ac proindedirigit quidem ut canon agentem voluntarie: non autem
necessitate cogit, ut lex etiam involuntarium quod si forte ante accedit
coactio, ea non est de natura canonis sed altunde pervenit. An
ecclesiastical canon, saith Tilen,(103) _ducit volentem, non trahit
nolentem: quod si accedat coactio, ea ecclesiastici canonis natura est
prorsus aliena_, Calvin’s judgment is,(104) that an ecclesiastical canon
binds, when _manifestam utilitatem prae se fert_, and when either _tu
prepon_ or _charitatis ratio_ doth require, that we impose a necessity on
our liberty. It binds not, then, by its own authority in his mind. And
what saith the canon law itself?(105) _Sed sciendum est quod
ecclesiasticae prohibitiones proprias habent causas quibus cessantibus,
cessant et ipsae._ Hence Junius saith,(106) that the law binds not _per
se_, but only _propter ordinem charitatem, et cautionem scandali_. Hence
Ames,(107) _quamvis ad justas leges humanas, justo modo observandas,
obligentur homines in conscientiis suis a Deo; ipsae tamen leges humanae,
qua sunt leges hominum, non obligant conscientiam._ Hence Alsted:(108)
“Laws made by men of things indifferent, whether they be civil or
ecclesiastical, do bind the conscience, in so far as they agree with God’s
word, serve for the public good, maintain order, and finally, take not
away liberty of conscience.” Hence the professors of Leyden say,(109) that
laws bind not _primo et per se, sed secundario, et per accidens_; that
is,(110) _quatenus in illis lex aliqua Dei violator_. Hence I may compare
the constitutions of the church with _responsa juris consultorum_ among
the Romans, which obliged no man, _nisi ex aequo et bono_, saith
Daneus.(111) Hence it may be said, that the laws of the church do not only
bind _scandali et contemptus ratione_, as Hospinian,(112) and in case
_libertas fiat cum scandalo_, as Parcus;(113) for it were scandal not to
give obedience to the laws of the church, when they prescribe things
necessary or expedient for the eschewing of scandal, and it were contempt
to refuse obedience to them, when we are not certainly persuaded of the
unlawfulness or inexpediency of the things prescribed.

_Sect._ 5. But out of the case of scandal or contempt, divines teach that
conscience is not bound by the canon of the church made about order and
policy. _Extra casum scandali et destinatae rebellionis, propter commune
bonum, non peccat qui contra constitutiones istas fecerit_, saith
Junius.(114) “If a law (saith Perkins)(115) concerning some external right
or thing indifferent, be at some time or upon some occasion omitted, no
offence given, nor contempt showed to ecclesiastical authority, there is
no breach made in the conscience.” Alsted’s rule is,(116) _Leges humanae
non obligant quando omitti possunt sine impedimento finis ob quem feruntur
sine scandalo aliorum, et sine contemptu legislatoris._ And Tilen teacheth
us,(117) that when the church hath determined the mutable circumstances,
in the worship of God, for public edification, _privatorum conscientiis
liberum est quandoque ista omittere, modo offendicula vitentur, nihil que
ex contemptu ecclesiae ac ministerii publici petulanti καινοτομια vel
κειοδοξια facere videantur._

_Sect._ 6. We deny not, then, that the church’s canons about rites, which
serve for public order and edification, do bind. We say only, that it is
not the authority of the church framing the canon that binds, but the
matter of the canon chiefly warranted by God’s word.(118) _Scimus enim
quaecunque ad decorum et ordinem pertinent, non habenda esse pro humanis
placitas, quia divinitus approbantur._ Therefore we think concerning such
canons, “that they are necessary to be observed so far forth only, as the
keeping of them maintaineth decent order, and preventeth open
offence.”(119)

_Sect._ 7. If any say that I derogate much from the authority of the
church when I do nothing which she prescribeth, except I see it lawful and
expedient, because I should do this much for the exhortation and
admonition of a brother. _Ans._ 1. I give far more reverence to the
direction of the church than to the admonition of a brother, because that
is ministerial, this fraternal, that comes from authority, this only from
charity, that is public, this private, that is given by many, this by one.
And, finally, the church hath a calling to direct me in some things
wherein a brother hath not. 2. If it be still instanced that, in the point
of obedience, I do no more for the church than for any brother, because I
am bound to do that which is made evident to be lawful and expedient,
though a private Christian do but exhort me to it, or whether I be
exhorted to it or not. For answer to this I say, that I will obey the
directions of the church in many things rather than the directions of a
brother; for in two things which are in themselves indifferent, and none
of them inexpedient, I will do that which the church requireth, though my
brother should exhort me to the contrary. But always I hold me at this
sure ground, that I am never bound in conscience to obey the ordinances of
the church, except they be evidently lawful and expedient. This is that,
_sine quo non obligant_, and also that which doth chiefly bind, though it
be not the only thing which bindeth. Now, for making the matter more
plain, we must consider that the constitutions of the church are either
lawful or unlawful. If unlawful, they bind not at all; if lawful, they are
either concerning things necessary, as Acts xv. 28, and then the necessity
of the things doth bind, whether the church ordain them or not; or else
concerning things indifferent, as when the church ordaineth, that in great
towns there shall be sermon on such a day of the week, and public prayers
every day at such an hour. Here it is not the bare authority of the church
that bindeth, without respect to the lawfulness or expediency of the thing
itself which is ordained (else we were bound to do every thing which the
church ordains, were it never so unlawful, for _quod competit alicui qua
tali, competit omni tali_: we behold the authority of the church making
laws, as well in unlawful ordinances as in lawful), nor yet is it the
lawfulness or expediency of the thing itself, without respect to the
ordinance of the church (for possibly other times and diets were as
lawful, and expedient too, for such exercises, as those ordained by the
church); but it is the authority of the church prescribing a thing lawful
or expedient. In such a case, then neither doth the authority of the
church bind, except the thing be lawful and expedient, nor doth the
lawfulness and expediency of the thing bind, except the church ordain it;
but both these jointly do bind.

_Sect._ 8. I come now to examine what is the judgment of formalists
touching the binding of the conscience by ecclesiastical laws. Dr Field
saith, that the question should not be proposed, whether human laws do
bind the conscience, but “whether binding the outward man to the
performance of outward things by force and fear of outward punishment to
be inflicted by men, the non-performance of such things, or the
non-performance of them with such affections as were fit, be not a sin
against God, of which the conscience will accuse us,”(120) &c. Unto this
question thus proposed and understood of human laws, and where no more is
considered as giving them power to bind, but only the authority of those
who make them; some formalists do give (as I will show), and all of them
(being well advised) must give an affirmative answer. And, I pray, what
did Bellarmine say more,(121) when, expressing how conscience is subject
to human authority, he taught that conscience belongeth _ad humanum forum,
quatenus homo ex praecepto ita obligator ad opus externum faciendum, ut si
non faciat, judicat ipse in conscientia sua se male facere, et hoc
sufficit ad conscientiam obligandam?_ But to proceed particularly.

_Sect._ 9. I begin with Field himself, whose resolution of the question
proposed is,(122) that we are bound only to give obedience to such human
laws as prescribe things profitable, not for that human laws have power to
bind the conscience, but because the things they command are of that
nature, that not to perform them is contrary to justice or charity.
Whereupon he concludeth out of Stapleton, that we are bound to the
performance of things prescribed by human laws, in such sort, that the
non-performance of them is sin, not _ex sola legislatoris voluntate, sed
ex ipsa legum utilitate_. Let all such as be of this man’s mind not blame
us for denying of obedience to the constitutions about the ceremonies,
since we find (for certain) no utility, but, by the contrary, much
inconveniency in them. If they say that we must think those laws to be
profitable or convenient, which they, who are set over us, think to be so,
then they know not what they say. For, exempting conscience from being
bound by human laws in one thing, they would have it bound by them in
another thing. If conscience must needs judge that to be profitable, which
seemeth so to those that are set over us, then, sure, is power given to
them for binding the conscience so straitly, that it may not judge
otherwise than they judge, and force is placed in their bare authority for
necessitating and constraining the assenting judgment of conscience.

_Sect._ 10. Some man perhaps will say that we are bound to obey the laws
made about the ceremonies, though not for the sole will of the law-makers,
nor yet for any utility of the laws themselves, yet for this reason, that
scandal and contempt would follow in case we do otherwise. _Ans._ We know
that human laws do bind in the case of scandal or contempt. But that
nonconformity is neither scandal nor contempt, Parker hath made it most
evident.(123) For, as touching contempt, he showeth out of fathers,
councils, canon law, schoolmen, and modern divines, that _non obedire_ is
not contempt, but _nolle obedire_, or _superbiendo repugnare_. Yea, out of
Formalists themselves, he showeth the difference betwixt subjection and
obedience. Thereafter he pleadeth thus, and we with him: “What signs see
men in us of pride and contempt? What be our _cetera opera_ that bewray
such an humour? Let it be named wherein we go not two miles, when we are
commanded to go but one, yea, wherein we go not as many miles as any shoe
of the preparation of the gospel will bear us. What payment, what pain,
what labour, what taxation made us ever to murmur? Survey our charges
where we have laboured, if they be not found to be of the faithfulest
subjects that be in the Lord, we deserve no favour. Nay, there is wherein
we stretch our consciences to the utmost to conform and to obey in divers
matters. Are we refractory in other things, as Balaam’s ass said to his
master? Have I used to serve thee so at other times?” And as touching
scandal, he showeth first, that by our not conforming, we do not
scandalise superiors, but edify them, although it may be we displease
them, of which we are sorry, even as Joab displeased David when he
contested against the numbering of the people, yet did he not scandalise
David, but edify him. And, secondly, whereas it might be alleged, that
nonconformity doth scandalise the people, before whom it soundeth as it
were an alarm of disobedience, we reply with him, “Daniel will not omit
the ceremony of looking out at the window towards Jerusalem. Mordecai
omitteth the ceremony of bowing the knee to Haman; Christ will not use the
ceremony of washing hands, though a tradition of the elders and governors
of the church then being. The authority of the magistrate was violated by
these, and an incitement to disobedience was in their ceremonial breach,
as much as there is now in ours.”

_Sect._ 11. But some of our opposites go about to derive the obligatory
power of the church’s laws, not so much from the utility of the laws
themselves, or from any scandal which should follow upon the not obeying
of them, as from the church’s own authority which maketh them. Camero
speaketh of two sorts of ecclesiastical laws:(124) 1. Such as prescribe
things frivolous or unjust, meaning such things as (though they neither
detract anything from the glory of God, nor cause any damage to our
neighbour, yet) bring some detriment to ourselves. 2. Such as prescribe
things belonging to order and shunning of scandal. Touching the former, he
teacheth rightly, that conscience is never bound to the obedience of such
laws, except only in the case of scandal and contempt, and that if at any
time such laws may be neglected and not observed, without scandal given,
or contempt shown, no man’s conscience is holden with them. But touching
the other sort of the church’s laws, he saith, that they bind the
conscience indirectly, not only _respectu materiæ præcepti_ (which doth
not at all oblige, except in respect of the end whereunto it is referred,
namely, the conserving of order, and the not giving of scandal), but also
_respectu præcipientis_, because God will not have those who are set over
us in the church to be contemned. He foresaw (belike), that whereas it is
pretended in behalf of those ecclesiastical laws which enjoin the
controverted ceremonies, that the things which they prescribe pertain to
order and to the shunning of scandal, and so bind the conscience
indirectly in respect of the end, one might answer, I am persuaded upon
evident grounds that those prescribed ceremonies pertain not to order, and
to the shunning of scandal, but to misorder, and to the giving of scandal;
therefore he laboured to bind such an one’s conscience with another tie,
which is the authority of the law-makers. And this authority he would have
one to take as ground enough to believe, that that which the church
prescribeth doth belong to order and the shunning of scandal, and in that
persuasion to do it. But, 1. How doth this doctrine differ from that which
himself setteth down as the opinion of Papists,(125) _Posse los qui
præsunt ecclesiæ, cogere fideles ut id credant vel faciant, quod ipsi
judicaverint?_ 2. It is well observed by our writers,(126) that the
apostles never made things indifferent to be necessary, except only in
respect of scandal, and that out of the case of scandal they still left
the consciences of men free, which observation they gather from Acts XV.
and 1 Cor. x. Camero himself noteth,(127) that though the church
prescribed abstinence from things sacrificed to idols, yet the Apostle
would not have the faithful to abstain for conscience’ sake: why then
holdeth he, that beside the end of shunning scandal and keeping order,
conscience is bound even by the church’s own authority? 3. As for the
reason whereby he would prove that the church’s laws do bind, even
_respectu præcipientis_, his form of speaking is very bad. _Deus_ (saith
he) _non vult contemni præpositos ecclesiæ, nisi justa et necessaria de
causa._ Where falsely he supposeth, not only that there may occur a just
and necessary cause of contemning those whom God hath set over us in the
church, but, also, that the not obeying of them inferreth the contemning
of them. Now, the not obeying of their laws inferreth not the contemning
of themselves (which were not allowable), but only the contemning of their
laws. And as Jerome,(128) speaketh of Daniel, _Et nunc Daniel regis jussa
contemnens_, &c.; so we say of all superiors in general, that we may
sometimes have just reasons for contemning their commandments, yet are we
not to contemn, but to honour themselves. But, 4. Let us take Camero’s
meaning to be, that God will not have us to refuse obedience unto those
who are set over us in the church: none of our opposites dare say, that
God will have us to obey those who are set over us in the church in any
other things than such as may be done both lawfully and conveniently for
the shunning of scandal; and if so, then the church’s precept cannot bind,
except as it is grounded upon such or such reasons.

_Sect._ 12. Bishop Spotswood and Bishop Lindsey, in those words which I
have heretofore alleged out of them, are likewise of opinion, that the
sole will and authority of the church doth bind the conscience to
obedience. Spotswood will have us, without more ado, to esteem that to be
best and most seemly, which seemeth so in the eye of public authority. Is
not this to bind the conscience by the church’s bare will and authority,
when I must needs constrain the judgment of my conscience to be conformed
to the church’s judgment, having no other reason to move me hereunto but
the sole will and authority of the church? Further, he will have us to
obey even such things as authority prescribeth not rightly (that is, such
rites as do not set forward godliness), and that because they have the
force of a constitution. He saith that we should be directed by the
sentence of superiors, and take it as a sufficient ground to our
consciences for obeying. Bellarmine speaketh more reasonably:(129) _Legesæ
human non obligant sub pœna mortis æternæ, nisi quatenus violatione legis
humanæ offenditur Deus._ Lindsey thinketh that the will of the law must be
the rule of our consciences; he saith not the _reason_ of the law, but the
_will_ of the law. And when we talk with the chief of our opposites, they
would bind us by sole authority, because they cannot do it by any reason.
But we answer out of Pareus,(130) that the particular laws of the church
bind not _per se_, or _propter ipsum speciale mandatum ecclesiæ. Ratio:
quia ecclesia res adiaphoras non jubet facere vel omittere propter suum
mandatum, sed tantum propter justas mandandi causas, ut sunt conservatio
ordinis, vitatio scandali: quæ quamdiu non violantur, conscientias liberas
relinquit._

_Sect._ 13. Thus we have found what power they give to their canons about
the ceremonies for binding of our consciences, and that a necessity not of
practice only upon the outward man, but of opinion also upon the
conscience is imposed by the sole will of the law-makers. Wherefore, we
pray God to open their eyes, that they may see their ceremonial laws to be
substantial tyrannies over the consciences of God’s people. And for
ourselves, we stand to the judgment of sounder divines, and we hold with
Luther,(131) that _unum Dominum habemus qui animas nostras gubernat._ With
Hemmingius,(132) that we are free _ab omnibus humanis ritibus, quantum
quidem ad conscientiam attinet._ With the Professors of Leyden,(133) that
this is a part of the liberty of all the faithful, that in things
pertaining to God’s worship, _ab omni traditionum humanarum jugo liberas
habeant conscientias, cum solius Dei sit, res ad religionem pertinentes
praescribere_.

CHAPTER V.

THAT THE CEREMONIES TAKE AWAY CHRISTIAN LIBERTY, PROVED BY A THIRD REASON,
VIZ., BECAUSE THEY ARE URGED UPON SUCH AS, IN THEIR CONSCIENCES, DO
CONDEMN THEM.

_Sect._ 1. If Christian liberty be taken away, by adstricting conscience
in any, much more by adstricting it in them who are fully persuaded of the
unlawfulness of the thing enjoined; yet thus are we dealt with. Bishop
Lindsay gives us to understand, that after the making and publication of
an ecclesiastical canon, about things of this nature, albeit a man in his
own private judgment think another thing more expedient than that which
the canon prescribeth, yet in that case his conscience must be ruled by
the will of the law, and not by his own judgment. And Bishop Spotswood, to
such as object, that their conscience will not suffer them to obey,
because they are persuaded that such things are not right, answereth; that
the sentence of their superiors ought to direct them, and make their
conscience yield to obedience. Their words I have before transcribed. By
which it doth manifestly appear, that they would bear dominion over our
consciences, not as lords only, by requiring the willing and ready assent
of our consciences to those things which are urged upon us by their sole
will and authority, but even as tyrants, not caring if they get so much as
constrained obedience, and if by their authority they can compel
conscience to that which is contrary to the πληροφορια and full persuasion
which it hath conceived.

_Sect._ 2. It will be said, that our consciences are in an error, and
therefore ought to be corrected by the sentence of superiors, whose
authority and will doth bind us to receive and embrace the ceremonies,
though our consciences do condemn them. _Ans._ Giving, and not granting,
that our consciences do err in condemning the ceremonies, yet, so long as
they cannot be otherwise persuaded, the ceremonies ought not to be urged
upon us; for if we be made to do that which our consciences do condemn, we
are made to sin, Rom. xiv. 23. It is an audacious contempt, in Calvin’s
judgment,(134) to do anything _repugnante conscientia_. The learned
Casuists teach us, that an erring conscience, though _non obligat_, yet
_ligat_; though we be not obliged to do that which it prescribeth, yet are
we bound not to do that which it condemneth. _Quicquid fit repugnante et
reclamante conscientia, peccatum est, etiamsi repugnantia ista gravem
errorem includat_, saith Alsted.(135) _Conscientia erronca obligat, sic
intelligendo, quod faciens contra peccet_, saith Hemmingius.(136) This
holds ever true of an erring conscience about matters of fact, and
especially about things indifferent. If any say, that hereby a necessity
of sinning is laid on them whose consciences are in an error, I answer,
that so long as a man keeps an erroneous conscience, a necessity of
sinning lies on him, and that through his own fault. This necessity
ariseth from this supposition, that he retain his erring conscience, and
so is not absolute, because he should inform his conscience rightly, so
that he may both do that which he ought to do, and do it so from the
approbation of his conscience. If it be said again, What should be done to
them who have not laid down the error of conscience, but do still retain
the same? I answer, _eligatur id quod tutius et melius est_.(137) If
therefore the error of conscience be about weighty and necessary matters,
then it is better to urge men to the doing of a necessary duty in the
service of God, than to permit them to neglect the same, because their
erring conscience disapproveth it; for example, it is better to urge a
profane man to come and hear God’s word than to suffer him to neglect the
hearing of the same, because his conscience alloweth him not to hear. But
if the error of conscience be about unnecessary things, or such as are in
themselves indifferent, then it is _pars tutior_, the surest and safest
part not to urge men to do that which in their consciences they condemn.
Wherefore, since the ceremonies are not among the number of such necessary
things as may not be omitted without the peril of salvation, the
invincible disallowance of our consciences should make our opposites not
press them upon us, because by practising them we could not but sin, in
that our consciences judge them unlawful. If any of our weak brethren
think that he must and should abstain from the eating of flesh upon some
certain day, though this thing be in itself indifferent, and not
necessary, yet, saith Baldwin,(138) “he who is thus persuaded in his
conscience, if he should do the contrary, sinneth.”

_Sect._ 3. Conscience, then, though erring, doth ever bind in such sort,
that he who doth against his conscience sinneth against God. Which is also
the doctrine of Thomas.(139) But, without any more ado, it is sufficiently
confirmed from Scripture. For, was not their conscience in an error who
thought they might not lawfully eat all sorts of meat? Yet the Apostle
showeth that their conscience, as erring as it was, did so bind, that they
were damned if they should eat such meat as they judged to be unclean,
Rom. xiv. 14, 23. The reason wherefore an erring conscience bindeth in
this kind is, _quoniam agens_, &c.(140) “Because he who doth any thing
against his conscience doth it against the will of God, though not
materially and truly, yet formally and by way of interpretation, forsomuch
as that which conscience counselleth or prescribeth, it counselleth it
under the respect and account of the will of God. He who reproacheth some
private man, taking him to be the king, is thought to have hurt not the
private man, but the king himself. So he that contemneth his conscience
contemneth God himself, because that which conscience counselleth or
adviseth is taken to be God’s will.” If I go with certain men upon such a
course as I judge and esteem to be a treasonable conspiracy against the
king (though it be not so indeed), would not his Majesty (if he knew so
much), and might he not, justly condemn me as a wicked traitor? But how
much more will the King of kings condemn me if I practice the ceremonies
which I judge in my conscience to be contrary to the will of God, and to
rob him of his royal prerogative?

CHAPTER VI.

THAT THE CEREMONIES TAKE AWAY CHRISTIAN LIBERTY PROVED BY A FOURTH REASON,
VIZ., BECAUSE THEY ARE PRESSED UPON US BY NAKED WILL AND AUTHORITY,
WITHOUT GIVING ANY REASON TO SATISFY OUR CONSCIENCES.

_Sect._ 1. When the Apostle forbiddeth us to be the servants of men, 1
Cor. vii. 23, is it not his meaning that we should do nothing upon the
mere will and pleasure of men, or _propter hominem et non propter Deum_,
as Becane the Jesuit expoundeth it,(141) illustrating what he saith by
another place, Eph. vi. 6, 7. Christian servants thought it an unworthy
thing to serve wicked men,(142) neither yet took they well with the
serving of godly men, for that they were all brethren in Christ. The
Apostle answereth them, that they did not the will of man, because it was
the will of man, but because it was the will of God, and so they served
God rather than man, importing that it were indeed a grievous yoke for any
Christian to do the will of man, if he were not sure that it is according
to the will of God. Should any synod of the church take more upon them
than the synod of the apostles did, who enjoined nothing at their own
pleasure, but only what they show to be necessary, because of the law of
charity? Acts xv. 28. Or should Christians, who ought not to be children,
carried about with every wind, Eph. iv. 14; who should be able to discern
both good and evil, Heb. v. 14; in whom the word of God ought to dwell
plentifully, Col. iii. 16; who are commanded to beware of men, Matt. x.
17; not to believe every spirit, to prove all things, 1 John iv. 1; and to
judge of all that is said to them, 1 Thes. v. 21; should they, I say, be
used as stocks and stones, not capable of reason, and therefore to be
borne down by naked will and authority? 1 Cor. x. 15. Yet thus it fareth
with us. Bishop Lindsey will have the will of the law to rule our
consciences,(143) which is by interpretation, _Sic volo, sic jubeo, sit
pro ratione voluntas._ He gives us not the reason or equity of the law,
but only the will of it, to be our role. Bishop Spotswood(144) will have
us to be so directed by the sentence of our superiors, that we take their
sentence as a sufficient ground to our consciences for obeying. Which is
so much as to say, you should not examine the reason and utility of the
law, the sentence of it is enough for you: try no more when you hear the
sentence of superiors, rest your consciences upon this as a sufficient
ground: seek no other, for their sentence must be obeyed. And who among us
knoweth not how, in the Assembly of Perth, free reasoning was shut to the
door, and all ears were filled with the dreadful pale of authority? There
is this much chronicled(145) in two relations of the proceedings of the
same, howbeit otherwise very different. They who did sue for a reformation
of church discipline in England, complained that they received no other
answer but this:(146) “There is a law, it must be obeyed;” and after the
same manner are we used. Yet is this too hard dealing, in the judgment of
a Formalist, who saith,(147) that the church doth not so deal with them
whom Christ hath redeemed: _Ac si non possint capere quid sit religiosum,
quid minus, itaque quae ab ecclesia proficiscuntur, admonitiones potius et
hortationes dici debent, quam leges._ And after, he says of ecclesiastical
authority, _tenetur reddere paerscripti rationem._ “I grant (saith
Paybody(148)) it is unlawful to do, in God’s worship, anything upon the
mere pleasure of man.” Chemnitius(149) taketh the Tridentine fathers for
not expounding _rationes decreti._ Junius observeth,(150) that in the
council of the apostles, mention was made of the reason of their decree.
And a learned historian observeth(151) of the ancient councils, that there
were in them, reasonings, colloquies, discussions, disputes, yea, that
whatsoever was done or spoken, was called the acts of the council, and all
was given unto all. _Caeterum_ (saith Danaeus(152)) _quoniam ut ait
Tertullianus in Apologetico, iniqua lex est quae se examinari non patitur;
non tam vi cogere homines ad obsequium quam ratione persuadere debent cae
leges, quae scribuntur à pio nomotheta. Ergo fere sunt duae cujusvis legis
partes, quemadmodum etiam Plato,_ lib. 4, _de legibus scribit, nimirum
praefacio __ et lex ipsa,_ _i.e._ _jussio lege comprehensa. Praefatio
causam affert, cur hominum negotiis sic prospiciatur._ Ecclesiastical
authority should prescribe what it thinks fit, _Magis docendo, quam
jubendo; magis monendo, quam minando,_ as Augustine speaketh.(153) _Non
oportet vi vel necessitate constringere, sed ratione et vitae exemplis
suadere,_ saith Gregory Nazianzen,(154) speaking of ecclesiastical
regiment. They, therefore, who give their will for a law, and their
authority for a reason, and answer all the arguments of opponents, by
bearing them down with the force of a public constitution and the judgment
of superiors, to which theirs must be conformed, do rule the Lord’s flock
“with force and with cruelty,” Ezek. xxxiv. 4; “as lords over God’s
heritage,” 1 Pet. v. 3.

_Sect._ 2. Always, since men give us no leave to try their decrees and
constitutions, that we may hold fast no more than is good, God be thanked
that we have a warrant to do it (without their leave) from his own word, 1
Thess. v. 25. _Non numeranda suffragia, sed appendenda_, saith Augustine
in Psal. xxxix. Our divines hold,(155) that all things which are proposed
by the ministers of the church, yea, by aecumenical councils,(156) should
be proved and examined; and that, when the guides of the church do
institute any ceremonies as necessary for edification, yet _ecclesia
liberum habet judicium approbandi aut reprobandi eas._(157) Nay, the canon
law,(158) prohibiting to depart or swerve from the rules and discipline of
the Roman church, yet excepteth _discretionem justitiae_ and so permitteth
to do otherwise than the church prescribeth, if it be done _cum
discretione justitiae_. The schoolmen also give liberty to a private man,
of proving the statutes of the church, and neglecting the same, if he see
cause for doing so, _Si causa fit evidens, per se ipsum licite potest homo
statuti observantiam praeterire._(159) If any be not able to examine and
try all such things, _debebant omnes posse, Dei jussu: Deficiunt ergo sua
culpa_, saith Parcus.(160) _Si recte probandi facultate destitui nos
sentimus, ab eodem spiritu qui per prophetas suos __ loquitur portenda
est_, saith Calvin.(161) We will not then call any man rabbi, nor _jurare
in verba magistri_, nor yet be Pythagorean disciples to the church
herself, but we will believe her and obey her in so far only as she is the
pillar and ground of truth.

CHAPTER VII.

THAT FESTIVAL DAYS TAKE AWAY OUR LIBERTY, WHICH GOD HATH GIVEN US, PROVED;
AND FIRST OUT OF THE LAW.

_Sect._ 1. That which hath been said against all the controverted
ceremonies in general, I will now instance of festival days in particular,
and prove, both out of the law and gospel, that they take away our liberty
which God hath given us, and which no human power can take from us. Out of
the law we frame this argument: If the law of God permit us to work all
the six days of the week, the law of man cannot inhibit us. But the law of
God doth permit us to work all the six days of the week, therefore our
opposites deny not the assumption, which is plain from the fourth
commandment, “Six days shalt thou labour,” &c. But they would have
somewhat to say against the proposition, which we will hear. Hooker tells
us,(162) that those things that the law of God leaves arbitrary and at
liberty, are subject to the positive ordinances of men. This, I must say,
is strange divinity, for if this were true, then might the laws of men
prohibit marriage, because it is left arbitrary, 1 Cor. vii. 36. Then
might they also have discharged the apostle Paul to take wages, because
herein he was at liberty, 1 Cor. ix. 11-13.

_Sect._ 2. Talen lendeth the cause another lift, and answereth,(163) that
no sober man will say, _permissionen Dei, principibus suum circa res
medias jus imminuere, num enim ob permissum hominibus dominium in volucres
cœli, in pisces maris, et bestias agrii, impiæ fuerint leges principum,
quibus aucupii, piscationes, et venationis libertatem, sebditis aliis
indulgent, aliis adimunt. Ans._ That case and this are very different. For
every particular man hath not dominion and power over all fowls, fishes,
and beasts (else, beside that princes should have no privilege of
inhibiting the use of those things, there should be no propriety of
heritage and possession among subjects); but power over all these is given
to mankind. Pareus observeth,(164) _hominem collective intelligi_ in that
place, Gen. i. 26; and Junius observeth,(165) _nomen Adam de specie esse
intelligendum._ But each particular man, and not mankind alone, is
permitted to labour six days. Wherefore it is plain, that man’s liberty is
not abridged in the other case as in this, because mankind hath dominion
over these creatures, when some men only do exercise the same, as well as
if all men did exercise it.

_Sect._ 3. Bishop Lindsey’s answer is no better,(166) viz., that this
liberty which God hath given unto men for labour is not absolute, but
subject unto order. For, 1. What tyranny is there so great, spoiling men
wholly of their liberty, but this pretence agreeth to it? For, by order,
he understandeth the constitutions of our governors, as is clear from his
preceding words, so that this may be alleged for a just excuse of any
tyranny of governors (that men must be subject unto order), no less than
for taking away from us the liberty of labouring six days. 2. This answer
is nothing else but a begging of that which is in question, for the
present question is, whether or not the constitutions of our governors may
inhibit us to labour all the six days of the week, and yet he saith no
more, but that this liberty of labour must be subject to order, _i.e._, to
the constitutions of governors. 3. Albeit we should most humbly subject
ourselves to our governors, yet we may not submit our liberty to them,
which God hath graciously given us, because we are forbidden to be the
servants of men, 1 Cor. vii. 23; or to be entangled with the yoke of
bondage, Gal. v. 1.

_Sect._ 4. Yet we must hear what the Bishop can say against our
proposition:(167) “If under the law (saith he) God did not spoil his
people of liberty, when he appointed them to rest two days at Pasche, one
at Whitsunday, &c., how can the king’s majesty and the church be esteemed
to spoil us of our liberty, that command a cessation from labour on three
days?” &c. O horrible blasphemy! O double deceitfulness! Blasphemy,
because so much power is ascribed to the king and the church over us, as
God had over his people of old. God did justly command his people, under
the law, to rest from labour on other days beside the Sabbath, without
wronging them; therefore the king and the church may as justly, and with
doing as little wrong, command us to rest likewise, because God, by a
ceremonial law, did hinder his people from the use of so much liberty, as
the moral law did give them; therefore the king and the church may do so
also. Deceitfulness, in that he saith, God did not spoil his people of
liberty, &c. We know that, by appointing them to rest on those days, God
did not take away liberty from his people, simply and absolutely, because
they had no more liberty than he did allow to them by his laws, which he
gave by the hand of Moses, yet he did take away that liberty which one
part of his laws did permit to them, viz., the fourth commandment of the
moral law, which permitted them to labour six days. The Bishop knew that
this question in hand hath not to do with liberty, in the general notion
of it, but with liberty which the moral law doth permit. We say, then,
that God took away from his people Israel, some of the liberty which his
moral law permitted to them, because he was the Lawgiver and Lord of the
law; and that the king and the church cannot do the like with us, because
they are no more lords over God’s law than the people who are set under
them.

_Sect._ 5. But he hath yet more to say against us: “If the king (saith he)
may command a cessation from economical and private works, for works civil
and public, such as the defence of the crown, the liberty of the country,
&c., what reason have ye why he may not enjoin a day of cessation from all
kind of bodily labour, for the honour of God and exercise of religion?”
&c. _Ans._ This kind of reasoning is most vicious, for three respects: 1.
It supposeth that he who may command a cessation from one kind of labour,
upon one of the six days, may also command a cessation from all kind of
labour, but there is a difference; for the law of God hath allowed us to
labour six days of every week, which liberty no human power can take from
us. But we cannot say that the law of God alloweth us six days of every
week to economical and private works (for then we should never be bound to
put our hands to a public work), whence it cometh that the magistrate hath
power left him to command a cessation from some labour, but not from all.
2. The Bishop reasoneth from a cessation from ordinary labour for
extraordinary labour, to a cessation from ordinary labour for no labour,
for they who use their weapons for the defence of the crown, or liberty of
the country, do not cease from labour, but only change ordinary labour
into extraordinary, and private labour into public, whereas our opposites
plead for a cessation from all labour upon their holidays. 3. He skippeth
_de genere in genus_, because the king may command a cessation for civil
works, therefore he may command a holy rest for the exercise of religion,
as if he had so great power in sacred as in civil things.

_Sect._ 6. The Bishop hath yet a third dart to throw at us: “If the church
(saith he)(168) hath power, upon occasional motives, to appoint occasional
fasts or festivities, may not she, for constant and eternal blessings,
which do infinitely excel all occasional benefits, appoint ordinary times
of commemoration or thanksgiving?” _Ans._ There are two reasons for which
the church may and should appoint fasts or festivities upon occasional
motives, and neither of them agreeth with ordinary festivities. 1.
Extraordinary fasts, either for obtaining some great blessing, or averting
some great judgment, are necessary means to be used in such cases,
likewise, extraordinary festivities are necessary testifications of our
thankfulness for the benefits which we have impetrate by our extraordinary
fasts, but ordinary festivities, for constant and eternal blessings, have
no necessary use. The celebration of set anniversary days is no necessary
mean for conserving the commemoration of the benefits of redemption,
because we have occasion, not only every Sabbath day, but every other day,
to call to mind these benefits, either in hearing, or reading, or
meditating upon God’s word. _Dies Christo dicatos tollendos existimo
judicoque_, saith Danaeus(169) _quotidie nobis in evangelii proedicatione
nascitur, circumciditur, moritur, resurgit Christus._ God hath given his
church a general precept for extraordinary fasts, Joel i. 14, ii. 15, as
likewise for extraordinary festivities to praise God, and to give him
thanks in the public assembly of his people, upon the occasional motive of
some great benefit which, by the means of our fasting and praying, we have
obtained, Zech. viii. 19 with vii. 3. If it be said that there is a
general command for set festivities, because there is a command for
preaching and hearing the word, and for praising God for his benefits; and
that there is no precept for particular fasts more than for particular
festivities, I answer: Albeit there is a command for preaching and hearing
the word, and for praising God for his benefits, yet is there no command
(no, not in the most general generality) for annexing these exercises of
religion to set anniversary days more than to other days; whereas it is
plain, that there is a general command for fasting and humiliation at some
times more than at other times. And as for particularities, all the
particular causes, occasions, and times of fasting, could not be
determined in Scripture, because they are infinite, as Camero saith.(170)
But all the particular causes of set festivities, and the number of the
same, might have been easily determined in Scripture, since they are not,
nor may not be infinite; for the Bishop himself acknowledgeth,(171) that
to appoint a festival day for every week, cannot stand with charity, the
inseparable companion of piety. And albeit so many were allowable, yet who
seeth not how easily the Scripture might have comprehended them, because
they are set, constant, and anniversary times, observed for permanent and
continuing causes, and not moveable or mutable, as fasts which are
appointed for occurring causes, and therefore may be infinite. I conclude
that, since God’s word hath given us a general command for occasional
fasts, and likewise particularly determined sundry things anent the
causes, occasions, nature, and manner of fastings, we may well say with
Cartwright,(172) that days of fasting are appointed at “such times, and
upon such occasions, as the Scripture doth set forth; wherein because the
church commandeth nothing, but that which God commandeth, the religious
observation of them, falleth unto the obedience of the fourth commandment,
as well as of the seventh day itself.”

_Sect._ 7. The Bishop presseth us with a fourth argument,(173) taken from
the calling of people in great towns from their ordinary labours to divine
service, which argument Tilen also beateth upon.(174) _Ans._ There is huge
difference betwixt the rest which is enjoined upon anniversary
festivities, and the rest which is required during the time of the weekly
meetings for divine worship. For, 1. Upon festival days, rest from labour
is required all the day over, whereas, upon the days of ordinary and
weekly meetings, rest is required only during the time of public worship.
2. Cessation from labour, for prayers or preaching on those appointed days
of the week, at some occasions may be omitted; but the rest and
commemoration appointed by the church, to be precisely observed upon the
anniversary festival days, must not be omitted, in the Bishop’s
judgment.(175) 3. Men are straitly commanded and compelled to rest from
labour upon holidays; but to leave work to come to the ordinary weekly
meetings, they are only exhorted. And here I mark how the Bishop
contradicteth himself; for in one place where his antagonist maintaineth
truly, that the craftsman cannot be lawfully commanded nor compelled to
leave his work and to go to public divine service, except on the day that
the Lord hath sanctified, he replieth,(176) “If he may be lawfully
commanded to cease from his labour during the time of divine service, he
may be as lawfully compelled to obey the command.” Who can give these
words any sense, or see anything in them said against his antagonist’s
position, except he be taken to say, that the craftsman may be both
commanded and compelled to leave his work and go to divine service on the
week-days appointed for the same? Nay, he laboureth to prove thus much out
of the ninth head of the _First Book of Discipline_, which saith, “In
great towns we think expedient, that every day there be either sermon or
common prayers,” &c., where there is nothing of compulsion, or a forcing
command, only there is an exhortation. But ere the Bishop have said much,
he forgetteth himself, and tells us,(177) that it were against equity and
charity to adstrict the husbandman to leave his plough so oft as the days
of weekly preaching do return, but that, on the festival days, reason
would, that if he did not leave his plough willingly, by authority he
should be forced. Which place confirmeth this difference which we give
betwixt rest on the holidays, and rest at the times of weekly meeting.

CHAPTER VIII.

THAT FESTIVAL DAYS TAKE AWAY OUR CHRISTIAN LIBERTY, PROVED OUT OF THE
GOSPEL.

_Sect._ 1. My second argument whereby I prove that the imposing of the
observation of holidays doth bereave us of our liberty, I take out of two
places of the Apostle, the one, Gal. iv. 10, where he finds fault with the
Galatians for observing of days, and giveth them two reasons against them;
the one, ver. 3, They were a yoke of bondage which neither they nor their
fathers were able to bear; another, ver, 8, They were weak and beggarly
rudiments, not beseeming the Christian church, which is liberate from the
pedagogical instruction of the ceremonial law. The other place is Col. ii.
16, where the Apostle will have the Colossians not to suffer themselves to
be judged by any man in respect of an holiday, _i.e._ to be condemned for
not observing a holiday, for _judicare hic significat culpae reum
facere,_(178) and the meaning is, suffer not yourselves to be condemned by
those false apostles, or by any mortal man in the cause of meat, that is,
for meat or drink taken, or for any holiday, or any part of an holiday
neglected.(179) Two other reasons the Apostle giveth in this place against
festival days; one, ver. 17, What should we do with the shadow, when we
have the body? another, ver. 20, Why should we be subject to human
ordinances, since through Christ we are dead to them, and have nothing ado
with them? Now, by the same reasons are all holidays to be condemned, as
taking away Christian liberty; and so, that which the Apostle saith doth
militate as well against them as against any other holidays; for whereas
it might be thought, that the Apostle doth not condemn all holidays,
because both he permitteth others to observe days, Rom. xiv. 5, and he
himself also did observe one of the Jewish feasts, Acts xviii. 21: it is
easily answered, that our holidays have no warrant from these places,
except our opposites will say, that they esteem their festival days holier
than other days, and that they observe the Jewish festivities, neither of
which they do acknowledge, and if they did, yet they must consider, that
that which the Apostle either said or did hereanent, is to be expounded
and understood of bearing with the weak Jews, whom he permitted to esteem
one day above another, and for whose cause he did, in his own practice,
thus far apply himself to their infirmity at that time when they could not
possibly be as yet fully and thoroughly instructed concerning Christian
liberty, and the abrogation of the ceremonial law, because the gospel was
as yet not fully propagated; and when the Mosaical rites were like a dead
man not yet buried, as Augustine’s simile runs. So that all this can make
nothing for holidays after the full promulgation of the gospel, and after
that the Jewish ceremonies are not only dead, but also buried, and so
deadly to be used by us. Hence it is, that the Apostle will not bear with
the observation of days in Christian churches, who have known God, as he
speaks.

_Sect._ 2. The defenders of holidays answer to these places which we
allege against them, that the Apostle condemneth the observation of
Judaical days, not of ecclesiastical days, which the church instituteth
for order and policy; which evasion Bishop Lindsey(180) followeth so hard,
that he sticketh not to hold, that “all the days whereof the Apostle
condemneth the observation were Judaical days prescribed in the ceremonial
law,” &c. And this he is not contented to maintain himself, but he will
needs father it upon his antagonist by such logic, forsooth, as can infer
_quidlibet ex quodlibet._ The Apostle comports with the observation of
days in the weak Jews, who understood not the fulness of the Christian
liberty, especially since those days, having had the honour to be once
appointed by God himself, were to be honourably buried; but the same
Apostle reproves the Galatians who had attained to this liberty, and had
once left off the observation of days. What ground of consequence can
warrant such an illation from these premises as this which the Bishop
formeth, namely, that “all the days whereof the Apostle condemned the
observation were Judaical days,” &c.

_Sect._ 3. Now, for confutation of this forged exposition of those places
of the Apostle, we say, 1. If all the days whereof the Apostle condemned
the observation were Judaical days prescribed in the ceremonial law, then
do our divines falsely interpret the Apostle’s words against popish
holidays, and the Papists do truly allege that their holidays are not
condemned by the Apostle. The Rhemists affirm, that the Apostle condemneth
only Jewish days,(181) but not Christian days, and that we do falsely
interpret his words against their holidays.(182) Cartwright answereth
them,(183) that if Paul condemned the observing of feasts which God
himself instituted, then much more doth he condemn the observation of
feasts of man’s devising. So Bellarmine allegeth,(184) _loqui ibi
Apostolum de judaeorum tantum festis_. Hospinian, answering him, will have
the Apostle’s words to condemn the Christian feasts more than the
Judaical.(185) Conradus Vorstius rejecteth this position, _Apostolus non
nisi judaicum discremen dierum in_ N.T. _sublatum esse docet_, as a popish
error.(186) 2. If the Apostle mean only of Judaical days, either he
condemneth the observing of their days _materialiter_, or _formaliter,
i.e._ either he condemneth the observation of the same feasts which the
Jews observed, or the observing of them with such a meaning, after such a
manner, and for such an end as the Jews did. The former our opposites dare
not hold, for then they should grant that he condemneth their own Easter
and Pentecost, because these two feasts were observed by the Jews. Nor yet
can they hold them at the latter, for he condemneth that observation of
days which had crept into the church of Galatia, which was not Jewish nor
typical, seeing the Galatians, believing that Christ was already come,
could not keep them as figures of his coming as the Jews did, but rather
as memorials that he was already come, saith Cartwright.(187) 1. If the
Apostle’s reasons wherewith he impugns the observation of days, hold good
against our holidays so well as against the Jewish or popish days, then
doth he condemn those, no less these. But the Apostle’s reasons agree to
our holidays for, 1. According to that reason, Gal. iv. 3, they bring us
under a yoke of bondage. Augustine,(188) complaining of some ceremonies
wherewith the church in his time was burdened, thought it altogether best
that they should be cut off, _Etiamsi fidei non videantur adversari, quia
religionem quam Christus liberam esse voluit, servilibus oneribus
premunt._ Yea, he thought this yoke of servitude greater bondage, and less
tolerable than the servility of the Jews, because they were subject to the
burdens of the law of God, and not to the presumptions of men. The yoke of
bondage of Christians, in respect of feasts, is heavier than the yoke of
the Jews, not only for the multitude of them, but because _Christianorum
festa, ab hominibus tantum, judaeorum vero a Deo fuerint instituta_, saith
Hospinian.(189) Have not we then reason to exclaim against our holidays,
as a yoke of bondage, heavier than that of the Jews, for that our holidays
are men’s inventions, and so were not theirs? The other reason, Gal. iv.
9, holdeth as good against our holidays. They are rudimental and
pedagogical elements, which beseem not the Christian church, for as
touching that which Tilen objecteth,(190) that many in the church of the
New Testament are still babes to be fed with milk, it maketh as much
against the Apostle as against us; for by this reason, he may as well
throw back the Apostle’s ground of condemning holidays among the
Galatians, and say, because many of the Galatians were babes, therefore
they had the more need of those elements and rudiments. The Apostle, Gal.
iv. 3, compareth the church of the Old Testament to an infant, and
insinuateth, that in the days of the New Testament the infancy of the
church hath taken an end. And whereas it might be objected, that in the
church of the New Testament there are many babes, and that the Apostle
himself speaketh of the Corinthians and Hebrews as babes: it is answered
by Pareus,(191) _Non de paucis personis, sed de statu totius ecclesiae
intelligendum est quod hic dicitur._ There were also some in the church of
the Old Testament, _adulti fide heroes_; but in respect of the state of
the whole church, he who is least in the kingdom of God, is greater than
John Baptist, Luke vii. 28. _Lex_, saith Beza, _vocatur elementa, quia
illis velut __ rudimentis, Deus ecclesiam suam erudivit, postea pleno
cornu effudit Spiritum Sanctum tempore evangelii_.(192) 3. That reason
also taken from the opposition of the shadow and the body, Col. ii. 17,
doth militate against our holidays; for the Apostle there speaketh in the
present time, ἐστι σκια: whereas the Judaical rites were abolished,
whereupon Zanchius noteth,(193) that the Apostle doth not so much speak of
things by-past, as of the very nature of all rites, _Definiens ergo ipsos
ritus in sese, dixit eos nil aliud esse quam umbram_. If all rites, then
our holidays among the rest, serve only to adumbrate and shadow forth
something, and by consequence are unprofitable and idle, when the
substance itself is clearly set before us. 4. That reason, Col. ii. 20,
doth no less irresistibly infringe the ordinances about our holidays than
about the Jewish; for if men’s ordinances, about things once appointed by
God himself, ought not to be obeyed, how much less should the precepts of
men be received about such things in religion as never had this honour to
be God’s ordinances, when their mere authority doth limit or adstrict us
in things which God hath made lawful or free to us.

_Sect_. 4. Thus we see how the Apostle’s reasons hold good against our
holidays; let us see next what respects of difference the Bishop can
imagine to evidence wherefore the Judaical days may be thought condemned
by the Apostle, and not ours. He deviseth a double respect; and first he
tells us,(194) that the Jewish observation of days was to a typical use.
And whereas it is objected by us, that the converted Jews did not observe
them as shadows of things to come, because then they had denied Christ, he
answereth thus: “Howbeit the converted Jews did not observe the Jewish
days as shadows of things to come, yet they might have observed them as
memorials of by-past temporal and typical benefits, and for present
temporal blessings, as the benefit of their delivery out of Egypt, and of
the fruits of the earth, which use was also typical.” _Ans._ 1. This is
his own conjecture only, therefore he himself propoundeth it doubtfully,
for he dare not say, they did observe them as memorials, &c., but, they
might have observed, to which guessing, if I reply, they might also not
have observed them as memorials of those by-past or present benefits, we
say as much against him, and as truly, as he hath said against us. 2. His
form of reasoning is very uncouth, for, to prove that the observation of
days by the converted Jews was to a typical use, he allegeth, that they
might have observed, &c. Thus proving a position by a supposition. O
brave! 3. There is no sense in his conjecture, for he yields that they did
not observe those days as shadows of things to come, and yet he saith,
they might have observed them as memorials of by-past typical benefits;
now they could not observe those days as memorials of types, except they
observed them also as shadowing forth the antitypes. Pentecost, saith
Davenant,(195) _et illa legis datae celebratio. Spiritus Sancti missionem,
et legis in tabulis cordium per eundem Spiritum inscriptionem, adumbravit.
Scenopegiae festum peregrinationem hominis pii per hoc mundi desertum ad
caelestem patriam delineabat, &c._ So that the feast of Pentecost, if it
had been observed as a memorial of the promulgation of the law, could not
but shadow forth the sending of the Holy Spirit into our hearts, to write
the law in them. And the feast of tabernacles, if it had been observed as
a memorial of the benefits which God bestowed on his people in the
wilderness, could not but shadow out God’s conducting of his children,
through the course of their pilgrimage in this world, to the heavenly
Canaan. 4. If feasts which were memorials of temporal benefits, were for
this reason mystical, then he must grant against himself, that much more
are our feasts mystical, which are memorials of spiritual benefits, and
consecrated to be holy signs and symbols, for making us call to mind the
mysteries of our redemption. 5. Before this dispute take an end, we shall
see out of the best learned among our opposites, that they observe the
holidays as mystical,(196) and more mystical than the Bishop here
describeth the Jewish days to have been, and so we shall see the falsehood
of that pretence, that they are observed only for order and policy, and
not for mystery. 6. If we would know the true reason which made the
converted Jews to observe those days, it was not any mystical use, but
that which made them think themselves obliged to other Mosaical rites;
even _propter auctoritatem legis_, saith Junius;(197) for albeit they
could not be ignorant, that these rites were shadows of things to come,
and that the body was of Christ, in whom, and in the virtue of whose death
they did stablish their faith, yet they did not at first understand how
such things as were once appointed by God himself, and given to his people
as ordinances to be kept by him throughout their generations, could be
altogether abolished, and for this cause, though they did condescend to a
change of the use and signification of those ceremonies, as being no more
typical of the kingdom of Christ, which they believed to be already come,
yet still they held themselves bound to the use of the things themselves
as things commanded by God.

Thus much may be collected from Acts xv. 21, where James gives a reason
wherefore it was expedient that the Gentiles should observe some of the
Jewish rites for a time, as Calvin,(198) Beza,(199) and Junius,(200)
expound the place. His reason is, because the Jews, being so long
accustomed with the hearing of the law of Moses, and such as did preach
the same, could not be made at first to understand how the ordinances
which God gave to his people by the hand of Moses, might be cast off and
not regarded, which importeth as much as I say, namely, that the reason
wherefore the converted Jews were so apt to be scandalised by such as
cared not for the ceremonial law, and held themselves obliged to observe
the same, was because they saw not how they could be exempted from the
ordinances and statutes of the law of Moses, with which they had been
educated and accustomed.

_Sect._ 5. Rests the second respect of difference given by the Bishop:
“Further (saith he), they did observe them with opinion of necessity, as
things instituted by God for his worship and their salvation, which sort
of observation was legal.”(201) _Ans._ 1. Be it so; he cannot hereupon
infer, that the Apostle doth only condemn the observation of Judaical
days, for he seeth nothing of observing days with opinion of necessity,
but simply and absolutely he condemneth the observing of days, and his
reasons reflex on our holidays, as well as the Jewish. 2. Their opinion of
necessity he either refers to the institution which these days once had
from God, or else to the use which, at that time, they had for God’s
worship and their salvation. That they observed them with opinion of
necessity, as things which had been instituted by God, it is most likely,
but that they observed them with opinion of necessity, as things necessary
for God’s worship and their salvation, is more than can be made good, it
is more probable that they observed them merely and simply for that they
had the honour to be instituted by God in his law. For to say that they
observed them to the same use and end for which God did institute them, is
false, because then they had observed them as types and shadows of the
coming of Christ, and so had denied Christ. 3. If the Apostle condemn the
observing of days instituted by God, with opinion of necessity, much more
doth he condemn the observing of days instituted by men with such an
opinion. And such is the observation of days urged upon us. Though the
Bishop pretend that the observing of our holidays is not imposed with
opinion of necessity, shall we therefore think it is so? Nay, Papists do
also pretend that the observation of their ceremonies is not
necessary,(202) nor the neglecting of them a mortal sin. I have proved
heretofore, out of their opposites’ own words, that the ceremonies in
question (and, by consequence, holidays among the rest) are urged upon us
with opinion of necessity, and as their words, so their works bewray them,
for they urge the ceremonies with so exorbitant vehemency, and punish
refusers with so excessive severity, as if they were the weightiest
matters of the law of God. Yet they would have us believe, that they have
but sober and mean thoughts of these matters, as of circumstances
determined for order and policy only. Just like a man who casts firebrands
and arrows, and yet saith, Am not I in sport? Prov. xvi. 18, 19. They will
tell us that they urge not the ceremonies as necessary in themselves, but
only as necessary in respect of the church’s determination, and because of
the necessity of obeying those who are set over us. But, I pray, is not
this as much as the Rhemists say,(203) who place the necessity of their
rites and observances, not in the nature of the things themselves, but in
the church’s precept?

CHAPTER IX.

SHOWING THE WEAKNESS OF SOME PRETENCES WHICH OUR OPPOSITES USE FOR
HOLIDAYS.

_Sect._ 1. Since it hath been evinced by unanswerable reasons that
holidays, as now urged upon us, take away our Christian liberty, I will
now pull off them the coat of some fig leaves wherewith they are trimmed
up. And first, I hope it will appear to how small purpose Dr Davenant
would conciliate his reader’s mind(204) to allow of the church’s
ordinances about holidays (peradventure because he saw all that he had
said of that purpose to be too invalid proof), by six cautions, whereby
all superstition and abuse which may ensue upon them may be shunned. For
whatsoever doth manifestly endanger men’s souls, being a thing not
necessary in itself, at which they take occasion of superstitious abuse,
should rather be removed altogether out of the way, than be set about with
a weak and easily-penetrable hedge of some equivocative cautions, which
the ruder sort do always, and the learned do too oft, either not
understand or not remember. Now, Bishop Lindsey confesseth,(205) and puts
it out of all doubt, that when the set times of these solemnities return,
superstitious conceits are most pregnant in the heads of people; therefore
it must be the safest course to banish those days out of the church, since
there is so great hazard, and no necessity, of retaining them.

What they can allege for holidays, from our duty to remember the
inestimable benefits of our redemption, and to praise God for the same,
hath been already answered.(206) And as touching any expediency which they
imagine in holidays, we shall see to that afterward.(207)

_Sect._ 2. The Act of Perth Assembly allegeth the practice of the ancient
church for warrant of holidays, and Tilen allegeth the judgment of
antiquity to the same purpose.(208) _Ans._ The festivities of the ancient
church cannot warrant ours; for, 1. In the purest times of the church
there was no law to tie men to the observation of holidays. _Observandum
est_, say the divines of Magdeburg,(209) _apostolos et apostolicos viros,
neque de paschate, neque de aliis quibuscunque, festivitatibus legem
aliquam constituisse_. Socrates reporteth,(210) that men did celebrate the
feast of Easter, and other festival days, _sicuti voluerunt, ex
consuetudine quadam_. Nicephorus saith,(211) that men did celebrate
festivities, _sicuti cuique visum erat, in regionibus passim ex
consuitudine quadam per traditionem accepta adducti_. In which place, as
the reader will plainly perceive, he opposeth tradition to an evangelical
or apostolical ordinance. Sozomen tells us,(212) that men were left to
their own judgment about the keeping of Easter, Jerome saith of the
feasts(213) which the church in his time observed, that they were _pro
varietate regionum diversa_. The first who established a law about any
festival day,(214) is thought to have been Pius I, bishop of Rome, yet it
is marked that the Asiatican doctors did not care much for this
constitution of Pius. I conclude with Cartwright,(215) that those feasts
of the primitive church “came by custom, and not by commandment, by the
free choice of men, and not by constraint.” So that from these, no
commendation ariseth to our feasts, which are not only established by
laws, but also imposed with such necessity and constraint, as spoileth us
of our liberty.

2. The festival days observed by the ancient church, were not accounted
more excellent than other days, for, saith Jerome,(216) _non quod
celebrior sit dies illa qua conveniumus, &c._ But our festival days are
made _aliis diebus celebriores_, yea, are taken to be holier than other
days, as I will afterwards prove.(217)

_Sect._ 3. Moreover, the proctors for holidays among us think to make
advantage of the practice of other reformed churches, and the judgment of
modern divines. But we are to consider, 1. As they have the example of
some churches for them, so we have the example of other churches for us,
for the church of Geneva in Savoy, and the church of Strasburg in Germany,
did abolish festival days, as Calvin writeth.(218) Yea, _in hac tota
provincia aboliti fuerunt dies festi_, saith he. The church of Zurich in
Helvetia did also banish them all away, as Bullinger writeth to
Calvin.(219) 2. The practice of the greatest part of the reformed churches
in observing holidays, cannot commend them in the church of Scotland, 1.
Because she did spue them out with so great detestation, that she is more
bound to abhor them than other churches which did not the like, and I may
well apply to them that which Calvin saith(220) of the ceremonies of the
Interim, to Valentinus Pacaeus, _Ut concedam faetidas illas sordes quibus
purgatae fuerunt vestrae ecclesiae, inrebus medus posse censeri: earum
tamen restitutio eritne res media?_ 2. The church of Scotland is tied yet
with another bond to hate holidays, of which other churches are free; for,
by a solemn oath sworn to the God of heaven, she hath abjured all
antichristian and popish rites, and dedicating of days particularly. When
Tilen would make answer to this argument, he saith,(221) that men’s
consciences should not be snared with rash oaths and superstitious vows,
and if that such bonds be laid on, they should be broken and shaken off.
What! Calls he this a superstitious vow, which abjured all superstition
and superstitious rites? Or calls he this a rash oath, which, upon so sage
and due deliberation, so serious advisement, so pious intention, so decent
preparation, so great humiliation, was religiously, publicly, solemnly
sworn throughout this land, and that at the straight command of authority?
Who is ignorant of these things, except he be a stranger in our Israel?
But say the oath had been rash and temeratious, shall it not therefore
oblige? His judgment is, it doth not; and so thinks the Bishop of
Winchester,(222) who teacheth us, that if the oath be made rashly,
_paenitenda promissio non perficienda praesumptio_, he had said better
thus, _paenitenda praesumptio, perficienda promissio_; for was not that a
very rash oath which the princes of Israel did swear to the Gibeonites,
not asking counsel at the mouth of the Lord? Josh. ix. 14-16, yet it bound
both them, Josh ix. 19, and their posterity, some hundred years after, 2
Sam. xxi. 1. If the matter then be lawful, the oath binds, were it sworn
ever so rashly.

_Sect._ 4. As touching the judgment of divines, we say, 1. Many divines
disallow of festival days, and with the church, were free of them. For the
Belgic churches, in their synod, anno 1578, wished that the six days might
be wrought upon, and that the Lord’s day alone might be celebrated. And
Luther in his book, _de Bonis Operibus_, wished that there were no
feast-days among Christians but the Lord’s day. This wish of theirs
declareth plainly, that they allowed of no holiday except the Lord’s day;
yet Bishop Lindsey must make a fashion of saying something for an answer.
“This wish (saith he(223)) Luther and the Belgic churches conceived, out
of their miscontent at the number, corruptions, and superstitions of the
festival days, beside the Lord’s day, as ye do.” _Ans._ 1. Their wish
importeth a simple and absolute mistaking of all festival days besides the
Lord’s day, and not of their number and corruptions only. 2. It is well
that he acknowledgeth both them and us to have reason of miscontentment at
holidays, from their corruptions and superstitions. The old Waldenses
also,(224) whose doctrine was restored and propagated by John Huss, and
Jerome of Prague, after Wiclif, and that with the congratulation of the
church of Constantinople, held,(225) that they were to rest from labour
upon no day but upon the Lord’s day, whereby it appeareth, that holidays
have had adversaries before us. I find that they pervert some places which
they allege against us out of Calvin. Tilen allegeth,(226) _Calvin.
Inst._, lib. 2, cap. 8, sec. 32, acknowledging _alios quoque dies festos
praeter dominicum_, &c. I marvel how a judicious reader could imagine such
a thing to be in that place, for both in that and the subsequent section,
he is speaking of the Lord’s day against the Anabaptists, and if any man
will think that in sec. 32 he is speaking of holy assemblies of Christians
in the general, yet he can see nothing there of any festival days, beside
the Lord’s day, dedicated to holy meetings. There is another place of
Calvin abused by Bishop Spotswood(227) and Bishop Lindsey,(228) taken out
of one of his Epistles to Hallerus, which I find in the volume before
quoted, p. 136, 137, that which they grip to in this epistle is, that
Calvin, speaking of the abrogation of festival days in Geneva, saith, _hoc
tamen testatum esse volo, si mihi delata optio fuisset, quod nunc
constitutum est, non fuisse pro __ sententia dicturum. Ans._ That which
made Calvin say so, was not any liking which he had to festival days, for
he calls the abolishing of them _ordo bene compositus_;(229) but as
himself showeth in the following epistle, which beareth this title, _Cal.
Ministro Burensi, S.D._, the reason why he durst scarcely have so
determined, if his judgment had been required, was, because, he saw
neither end nor remedy for the prevailing tumult of contention raised
about festival days, and likely to impede the course of reformation;
therefore _fovendae pacis studio_, he professeth that he durst not make
mention of the abrogation of those holidays. Because he would have
tolerated holidays, because he durst not at that time, and as the case
then stood, have spoken of the abolishing them, can it be hereupon
concluded that he allowed of them? No, sure. But it is observable how both
those prelates pervert Calvin’s words. Bishop Spotswood allegeth his words
anent the abolishing of these festival days, thus: _Ego neque suasor neque
impulsor fui, atque hoc testatum volo, si mihi delata optio_, &c. Whereas
the words in that epistle lie thus: _Ego tametsi neque suasor, neque
impulsor fui, sic tamen accidisse non moleste fero. Quod si statum nostrae
ecclesiae aeque compertum haberes, non dubitares meo judicio subscribere.
Hoc tamen testatum esse volo, si mihi delata optio_, &c. The Bishop would
have made his hearers believe that Calvin _was not content with the
abolishing of the festival days_, whereas his words testify the very
contrary. Bishop Lindsey is as gross in perverting the end of that
epistle. _Nec tamen est cur homines adeo exasperentur, si libertate nostra
ut ecclesiae edificatio postulat utimur_, &c., from which words he
concludes, that in Calvin’s judgment, the observation and abrogation of
those days is in the power and liberty of the church. But the reader will
perceive, that Calvin there speaketh only of the church’s liberty to
abrogate holidays, and nothing of her power to observe them, for he is
showing, that howbeit he durst not have given advice to abolish them, if
the decision had been referred to him, yet they had no reason for them who
were offended at the abolishing of them in Geneva, because that church had
done no more than she had power and liberty to do for edification. 3.
Other testimonies they produce, which cannot help them much. That which
Bishop Lindsey(230) allegeth out of Zanchius’s confession, maketh him but
small advantage; for though Zanchius there alloweth of the sanctification
of some festival days, yet, writing on the fourth commandment, he
acknowledgeth that it is more agreeable to the first institution, and to
the writings of the apostles, that one day of the week only be sanctified.
What meant the Bishop to say?(231) that this place is falsified and
mutilated by his antagonist, who quotes it not to prove that Zanchius
disalloweth of festival days, but to prove that, in Zanchius’s judgment,
the sanctification of the Sabbath only, and no other day in the week,
agreeth best with divine and apostolical institution? Was there any need
to allege more of Zanchius’s words than concerned the point which he had
to prove? The Bishop allegeth also a testimony out of Perkins on Gal. iv.
10,(232) which makes him but very little help; for albeit Perkins thought
good, in some sort, to excuse the observing of days in his own mother
church of England, yet I find in that place, 1. He complaineth that the
greatest part respects those holidays more than they should. 2. He
alloweth only the observing of days for order’s sake, that men may come to
the church to hear God’s word, which respect will not be enough to the
Bishop, if there be not a solemnising and celebrating of the memory of
some of God’s inestimable benefits, and a dedicating of the day to this
end and purpose. 3. He saith, that it is the privilege of God to appoint
an extraordinary day of rest, so that he permitteth not power to the
church for appointing a set, constant, and anniversary day of rest, for
such a day becometh an ordinary day of rest. 4. He preferreth the practice
of those churches of the Protestants who do not observe holidays, because,
saith he, the church, in the apostles’ days, had no holiday besides the
Lord’s day, and the fourth commandment enjoins the labour of six days.

_Sect._ 5. The Bishop meeteth with another answer in his antagonist which
crosseth his testimonies, namely, that howsoever foreign divines, in their
epistles and councils, spake sometimes sparingly against holidays, when
their advice was sought of churches newly risen out of Popery and greatly
distressed, yet they never advised a church to resume them where they were
removed. The Bishop objecteth against this answer,(233) that Calvin,
epist. 51, “adviseth the Monbelgardens not to contend against the prince
for not resuming (he should have said, for not receiving, if he had
translated Calvin’s words faithfully) of all festival days, but only such
as served not to edification, and were seen to be superstitious.” _Ans._
1. Albeit he spake sparingly against holidays, when he gave advice to that
distressed and lately reformed church, lest the work of reformation should
have been letted, yet he did not allow holidays among them. For in another
epistle written to them he saith,(234) _De pulsu campanarum et diebus
festis ita sentimus, ferendas potius esse vobis has ineptias, quam
stationem in qua estis a domino collocati deferendum, modo ne approbetis;
modo etiam liberum vobis sit reprehendere, quae inde sequentur
superstitiones._ And this he setteth down for one of these superstitions,
_quod dies a die discernitur_, where also he condemneth both the observing
of days to the honour of man as superstitious, and the observing of them
for the honour of God as Judaical. If holidays, in Calvin’s judgment, be
fooleries—if he gave advice not to approve them—if he thought them
occasions of superstition—if he held it superstition to distinguish one
day from another, or to esteem one above another—if he call them Judaical,
though kept to the honour of God, judge then what allowance they had from
him. 2. If the Bishop stand to Calvin’s judgment in that place which he
quoteth, he must allow as to refuse some festival days, though enjoined by
the prince. _In festis non recipiendis cuperem vos esse constantiores, sic
tamen ut non litigetis de quibuslibet._ Then he allowed them to contend
against some holidays, though the prince imposed them. 3. The church of
Scotland did remove festival days in another manner, and bound herself
never to receive them by another bond than ever the Monbelgardens did; so
that having other bonds lying upon us than other churches have, we are so
much the more straightly obliged neither to receive holidays, nor any
other antichristian and popish ceremony.

THE SECOND PART.

AGAINST THE EXPEDIENCY OF THE CEREMONIES.

CHAPTER I.

AGAINST SOME OF OUR OPPOSITES, WHO ACKNOWLEDGE THE INCONVENIENCY OF THE
CEREMONIES, AND YET WOULD HAVE US YIELD TO THEM.

_Sect._ 1. The Archbishop of St Andrews, now Lord Chancellor forsooth,
speaking of the five articles concluded at the pretended Assembly of
Perth, saith,(235) “The conveniency of them for our church is doubted of
by many, but not without cause, &c.; novations in a church, even in the
smallest things, are dangerous, &c.; had it been in our power to have
dissuaded or declined them, most certainly we would, &c.; but now being
brought to a necessity, either of yielding, or disobeying him, whom, for
myself, I hold it religion to offend,” &c. Dr Burgess confesseth,(236)
that some of his side think and believe, that the ceremonies are
inconvenient, and yet to be observed for peace and the gospel’s sake; and
how many Formalists let us hear their hearty wishes, that the ceremonies
had never been brought into our church, because they have troubled our
peace, and occasioned great strife? When they are demanded why do they
yield to them, since they acknowledge great inconveniency in them? they
answer, lest by their refusal they should cast their coal to the fire, to
entertain and increase discord, and lest, shunning one inconveniency, they
should draw on a great. Mr Sprint saith,(237) “It may be granted, that
offence and hinderance to edification do arise from those our
ceremonies.”(238) He confesseth also, that the best divines wished them to
be abolished, as being many ways inconvenient; notwithstanding, he hath
written a whole treatise, of the necessity of conformity in case of
deprivation.

_Sect._ 2. But let us understand how he proveth(239) that sometimes it is
expedient and necessary to conform unto such burdensome and beggarly
ceremonies, as are many ways inconvenient, and occasions of sundry evil
effects. His principal reason is,(240) That the apostles, by direction of
the Holy Ghost, and upon reasons of common and perpetual equity, did
practise themselves, and caused others to practise, yea, advised and
enjoined (as matters good and necessary to be done) ceremonies so
inconvenient and evil in many main and material respects, as the
ceremonies enjoined and prescribed in the church of England are supposed
to be; whence he would have it to follow, that to suffer deprivation for
refusing to conform to the ceremonies of the church of England, is
contrary to the doctrine and practice of the apostles. _Ans._ These Jewish
ceremonies in the use and practice of the apostles, were no way evil and
inconvenient, as himself everywhere confesseth, whereas, therefore, he
tells us,(241) that those ceremonies were abused to superstition, were of
mystical signification, imposed and observed as parts of God’s worship,
swerving from the general rules of God’s word, not profitable for order,
decency, and edification, offensive many ways, and infringing Christian
liberty, he runs at random all the while; for these things agree not to
the Jewish ceremonies, as they were rightly used by the apostles
themselves, and by others at their advice, but only as they were
superstitiously used with opinion of necessity by the obstinate Jews, and
by the false teachers, who impugned Christian liberty. So that all that
can follow upon Mr Sprint’s argument is this: That notwithstanding of the
evils and inconveniences which follow upon certain ceremonies in the
superstitious abuse of them by others, yet if, in our practice, they have
a necessary or expedient use, then (after the example of the apostles) we
may well conform unto them. Now, all this cometh not near the point which
Mr Sprint undertaketh to prove, namely, that granting the controverted
ceremonies to be, in our use and practice of the same, many ways evil and
inconvenient, yet to suffer deprivation for refusing to conform to the
same is contrary to the doctrine and practice of the apostles. And as
touching the comparison instituted betwixt our controverted ceremonies,
and these antiquated ceremonies of the Jews, practised and prescribed by
the apostles after the ascension of Christ, and before the full
promulgation of the gospel, many evils there be in ours, which could not
be found in theirs. For, 1. Ours have no necessary use, and might well be
spared; theirs had a necessary use for avoiding of scandal, Acts xv. 28.
2. Ours produce manifold inconveniences (whereof we are to speak
hereafter) in over use and practice of the same, which is prescribed,
theirs in the use and practice of the same, which was enjoined by the
apostles, were most expedient for winning of the obstinate Jews, 1 Cor.
ix. 20; and for keeping of the weak, 1 Cor. ix. 22; and for teaching the
right use of Christian liberty to such as were strong in the faith, both
among the believing Jews and converted Gentiles, Rom. iv. &c.; 1 Cor.
viii.; x. 3. Ours are proved to be, in their nature unlawful; theirs were
(during the foresaid space) in their nature indifferent, Rom. xiv. 6; Gal.
vi. 15. 4. Ours are imposed and observed as parts of God’s worship (which
we will prove afterward);(242) theirs not so, for where read we, that
(during the foresaid space) any holiness was placed in them by the
apostles? 5. Ours have certain mystical significations; theirs not so: for
it is no where to be read, that the apostles either practised or
prescribed them as significative resemblances of any mystery of the
kingdom of God. 6. Ours make us (though unnecessarily) like unto
idolaters, in their idolatrous actions; theirs not so. 7. Ours are imposed
with a necessity both of practice and opinion, even out of the case of
scandal; theirs not so. 8. Ours are pressed by naked will and authority;
theirs, by such special grounds of momentaneous reason, as made the
practice of the same necessary for a certain time, whether the apostles
had enjoined it or not. 9. Ours are urged even upon such as, in their
consciences, judge them to be unlawful; theirs not so. 10. Ours have no
better original than human and antichristian invention; theirs had their
original from God’s own institution. 11. Ours are the accursed monuments
of popish idolatry, to be ejected with detestation; theirs were the
memorials of Mosaical policy, to be buried with honour. 12. Ours are
pressed by such pretended reasons, as make them ever and everywhere
necessary; theirs, by such reasons as did only conclude a necessity of
using them at some times, and in some places. 13. Ours are urged after the
full promulgation of the gospel and acknowledgment of Christian liberty;
theirs, before the same. 14. Ours are urged with the careless neglect of
pressing more necessary duties; theirs not so. These and other differences
betwixt the controverted and Jewish ceremonies, do so break the back of Mr
Sprint’s argument, that there is no healing of it again.

_Sect._ 3. His second reason whereby he goeth about to prove the necessity
of conforming to inconvenient ceremonies, in the case of deprivation, he
taketh from this ground:(243) That when two duties commanded of God, do
meet in one practice, so as we cannot do them both, in this case we must
perform the greater duty, and neglect the lesser. Now, whereas he saith,
when two duties do meet, &c., he means not, that both may be duties at
once, for then a man shall be so straitened that he must needs commit a
sin, in that he must needs omit one of the duties. But (as he explaineth
himself) he calleth them duties, being considered apart: as, to hear a
sermon at the church on the Sabbath, and to tend a sick person ready to
die at home, at the same time, both are duties, being considered apart,
but meeting together in our practice at one time, there is but one duty,
because the lesser work binds not for that present. Now, he assumes that
the doctrine and practice of suffering deprivation for refusing to conform
to inconvenient ceremonies, doth cause men to neglect greater duties to
perform the lesser, for proof whereof he enlargeth a needless discourse,
tending to prove that preaching is a greater duty and of higher bond than
the duty of labouring unto fit ceremonies, or of refusing inconvenient
ceremonies, which cannot help his cause. That which he had to prove was,
that not to suffer deprivation for refusing of inconvenient ceremonies, is
a greater duty than the refusing of inconvenient ceremonies. But it will
be said, that to suffer deprivation for the refusing of inconvenient
ceremonies, doth cause men to neglect the preaching of the word, and that
is a greater duty than the refusing of inconvenient ceremonies. _Ans_ 1.
Mr Sprint himself layeth down one ground, which proveth the refusing of
inconvenient ceremonies to be a greater duty than the preaching of the
word, for he holdeth(244) that the substantials of the second table do
overrule the ceremonials of the first table, according to that which God
saith, “I will have mercy and not sacrifice,” Matt. xii. 7. And elsewhere
he teacheth,(245) that to tend a sick person ready to die is a greater
duty than the hearing of the word. Now, to practice inconvenient and
scandalous ceremonies, is to commit soul-murder, and so to break one of
the most substantial duties of the second table. Therefore, according to
Mr Sprint’s own ground, the refusing of inconvenient and scandalous
ceremonies is a greater duty than the preaching of the word, which is but
a ceremonial of the first table, and if the neglect of tending a sick
person’s body be a greater sin than to omit the hearing of many sermons,
much more to murder the souls of men, by practising inconvenient and
scandalous ceremonies, is a greater sin than to omit the preaching of many
sermons, which is all the omission (if there be any) of those who suffer
deprivation for refusing to conform unto inconvenient ceremonies. But, 2.
We deny that the suffering of deprivation for refusing to conform unto
inconvenient ceremonies, causeth men to neglect or omit the duty of
preaching. Neither hath Mr Sprint alleged anything for proof hereof,
except that this duty of preaching cannot be done with us ordinarily, as
things do stand, if ministers do not conform, for, by order, they are to
be deprived of their ministry. Now, what of all this? For though, by the
oppressing power of proud prelates, many are hindered from continuing in
preaching, because of their refusing inconvenient ceremonies, yet they
themselves who suffered deprivation for this cause cannot be said to
neglect or omit the duty of preaching: most gladly would they preach, but
are not permitted. And how can a man be said to omit or neglect that which
he would fain do but it lieth not in his power to get it done? All the
strength of Mr Sprint’s argument lieth in this: That forasmuch as
ministers are hindered from preaching, if they do not conform, therefore,
their suffering of deprivation for refusing conformity, doth cause them
neglect the duty of preaching. Which argument, that I may destroy it with
his own weapons, let us note,(246) that he alloweth a man (though not to
suffer deprivation, yet) to suffer any civil penalty or external loss, for
refusing of inconvenient ceremonies commanded and enjoined by the
magistrate. Now, put the case, that for refusing inconvenient ceremonies,
I be so fined, spoiled, and oppressed, that I cannot have sufficient
worldly means for myself and them of my household, hence I argue thus (if
Mr Sprint’s argument hold good): That forasmuch as I am, by strong
violence, hindered from providing for myself and them of my household, if
I do not conform, therefore, my suffering of those losses for refusing of
conformity, doth cause me to neglect the duty of providing for myself and
for them of my family, which neglect should make me worse than an infidel.

_Sect._ 4. Mr Sprint now addeth a third, proving, that to suffer
deprivation for refusing to conform to the prescribed ceremonies(247)
(howbeit many ways inconvenient,) is contrary to the royal law of love,
which he labours to evidence three ways. _First_, he saith, that to suffer
deprivation for refusing to conform, doth, by abstaining from a thing in
nature indifferent (such as our ceremonies, saith he, are proved to be),
needlessly deprive men of the ordinary means of their salvation, which is
the preaching ministry of the word, &c. _Ans._ 1. That the controverted
ceremonies are in nature indifferent, neither he, nor any of his side,
hath yet proven; they suppose that they are indifferent, but they prove it
not. 2. We deny that the suffering of deprivation for refusing to conform
to the prescribed ceremonies, doth deprive men of the preaching of the
word. Neither saith Mr Sprint aught for proof hereof but that which we
have already confuted, viz., that as things do stand, all such as do not
conform are to be deprived, whence it followeth only, that the injury and
violence of prelates (not the suffering of deprivation for refusing to
conform) depriveth men of the preaching of the word. _Secondly_, he
saith,(248) that the doctrine and practice of suffering deprivation for
inconvenient ceremonies, condemneth both the apostolical churches, and all
churches since their times, because there hath been no church which hath
not practised inconvenient ceremonies. _Ans._ It is most false which he
saith of the apostolical churches; for those Jewish ceremonies practised
by them were most convenient, as we have said before. And as for other
churches in after ages, so many of them as have practised inconvenient
ceremonies, are not herein to be followed by us. Better go right with a
few than err with a multitude. Thirdly, he saith,(249) that the suffering
of deprivation for refusing to conform, breedeth and produceth sundry
scandals. First, saith he, it is the occasion of fraternal discord. O
egregious impudency! who seeth not that the ceremonies are the incendiary
sparkles, from which the fire of contention hath its being and burning; so
that conforming (not refusing) is the furnishing of fuel and casting of
faggots to the fire. Secondly, He allegeth that the suffering of
deprivation for refusing to conform, twofold more scandaliseth the Papist
than conformity; for he doth far more insult to see a godly minister
thrust out, and with him all the truth of God pressed, than to see him
wear a surplice, &c. _Thirdly_, he saith, It twofold more scandaliseth the
Atheist, libertine, and Epicure, who, by the painful minister’s deprival,
will triumph to see a door opened for him without resistance, to live in
drunkenness, whoredom, swearing, &c. Now, for answer to his second and
third pretences, we say, 1. Mr Sprint implieth indirectly, that when
non-conforming ministers are thrust out, Papists, Atheists, libertines,
and Epicures, expect but small opposition from those conforming ministers
who come in their rooms. Our opposites have a skilful proctor (forsooth)
of Mr Sprint. And, indeed, if Papists and Atheists were so afraid of
Conformists as of Nonconformists, they would not thus insult. 2. We must
distinguish betwixt deprivation and the suffering of deprivation. Papists
insult indeed, that their assured friends, the prelates, are so powerful,
as to thrust out from the public ministry the greatest enemies of Popery.
But as for the ministers’ suffering of themselves to be thrust out, and
deprived for refusing of conformity, it is so far from giving to Papists
any matter of insulting, that it will rather grieve them and gall them to
the heart, to understand that sundry powerful, painful, and learned
ministers are so averse from Popery, that before they conform to any
ceremony of the same, they will suffer for refusal; and that their
constancy and courage, in suffering for such a cause, will confirm many
professors in the persuasion of the truth of their doctrine, which they
taught against conforming unto popish ceremonies. But to go on.
_Fourthly_, saith he, It twofold more scandaliseth such an one as doth
truly fear the name of God, who could be more contented to enjoy the means
of his faith and salvation, with a small inconveniency of some ceremonies
which he grieveth at, than to lose his pastor, the gospel, and the
ordinary means of his faith and salvation. _Ans._ 1. Mr Sprint supposeth
that such an one, as for no respect whatsoever would be contented with the
practice of some inconvenient ceremonies, doth not truly fear the name of
God. And who is the Puritan now? Is not Mr Sprint, who standeth in such a
huge distance from all who are of our mind, and so far preferreth himself
and his followers to us as if we did not truly fear the name of God?
Secondly, He supposeth that, when non-conforming ministers are thrust out,
the ordinary means of faith and salvation are not dispensed (to the
comfort and contentment of such as truly fear the name of God) by those
conforming ministers, who are surrogate in their stead which, how his
fellows will take with, let them look to it. 3. Forasmuch as the fear of
God is to depart from evil, therefore such an one as doth truly fear the
name of God, in so far as he doth fear the name of God, and _quatenus_, he
is such an one, will never take well with the practice of inconvenient
ceremonies, which is not a parting from, but a cleaving unto evil. 4. They
who truly fear the name of God, are indeed scandalised by the prelates’
depriving of ministers for refusing to conform; but by the ministers’
suffering of deprivation for this cause, they are not scandalised but
edified. But, _Fifthly_, saith Mr Sprint, it offendeth the magistrate, by
provoking him (persuaded and resolved as he is) to disgrace these
otherwise well-deserving ministers, and to strike them with the sword of
authority. _Ans._ Our refusal to conform to inconvenient ceremonies being
a necessary duty, if the magistrate be provoked therewith, we are
blameless; neither can it any otherwise provoke him to disgrace those
well-deserving ministers, than Moses’ seeking of liberty for Israel to go
and serve God according to his will, provoked Pharaoh the more to oppress
them; or than Christ’s preaching of the truth, and his abstaining from the
superstitious ceremonies of the Pharisees, provoked them to disgrace him,
and plot his hurt. Howbeit we are not ignorant that the magistrate is not
provoked by our refusing to conform, except as it is misreported,
misdeemed, and misconstructed to him by the false calumnies of our
adversaries, which being so, he is not incited by our deed, but by theirs.

_Sect._ 5. Now, _Sixthly_, saith Mr Sprint, it unjustly condemneth the
harmony of all true churches that ever were primitive and reformed, and
all sound teachers of all times and places, whose universal doctrine it
hath been, that conformity to inconvenient ceremonies is necessary, in
case of deprivation. _Ans._ That the ceremonies practised by the apostles
and apostolic churches were not inconvenient, it hath been already showed;
that since their times, sundry churches, both ancient and reformed, have
practised inconvenient ceremonies, we deny not: yet Mr Sprint himself(250)
will not defend all the practices of those churches, whose practice he
allegeth against us. But that all sound teachers, of all times and places,
have taught the necessity of conformity to inconvenient ceremonies, in
case of deprivation, he neither doth, neither can make good; it is but a
bare and a bold affirmation to deceive the minds of the simple. Did not
the good old Waldenses,(251) notwithstanding of all the hot persecutions
raised against them, constantly refuse to conform unto any of those
ceremonies of the church of Rome, which they perceived to have no
necessary use in religion, and to occasion superstition rather than to
serve for edification? And we verily rejoice to be ranked with those
Waldenses, of whom a popish historiographer speaketh thus:(252) _Alius in
libris cathari dicuntur, quibus respondent qui hodie in Anglia puriorum
doctrinam __ præ se ferunt_. Moreover, it cannot be unknown to such as are
acquainted with the history of the Reformation, how that not Flacius
Illiricus only, but many others,(253) among whom was Calvin,(254) and the
Magdeburgian doctors,(255) and all the churches of Nether Saxony subject
to Maurice,(256) opposed themselves to those inconvenient and hurtful
ceremonies of the Interim, urged by the Adiaphorists. And howsoever they
perceived many great and grievous dangers ensuing upon their refusing to
conform to the same, yet they constantly refused, and many ministers
suffered deprivation for their refusal.(257) Besides, do not our divines
require, that the church’s canons, even in matters of rite, be “profitable
to the edification of the church,”(258) and that the observation of the
same must carry before it a manifest utility,(259) that in rites and
ceremonies the church hath no power to destruction, but only to
edification?(260) Do they not put this clause in the very definition of
ecclesiastical rites,(261) that they be profitably ordained; considering,
that otherwise they are but intolerable misorders and abuses? Do they not
teach,(262) that no idle ceremony which serveth not unto edifying is to be
suffered in the church; and that godly brethren are not holden to subject
themselves unto such things as they perceive neither to be right nor
profitable?(263) That whatsoever either would scandalise our brother,(264)
or not be profitable to him for his edification, Christians for no respect
must dare to meddle with it? Do they not stand so much upon expediency,
that this tenet is received with them: That the negative precepts of the
law, do bind, not only at all times, but likewise to all times (whereupon
it followeth, that we may never do that which is inconvenient or
scandalous), and that the affirmative precepts though they bind at all
times, yet not to all times, but only _quando expedit_, whereupon it
followeth, that we are never bound to the practice of any duty commanded
in the law of God, except only when it is expedient to be done; but Mr
Sprint excepteth against this rule,(265) that it is not generally true;
for evidence whereof he allegeth many things, partly false, partly
impertinent, upon which I hold it not needful here to insist. As for such
examples, objected by him, as carry some show of making against this rule,
which he dare not admit, I will make some answer thereto. He saith, that
sometimes even negative precepts have been lawfully violated; for these
precepts were negative,—none but priests must eat shew-bread, yet David
did lawfully violate it; thou shalt do no work upon the Sabbath, yet the
priests brake this, and are blameless; let nothing of God’s good creatures
be lost, yet Paul and his company did lawfully cast away their goods in
the ship, to save their lives, &c. _Ans._ Mr Sprint might easily have
understood, that when divines say, the affirmative precepts bind at all
times, but not to all times,—the negative precepts both at all times and
to all times, they ever mean, _specie actionis manente cadem_; so long as
an action forbidden in a negative precept ceaseth not to be evil, as long
the negative precept bindeth to all times: whereas even whilst an action
commanded in an affirmative precept, ceaseth not to be good, yet the
affirmative precept bindeth not to all times. So that the rule is not
crossed by the alleged examples; for David’s eating of the shew-bread; the
priests’ labour upon the Sabbath; and Paul’s casting of the goods into the
sea, were not evil, but good actions (the kind of the action being changed
by the circumstances). In the meantime, the foresaid rule still crosseth
Mr Sprint’s tenet; for he holdeth that even whilst certain ceremonies
remain evil in their use, and cease not to be scandalous and inconvenient,
yet we are not ever bound to abstain from them, but may in the case of
deprivation practice them, which directly contradicteth the rule.

_Sect._ 6. The position therefore which we maintain against Mr Sprint, and
from which we will not depart the breadth of one nail, is this, that we
can never lawfully conform (no not in the case of deprivation) unto any
ceremony which is scandalous and inconvenient in the use of it. For
further confirmation whereof, we say, 1. Every negative precept of the law
of God bindeth to all times, in such sort, that the action which it
forbiddeth (so long as it remaineth evil, and the kind of it is not
changed) can never lawfully be done. Therefore, forasmuch as to abstain
from things scandalous and inconvenient, is one of the negative precepts
of the law of God, and the ceremonies whereunto Mr Sprint would have us to
conform in the case of deprivation, are, and remain scandalous and
inconvenient in our practice and use of them according to his own
presupposal; it followeth, that the use and practice of the same is
altogether unlawful unto us. 2. That which is lawful in the nature of it
is never lawful in the use of it, except only when it is expedient for
edification, as teacheth the Apostle, 1 Cor. vi. 12; x. 23. The
Corinthians objected that all indifferent things were lawful. The Apostle
addeth a limitation,(266) _esse licita quatenus conducunt_, they are
lawful to be used in so far as they are expedient. 3. It is the Apostle’s
commandment, let all things be done unto edifying, 1 Cor. xiv. 26.
Therefore whatsoever is not done unto edifying ought not to be done. 4.
The Apostle saith, 1 Cor. viii. 13, “If meat make my brother to offend, I
will eat no flesh while the world standeth.” Now, put the case, the
Apostle had been hindered from preaching the gospel for his precise
abstaining from those meats whereat his brother would be offended, would
he in that case have eaten? Nay, he saith peremptorily, that whilst the
world standeth he would not eat. 5. Say not our writers,(267) that we must
flee and abstain from every thing which is not expedient for the
edification of our brother? And doth not the Bishop of Winchester
teach,(268) that in our going out, and coming in, and in all our actions,
we must look to the rule of expediency? And saith not Bishop
Spotswood,(269) “It is not to be denied, but they are ceremonies, which
for the inconveniency they bring, ought to be resisted?” 6. Dare Mr Sprint
deny that which Ames saith he heard once defended in Cambridge,(270) viz.,
that _quicquid non expedit, quatenus non expedit, non licet_: Whatsoever
is not expedient, in so far as it is not expedient, it is not lawful. Doth
not Pareus likewise show out of Augustine,(271) that such things as are
not expedient but scandalous, and do not edify but hurt our brother,
_Fiunt ex accidenti illicita et peccata, proinde vitanda_? 7. To conform
unto inconvenient and scandalous ceremonies, in the case of deprivation,
is at the best, to do evil that good may come of it; which was the
pretence of those councillors of Pope Pius V. who advised him to suffer
stews at Rome, for preventing a greater evil of abusing chaste women and
honest matrons. So the pseudo-Nicodemites allege for their abstaining from
flesh upon the days forbidden by the church, that this they do for
shunning a greater evil, which is the scandal of Papists. Our divines
answer them,(272) that evil ought not to be done that good may come of it.
But, saith Mr Sprint,(273) this rule of the Apostle (Rom. iii. 8) must be
limited,(274) and in some cases holdeth not; for a man may, for doing of
good, do that which is evil in use, circumstance, and by accident, so it
be not simply and in nature evil. _Ans._ 1. He begs the thing in question,
for that rule is alleged against him to prove that nothing which is evil
in the use of it may be done for any good whatsoever. 2. The difference
betwixt that which is simply evil, and that which is evil in use and by
accident, is in that the one may never be done, the other is unlawful only
_pro tempore_; but in this they agree, that both are unlawful; for that
which is evil by accident,(275) whilst it is such, is unlawful to be done,
no less than that which is in nature evil. 3. Divines hold
absolutely,(276) that _Inter duo vel plura mala culpæ_ (such as things
scandalous and inconvenient) _nullum est eligendum_; that though in evils
of punishment we may choose a lesser to shun a greater, yet in evils of
fault, election hath no place, neither may we do a lesser fault to shun a
greater,(277) _nec ullum admittendum malum, ut eveniat aliquod bonum, sive
per se sive per accidens_. But let us hear what Mr Sprint can say to the
contrary. He allegeth, the priests’ breaking of the Sabbath, David’s
eating of the shewbread, and the apostles’ practising of very hurtful
ceremonies; all which things being unlawful were done lawfully, to further
greater duties.

We have answered already, that the priests’ killing of the sacrifices on
the Sabbath, and David’s eating of the shew-bread, were not unlawful,
because the circumstances changed the kind of the actions. Also, that the
Jewish ceremonies used by the apostles were in their practice no way
hurtful, but very profitable. Mr Sprint allegeth another example out of 2
Chron. xxx. 18-21: To perform God’s worship not as it was written, was a
sin, saith he, yet to further God’s substantial worships, which was a good
thing, was not regarded of God. _Ans._ One cannot guess from his words how
he thought here to frame an argument, which might conclude the lawfulness
of doing some evil, that some good may come of it. Howsoever, that we may
have some light in this matter, let us distinguish betwixt these two
things: 1. The people’s legal uncleanness, when they came to eat the
passover. 2. Their adventuring to eat it, notwithstanding their
uncleanness. That they were at that time unclean, it was a sin. But whilst
they prepared their hearts truly to seek God, and repented of their
uncleanness; that in this case they adventured to eat the passover, was no
sin, because it is the will of God, that such as prepare their hearts
unfeignedly to seek him, lament their wants, and repent for that they are
not so prepared and sanctified for his worship as they ought (there being
no other thing to hold them back beside some defect of sanctity in
themselves), notwithstanding of any defect which is in them, draw near to
him in the use of his holy ordinances. As touching the former, no man will
say, that they chose to be unclean, that they might further God’s worship.
But as for the latter, repenting of their uncleanness, they chose to keep
the passover, this did they to further God’s worship, and this was no sin,
especially if we observe with Tremellius, that it is said, ver. 20, the
Lord healed the people, that is, by the virtue of his Spirit purified and
cleansed them, so that, that which was lame was not turned out of the way,
but rather made straight and healed.

_Sect._ 7. And now we leave Mr Sprint, who hath not only conformed to the
controverted ceremonies, even upon presupposal of their inconveniency, but
hath also made it very questionable,(278) whether in the case of
deprivation he ought to conform to sundry other popish ceremonies, such as
shaven crown, holy water, cream, spittle, salt, and I know not how many
more which he comprehendeth under &c., all his pretences of greater
inconveniences following upon not conforming than do upon conforming, we
have hitherto examined. Yet what saith Bishop Spotswood(279) to the cause?
He also allegeth there is a great inconveniency in the refusing of the
ceremonies, namely, the offending of the king. But for answer unto this,
look what the largest extent of the prince’s power and privilege in
matters belonging unto God’s worship, which either God’s word or the
judgment of sound divines doth allow to him, none shall be found more
willingly obsequious to his commandments than we. But as touching these
ceremonies in question, we are upon evident grounds persuaded in our
consciences, that they are both unlawful, and inexpedient for our church,
and though they were lawful in themselves, yet we may answer as the
oppugners of the Interim replied to those who urged yielding to the
ceremonies of the same,(280) surplice, holidays, tapers, &c., because of
the emperor’s commandment. That the question is not about things
indifferent, but about a main article of faith, namely, Christian liberty,
which admitteth not any yoke to be imposed upon the conscience, no not in
things indifferent. Our gracious prince who now, by the blessing of God,
happily reigns over us, will not (we assure ourselves) be offended at us,
for having regard to our consciences, God’s own deputies placed in our
souls, so far, that for all the world we dare not hazard their peace and
quiet, by doing anything with their repugnance and aversation. Wherefore,
we are more than confident that his Majesty will graciously accept from us
such a reasonable apology, as they of Strasburg used to Charles V.(281)
_Quantum omnino fieri potest, parati sumus tibi giatificari, non solum
civilibus verum etiam in rebus sacris. Veruntamen oramus invicem, ut
cogites, quoniam sui facti rationem oportet unumquemque Deo reddere,
merito nos de salute nostra solicitos esse, et providere nequid contra
conscientiam a nobis fiat._ And as the Estates of Germany to
Ferdinand,(282) when they besought him only not to grieve nor burden their
consciences. _Te quidem summum, et à Deo nobis datum magistrum agnoscimus,
et libentissime quidem, ac nihil est omnium rerum, quod non possis aut
debeas à nobis expectare, sed in hac unare propitium te nobis esse
flagitamus._ If these hoped that popish princes would accept such answers
from them, shall not we? O, shall we not be persuaded that the Defender of
the Faith will not refuse to take them from us! especially seeing his
Majesty shall ever find, that he hath none more loyal and true subjects,
who will more gladly employ and bestow their lives, lands, houses, holds,
goods, gear, rents, revenues, places, privileges, means, moities, and all
in his Highness’ service, and maintenance of his royal crown, and
moreover, have so deeply conceived a strong and full persuasion of his
Majesty’s princely virtues, and much renowned propension to piety and
equity, that they will urge their consciences by all good and lawful
means, to assent unto every thing which he enjoins as right and
convenient, and when the just aversation of conscience upon evident
reasons is invincible, will notwithstanding be more willing to all other
duties of subjection, and more averse from the least show of contempt.

CHAPTER II.

AGAINST THOSE OF OUR OPPOSITES WHO PLEAD FOR THE CEREMONIES AS THINGS
EXPEDIENT.

_Sect._ 1. As for those who allege some conveniency in the ceremonies,
they say more than can abide the proof of reason, which the induction of
some particulars shall demonstrate. Dr Mortoune(283) allegeth for the
surplice, that the difference of outward garments cannot but be held
convenient for the distinguishing of ministers from laics in the discharge
of their function. _Ans._ This conveniency is as well seen to without the
surplice. If a man having a black gown upon him be seen exercising the
function of a minister, it is very strange if any man think it not
sufficiently distinguished from laics. The Act of Perth, anent
confirmation and bishoping of children, would make it appear, that this
ceremony is most profitable to cause young children in their tender years
drink in the knowledge of God and his religion. _Ans._ 1. If this rite be
so profitable for the instruction of children, then why do prelates
appropriate it to themselves, who use to be employed in higher affairs,
that permit them not to have leisure for exact catechising of children?
Or, 2. Though they might attend the discharging of this duty; why should
it be made their peculiar? Is not the parish minister able to catechise
them? Or, 3. If it must depend upon prelates, and wait upon their leisure;
what hath imposition of hands ado with catechising? 4. How comes it, that
children who are not bishopped are as well catechised as they who are
bishopped.

_Sect._ 2. Tilen(284) setteth out the expediency of holidays, for
imprinting in the minds of people the sense and knowledge of the benefits
of redemption. _Ans._ 1. There is no mean so good for this purpose as
catechising and preaching, out of season and in season. 2. What could he
say unto them who have attained his end without his mean? I find people
better instructed, and made more sensible of those benefits, where the
feasts are not kept than where they are. 3. Think they their people
sufficiently instructed in the grounds of religion, when they hear of the
nativity, passion, &c.—what course will they take for instructing them in
other principles of faith? Why do they not keep one way, and institute an
holiday for every particular head of catechise?

But Bishop Lindsey thinks yet to let us see a greater expediency for
observing holidays. “Certainly (saith he)(285) nothing is so powerful to
abolish profaneness, and to root out superstition out of men’s hearts, as
the exercise of divine worship, in preaching, praying and thanksgiving,
chiefly then when the superstitious conceits of merit and necessity are
most pregnant in the heads of people,—as doubtless they are when the set
times of solemnities return,—for then it is meet to lance the aposteme
when it is ripe.” _Ans._ This is a very bad cure; and is not only to heal
the wound of the people slightly, but to make it the more inveterate and
festered. I might object, that little or nothing is preached or spoken by
him and his companions at the revolution of those festivities against the
superstitious keeping of them; but though they should speak as much as can
be against this superstition, their lancing being in word only, and not in
deed, the recidivation will prove worse than the disease. The best lancing
of the aposteme were not to observe them at all, or to preach against
them, which are tried to work this effect more powerfully than the
Bishop’s cure hath done; for all know that there is none so free of this
superstition as those who observe not the holidays.

_Sect._ 3. The same prelate pleadeth(286) for the expediency of giving the
communion to the sick in private houses, because he thinks they should not
want this mean of comfort, as if the wanting of the sacramental signs, not
procured by a man’s own negligence or contempt, could stop or stay the
comforts of the Holy Spirit. Nay, it is not so. We have seen some who
received not the communion in time of their sickness, end more gloriously
and comfortably than ever we heard of any who received the sacrament for
their _viaticum_ when they were a-dying. Paybody(287) thinks kneeling, in
the act of receiving the communion, to be expedient for the reverend using
and handling of that holy sacrament, and that much reverence ariseth to
the sacrament from it. _Ans._ I verily believe that more reverence ariseth
to the sacrament from kneeling than is due to it; but I am sure there is
no less true reverence of that holy sacrament among such as kneel not in
the receiving of it, than among such as do kneel. I hope it is not unknown
how humbly and reverently many sincere Christians, with fear and
trembling, do address themselves to that most holy sacrament, who yet for
all the world would not kneel in receiving it. Thus we see that these
expediences, pretended for the ceremonies, are attained unto as well and
better without them than by them. But I will go forward to show some
particular inconveniences found in them.

CHAPTER III.

THAT THE CEREMONIES ARE INEXPEDIENT, BECAUSE THEY ARE PREPARATIVES FOR
GREATER EVILS.

First, then, the ceremonies are inexpedient, because our most holy faith,
for which we should earnestly contend, received no small harm and
prejudice, and is like to receive still more and more, by their means. Our
case is not much different from the estate of the churches in Germany,
when Charles V. caused the book called _Interim_ to be published:(288)
expediency then was pretended of settling the peace of Germany by this as
the best way; but it produced a very great inconveniency, and instead of
effectuating peace, it brought forth a hotter contention, as well between
the Protestants themselves, as between them and Papists. Expediency is now
no less pretended for the ceremonies, yet no more truly. But before the
bad effects of the _Interim_ were seen, the wiser sort of Protestants(289)
wrote against it, and warned men, _ut ab eo tanquam a praesentissima peste
sibi caverent_. Notwithstanding that the emperor did straitly inhibit all
impugning of it. And Sleidane tells us,(290) the reason which made them so
mistake it was, because they thought such as were upon that course, were
opening a way to the popish religion, _per adiaphora seu res medias_, and
because(291) they wished to retain the saving doctrine _puram et salvam a
technis illorum, qui nunc dum ceremonias restaurare videri volunt,
colluviem totam doctrinae pontificiae rursus introducunt_. The like reason
have we to mistake conformity with antichrist in these ceremonies which
are obtruded upon our church, for may we not justly fear that hereby we
shall be drawn on to conform with him also in dogmatical and fundamental
points of faith. Nay, what talk I of fear? We have already seen this bad
consequence in a great part, for it is well enough known how many
heterodox doctrines are maintained by Formalists, who are most zealous for
the ceremonies anent universal grace, free-will, perseverance,
justification, images, antichrist, the church of Rome, penance, Christ’s
passion and descending into hell, necessity of the sacraments, apocrypha
books, Christ’s presence in the eucharist, assurance of salvation, &c.
Their errors about those heads we will demonstrate, if need be, to such as
doubt of their mind. In the meantime it hath been preached from pulpits
among ourselves, that Christ died for all alike, that the faithful may
fall away from grace, that justification is a successive action, that none
can be assured of salvation in this life, that images in churches are not
to be condemned, that Christ descended locally unto the place of the
damned, that the Pope is not antichrist, that Rome is not Babylon the
whore, that the government and discipline of the church must alter like
the French fashion, at the will of superiors, that we should not run so
far away from Papists, but come as near to them as we can, that abstinence
and alms are satisfactions or compensations for sin. These, and sundry
such like tenets, have not been spoken in a corner.

_Sect._ 2. How far conformity to the ceremonies of the church of Rome hath
drawn Conformists, of greatest note, to conform to her faith also, I may
give instance in the Archbishop of Spalato.(292) He holds, that many rites
of the Roman church are ancient and approvable, that others, though
neither ancient nor universal, yet, because of custom, should be
tolerated, and that few only are either to be abolished, or, by some
prudent and easy way, purged and refined. Now, will we know how far this
unity in ceremonies drew him to unity in substance, then let us hear what
is his verdict of Protestants as well as of Papists, who suffer for their
religion.(293) _Certe potius martyres mundi, quam Dei sunt, qui ex utraque
parte sub titulo conscientiae sanguinem frustra fundunt: quasi vero fides
et religio Romana, et fides ac religio protestantium sunt duae fides et
duae religiones_, &c. He tells us,(294) moreover, that if the Protestants
will not have peace with those whom they call Papists, and communicate
with them, then are they schismatics, and are not in the true church. And
in the declaration of the motives whereupon he undertook his departure out
of the territory of Venice, he expresseth his judgment of such books as
are framed against the doctrine of the church of Rome, that he held them
above measure detestable. Neither doth he stand alone in this pitch, for
among the sect of Formalists, is swarming a sect of Reconcilers, who
preach and profess unity with the church of Rome in matters of faith. For
example, they say, that that which the learned Papists hold concerning
justification, is orthodox, and therefore they will not contend against
them, except it be for their contending with us, who do agree with
them.(295)

_Sect._ 3. These Reconcilers are too far on in the way to Popery already;
but if they will be fully reconciled with Papists, they must transport
themselves altogether into their tents, because Papists will not come
forth to meet them midway. The _Interim_ of Germany tended to
reconciliation, yet the Papists wrote against it.(296) Cassander sought
this reconciliation, but Bellarmine confuteth his opinion.(297) The
Archbishop of Spalato was upon the same course of reconciliation, but his
books were condemned as heretical, in the decree given at Rome, anno 1616,
by the congregation of cardinals deputed by Pope Paul V., for the making
and renewing of the index of prohibited books. The Rhemists tell us,(298)
that they will avoid not only our opinions, but our very words which we
use. Our adversaries profess that they reject some expositions of certain
places of Scripture, against which they have no other reason but because
they are our expositions. Are their minds so aliened from us? And must we
be altogether drawn overstays to them? Are they so unwilling to be
reconciled to the prejudice of their errors? And shall we be so willing to
be reconciled with them to the prejudice of the truth? O strange and
monstrous invention! that would reconcile Christ with antichrist,—agree
the temple of God and idols,—mix light and darkness together. He had good
reason for him who objected to the Archbishop of Spalato,(299) that _qui
ubique est, nusquam est_; for instead of reconciling Protestants and
Papists, they make themselves a third party, and raise more controversy.
_O bellua multorum capitum!_

_Sect._ 4. Thus we perceive what prejudice hath arisen, and yet ariseth to
the true and saving doctrine, by the means of symbolising with the church
of Rome in these ceremonies. But because some Formalists approve not of
this course of reconciliation, they (I know) would purge the ceremonies of
the blame of it. I will therefore show, that Reconcilers are set forward
in their course of reconciliation, by means of the Roman rites remaining
in reformed churches.

G. Cassander, in his book _de Officio pii Viri_, relates unto us how he
was entered into this course, and conceived this purpose of
reconciliation, and tells, that from his youthhood, he was most observant
of ecclesiastical ceremonies, yet so, that he abhorred all superstition.
And when he had read the writers of that age, who promised some
reformation and repurgation of superstitious worships and absurd opinions,
he saith, _Mire illorum institutum placuit: qui tamen ita superstitiones
et abusiones, quae nonnullis ceremoniis ecclesiasticis admixtae erant,
exosas haberem ut ipsum ecclesiasticam politiam, quae his ceremoniis fere
constant, non sublatum et eversam, sed repurgatam et emendatam esse
vellum_. We see the first thing which induced him to a reconciliation, was
his liking which he had to popish ceremonies, and their remaining in
protestant churches, and as this course hath been attempted, so is it also
advanced by the ceremonies, for thereby people are induced to say, as they
said once, when popish ceremonies did re-enter in Germany.(300) “We
perceive now, that the Pope is not so black as Luther made him.” And as
for the Reconcilers themselves, may they not conceive strong hopes to
compass their end? May they not confidently embark in this business? May
they not with great expectation of prosperous success achieve their
project? When once they have footing upon our union with Rome in
ceremonies and church policy, they cannot but hereupon conceive no small
animosity to work out their intended purpose.

Do I talk of a chimera, and imagine now that which is not? Nay, I will
really exemplify that which I say, in that Proteus and Versipelles, the
Archbishop of Spalato, for, in the narration of the passages which were
betwixt his Majesty and him, collected by the Bishop of Durham, we
find,(301) that he thought the procuring of concord betwixt the church of
England and the church of Rome to be easy. And his reasons were,(302)
because he was verily persuaded, that the Pope would approve the English
liturgy and the public use of it, as he professed in his colloquy with the
Bishops of London and Durham, and the Dean of Winchester. And
further,(303) he told he was of opinion, that the churches of Rome and of
England, excluding Puritans, were radically one church. This made him
say,(304) “I do find here why to commend this church, as a church
abhorring from Puritanism, reformed with moderation, and worthy to be
received into the communion of the Catholic church.” In the following
words, he tells, that he could carry something out of the church of
England which should comfort all them who hate puritan strictness, and
desire the peace of the church (meaning them who desired the same
reconciliation with himself). What is more clear, than that the English
ceremonies were that which made him prosecute, and gave him hope to
effectuate a reconciliation betwixt the church of England and that of
Rome.

_Sect._ 5. But put the case, that as yet we had seen no greater evils
following upon the ceremonies, yet must they be acknowledged to be
inconvenient, because they are dangerous preparatives for many worse
things than we are aware of, and may draw after them sundry evil
consequences which are not feared. We have heard before from Spotswood,
that novations in a church, even in the smallest things, are dangerous.
Who can then blame us to shun a danger, and, fearing the worst, to resist
evil beginnings,—to give no place to the devil,—to crush the viper while
it is in the shell,—to abstain from all appearance of evil, 1 Thes. v.
22,—and to take the little ones of Babylon whilst they are young, and dash
their heads against the stones?

It matters not that many will judge us too precise for doing so. What? Do
they think this preciseness any other than that which the law of God
requireth, even observing of the commandment of God, without adding to it,
or diminishing from it, Deut. xii. 32; and keeping the straight path,
without declining to the right hand or the left? Deut. xxviii. 14; or, do
they think us more precise than Mordecai, who would do no reverence to
Haman, because he was an Amalekite, Esth. iii. 2, and so not to be
countenanced nor honoured by an Israelite? Deut. xxv. 19. Are we more
precise than Daniel, who would not close his window when he was praying,
no, not for the king’s edict, knowing, that because he had used to do so
aforetime, his doing otherwise had been both a denying of his former
profession, and an ensnaring of himself by yielding in small things, to
yield in greater, and after an inch to take an ell? Dan. vi. 10. Are we
more precise than the Apostle Paul who gave no place to the adversaries of
Christian liberty, no, not for an hour? Gal. ii. 5. Are we more precise
than David, who would not do so much as take up the names of idols into
his lips, least from speaking of them he should be led to a liking of
them? Psal. xvi. 4; or, may not the sad and doleful examples of so many
and so great abuses and corruptions which have crept into the church from
so small and scarcely observable originals, make us loath at our hearts to
admit a change in the policy and discipline of a well constitute church,
and rightly ordered before the change, and especially in such things as
are not at all necessary?

O! from how small beginnings did the mystery of iniquity advance its
progression? How little motes have accressed to mountains! Wherefore(305)
_simplicitatem Christi nos opportet colere, à qua ubi primum extulit pedem
vanitas, vanitatem sequitur superstitio, superstitionem error, errorem
presumptio presumptionem impietas, idololatrica_. We have cause to fear,
that if with Israel we come to the sacrifices of idols, and eat of
idolothites, and bow down or use any of superstitious and idolatrous
rites, thereafter we be made to join ourselves to these idols, and so the
fierce anger of the Lord be kindled against us, as it was against them,
Num. xxv. 2, 3.

CHAPTER IV.

THAT THE CEREMONIES ARE INEXPEDIENT, BECAUSE THEY HINDER EDIFICATION.

_Sect._ 1. That the ceremonies are a great hinderance to edification,
appeareth, First, In that they obscure the substance of religion, and
weaken the life of godliness by outward glory and splendour, which draws
away the minds of people so far after it, that they forget the substance
of the service which they are about. The heathenish priests laboured,(306)
_per varietatem ceremoniarum, rem in precio retinere_. The use for which
Papists appoint their ceremonies,(307) is, _ut externam quandam majestatem
sensibus objiciant_; and so are the ceremonies urged upon us,(308) though
to conciliate reverence and due regard to divine worship, and to stir up
devotion. In the meanwhile it is not considered,(309) that _mentes humanae
mirificae capiuntur et facinantur, ceremoniarum splendore et pompa.
Videmus siquidem_, saith Bucer,(310) _vulgus delectari actionibus
scaenicis, et multis uti signis_. Chemnitius marks of the cumulating of
ceremonies in the ancient church,(311) that it drew to this, _ut tandem in
theatricum ferme apparatum ceremoniae illae abierint_. Musculus reprehends
bishops for departing from the apostolical and most ancient
simplicity,(312) and for adding ceremonies unto ceremonies in a worldly
splendour and respectability, whereas the worship of God ought to be pure
and simple.

The policy, then, which in most simple and single, and least lustred with
the pomp and bravery of ceremonies, cannot but be most expedient for
edification. The king’s daughter is most like herself when she is all
glorious within, not without, Psal. xlv. 13, and the kingdom of God
appeareth best what it is, when it cometh not with observation, Luke xvii.
20, 21. But “superstition (saith Camero),(313) the mother of ceremonies,
is lavish and prodigal; spiritual whoredom, as it is, it hath this common
with the bodily; both of them must have their paintings, their trinkets,
their inveiglements.”

_Sect._ 2. Secondly, The ceremonies are impediments to the inward and
spiritual worship, because they are fleshly and external. In the second
commandment are forbidden _omnes ritus, qui à spirituali Dei cultu
discrepant_.(314) “The kingdom of God is within you,” saith Christ, Luke
xvii. 21. Now, if the Apostle, 1 Tim. iv. 8, say, that bodily exercise,
such as fasting, watching, &c., which are requisite as helps and
furtherances to the humiliation of the soul, do but profit a little, then
may we say of our unnecessary and unprofitable ceremonies, that they are
exceedingly nocent and harmful to true and spiritual worship. The Apostle
is not speaking of plays and pastimes, as Bellarmine would have us to
think. Who can believe that Timothy was so much addicted to play, that the
Apostle had need to admonish him, that such exercise profiteth little? He
is speaking, then, of such bodily exercises as in those primitive times
were used religiously, as fasting, watching, lying on the ground, and such
like; and he would have Timothy rather to exercise himself to the life and
power of godliness, and to substantial worship, than to any of these
outward things. Neither doth the Apostle condemn only the superstitious
use of these exercises, as Calvin well observeth,(315) _alioqui in totum
damnaret_: whereas he doth only extenuate and derogate from them, saying,
that they profit little. Therefore (saith he), _ut maxime integer sit
animus, et rectus finis, tamen in externis actionibus nihil reperit Paulus
quod magnifaciat. Valde necessaria admonitio, nam semper propendet mundus
in illam partem, uti Deum externis obsequiis velit colere._ But what will
some say? Do we allow of no external rites and ceremonies in divine
worship?

Saravia tells us,(316) that _dum vitia vitant stulti, in contraria ruunt_,
and that he is no less in the fault, _qui nullas in externo Dei cultu
ceremonias admittit, quae tantum decori serviunt, hominesque sui admoneant
officii, quam qui quasvis citra, delectum recipiunt, &c._ Wherefore,
because a transition from idolatry and superstition is more easy to
Atheism and the profanation of holy things, than to the golden mediocrity,
he saith, he could have wished that Beza had not generally condemned all
ceremonies without making any difference.

_Ans._ Neither Beza, nor any other, who dislike the English ceremonies,
condemneth such rites and circumstances in the external worship of God as
serve only for decency, but those sacred and significant ceremonies which
admonish men of their duty are not of this sort. What shall we say then of
such a conjunction as this, _quae tantum decori serviunt, hominesque sui
admoneant officii_? Why would not Saravin write a chronology; I say not
_magnarum_ (as others), but _mirandarum conjunctionum_, and record that at
such a time he found out the conjunction and compatibility of two things
which were ever thought incompatible in former ages, namely, rites serving
only for decency, and holy significant ceremonies admonishing men of their
duty in God’s worship? Had there been no moralist (trow we) then to note,
that decency and things serving only for decency, have place in civility
and all moral actions, in which notwithstanding there is no significant
nor admonitory sacred signs of men’s duty in God’s worship? And thus
should these two things be severed, which he hath conjoined and
confounded.

To conclude, we condemn the English controverted ceremonies which are
regarded as holy and significant, as most inexpedient, because they
derogate from the true inward and spiritual worship; for man’s nature,
saith Camero,(317) “is delighted in that which is fleshly and outward,
neglecting that which is spiritual and inward.” And this is the reason why
least spiritual, lively, and holy disposition hath followed upon the
addition of unnecessary ceremonies; and why there was never so much zeal,
life, and power of religion inwardly, in the church of Christ, as then,
when she was freest of ceremonies. This much(318) a Formalist of great
note is forced to acknowledge. Let us consider, saith he, “the primitive
church, flourishing more in times of the apostles than ever it did
afterwards. Who will not admire her great simplicity in all points, and
especially in ceremonies? for excepting the celebration of baptism by
washing of water, and of the holy supper, according to the Lord’s
institution, in taking the bread and wine, and distributing them after
thanksgiving; excepting also the imposition of hands upon those who
extraordinarily received the Holy Ghost, whether it were in a general
calling or a particular, to a charge in the church, and availing for a
miraculous effect of healing the sick; I say, these excepted, there will
not be found any other ceremony in those primitive times, so admirable was
their simplicity.”

_Sect._ 3. Thirdly, the ceremonies are a great hinderance to edification,
because they make much time and pains to be spent about them, which might
be, and (if they were removed) should be spent more profitably for godly
edifying. That which is said of the ceremonies which crept into the
ancient church, agreeth well to them.(319) _Ista ceremoniarum accumulatio,
tum ipsos doctores, __ tum etiam ipsos auditores, a studio docendi atque
discendi verbum Dei abstraxit, atque impedivit necessarias et utiles
divini eloquii institutiones._

Pulpits sound oftentimes with declamations for the ceremonies, when there
is need of pressing the power of godliness upon the consciences of people,
and when there are many more necessary things to be urged. The press also
sends forth idle discourses and defences of the ceremonies which might be
employed more profitably.

And, moreover, faithful men whose labours might be very profitable to the
church in the holy ministry, have neither a door of entrance nor a door of
utterance licentiated to them, and that because they will not consent nor
yield themselves to be the unhappy instruments of imposing this yoke of
ceremonial bondage upon the necks of God’s people. Others who have
entered, and have been both faithful and painful labourers in the Lord’s
vineyard, are thrust from their changes for no other quarrel, but that of
non-conformity. O unhappy ceremonies! woe unto you, you mischievous lets
and prejudices to the edification of the church.

CHAPTER V.

THAT THE CEREMONIES ARE INEXPEDIENT, BECAUSE THEY ARE OCCASIONS OF INJURY
AND CRUELTY.

_Sect._ 1. The ceremonies serve to be instruments of cruelty against the
sincere servants of Christ, they are used as Absalom’s sacrifice, to be
cloaks of wicked malice, they occasion the fining, confining, depriving,
imprisoning, and banishing of very worthy and good men.

Such instruments of cruelty brought into the habitation, not of the sons
of Jacob, Gen. xlix. 5, but of the God of Jacob, are to be accursed by all
who love the peace of Jerusalem, or bear the bowels of Christian
compassion within them, because they are not of Christ the meek Lamb of
God, who did not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the
street, who did not break the bruised reed, nor quench the smoking flax,
Isa. xlii. 2, 3; but they are of antichrist, to whom it is given to make
war with the saints.(320)

Surely those bowels of mercies, kindness, and forbearance, which the
Apostle requireth, as they should be in every Christian, Col. iii. 12, 13,
so chiefly _in iis qui praesunt_, as Melancthon noteth,(321) in them
towards all, but chiefly towards these who are both good Christians and
good subjects; towards these in all things, but chiefly in matters of
ceremony and indifferency. In such matters always, but chiefly when there
is no contempt nor refractory disposition, but only a modest and Christian
desire to conserve the peace of a pure conscience, by forbearing to do
that which it is persuaded is not right. Let magistrates remember well,

“Parcere subjectis et debellare superbos.”

_Sect._ 2. If there were no more but such a doleful and woeful effect as
the cruel dealing with the faithful ministers of Jesus Christ, occasioned
by the ceremonies, this is too much for evincing the inconveniency of
them.

Dr Burges, in a sermon preached before King James, related a speech of the
emperor Augustus, who commanded that all the glasses should be broken,
that no man might incur such a fright as one Pollio was put into, for
breaking one of his master’s glasses. Whereby (as he expounds
himself)(322) he meant to intimate unto that wise king, that it were
better to take away the ceremonies than to throw out the ministers for
them. Yet it is the verdict of some,(323) that the blame lieth not upon
the ceremonies, but upon ministers themselves, who leave their places and
draw all this evil upon themselves. This is even as Nabal blamed David for
breaking away from his master, when he was chased away against his will, 1
Sam. xxv. 10, and as Julian,(324) when he had impoverished the Christians,
laughed them to scorn, as if they had impoverished themselves to get that
blessing which Christ had promised to the poor.

The canon law speaketh for the Lord’s bishops, which are persecuted from
city to city:(325) _Nec ipsi in hoc peccant, quoniam non sponte sed coacte
hoc agunt: sed illi __ qui eos persequuntur, nec ipsis episcopis hoc
imputari potest, sed illis qui eos hoc agere cogunt_. How is it that they
are not ashamed, who say, that ministers have their own places and
callings, when they would fain abide in them, and with heavy hearts are
thrust from them.

_Sect. 3._ Neither is this all the injury which is occasioned by the
ceremonies, they make godly and zealous Christians to be mocked and
nick-named Puritans, except they can swallow the camel of conformity. Our
consciences bear us witness, how without all reason we are branded with
the name of those ancient heretics, from whose opinions and manners, O,
how far are we!(326) And as for ourselves, notwithstanding all this, we
shrink not to be reproached for the cause of Christ. We know the old
Waldenses before us,(327) were also named by their adversaries, Cathares
or Puritans, and that, without cause, hath this name been given both to
them and us. But we are most sorry that such as are walking humbly with
their God, seeking eagerly after the means of grace and salvation, and
making good conscience of all their ways, should be made odious, and that
piety, humility, repentance, zeal, conscience, &c., should be mocked, and
all by occasion of the ceremonies.

CHAPTER VI.

THAT THE CEREMONIES ARE INEXPEDIENT, BECAUSE THEY HARDEN AND CONFIRM THE
PAPISTS.

The Papists make advantage of the ceremonies, and thereby confirm
themselves in Popery. First, in that they use them as the bellows to blow
up the fire of contention among us, remembering the old rule, _divide et
impera_. They set us by the ears among ourselves, that they may be in
peace, and that intestine discord may make us forget the common
adversary.(328) Calvin wrote to the Earl of Somerset, _Fieri non posse qum
Papistæ superbius insolescerent, nisi mature compositum esset dissidium de
ceremonus_. Dr White saith,(329) that our strife about ceremonies is
kindled and nourished by Papists. If we were liberate from the ceremonies,
then might we do more against the Papists, and they should not insult as
they do.

_Sect._ 2. But they have yet more advantage from our Formalists, for they
like very well the course of conformity, as the way of returning to
Popery, and some of them tell us in broad terms, that they hope we are
coming fast home to them. They perceive us receiving and retaining their
Roman rites and popish policy, which makes them resolve to stay where they
are, promising, that themselves are in the surest hold, and looking for
our returning back to them. This was ere now both foreseen and foretold by
the wiser sort.

Zanchius told,(330) that he seemed to himself to hear the monks and
Jesuits saying among themselves, _Ipsa quoque Regina Angliæ doctissima et
prudentissima, paulatim incipit ad Sanctæ Romanæ ecclesiæ redire
religionem, resumptis jam sanctissimus et sacratissimis clericorum
vestibus, sperandum est fore ut reliqua etiam omnia_, &c. Papists count
all to be _Calvino Papistæ_, _i.e._, half Papists, who are not Puritans,
and daily invite them to an association with them against the Puritans, as
Parker(331) showeth out of a treatise entitled, _Concertatio Ecclesiæ
Catholicæ in Anglia contra Calvino Papistos et Puritanos_. And we may
perceive out of Franciscus a Sancta Clara,(332) that they despair of any
agreement with Puritans, yet hoping that Formalists will agree with them.
In these hopes they are still more and more confirmed whilst they observe
this conformity in ceremonies to be yet prevailing and proceeding, and not
like to take a stand. Whereupon they (poor souls) delight to stay still in
Babylon, finding us so fast turning back thither, as if we repented we
come out from thence.

_Sect._ 3. Some would here defend the ceremonies, as being most expedient
to gain the Papists, who otherwise should be the more aliened from us. O
what a fiction! As if, forsooth, hardening of them in Popery were to win
them, and fostering of them in the same were to wean them from it. Woeful
proof hath taught us, that they are but more and more hardened, and
resolutely continued in Popery by these Roman remainders among us, neither
will they, whilst they expect that we are turning back to them, do so much
as meet us midway; but they flee from us,(333) _quam longissime_; their
over-passing and over-reaching Pharisaical zeal, makes them hold fast the
least point of their religion, and adhere to the whole entire fabric of
the Roman both doctrine and discipline.

Of the gaining of the adversaries, Augustine speaketh better,(334) for if
you demand, _Unde vincantur pagani, unde illuminentur, unde ad salutem
vocentur?_ He maketh this answer, _Deserite omnes solennitates ipsorum,
deserite nugas eorum: et si non consentiunt veritati nostra, saltem pudeat
paucitatis suæ. Nulla est concedenda gratia adversariis_ (say the divines
of Germany(335)), _in mutatione ceremoniarum, nisi prius nobiscum
consentiant in fundamento hoc est, in vera doctrina et usu sacramentorum._
They that yield to the adversaries in matters of rite, _cos hoc ipso in
impietate sua confirmant_; and the adversaries _cessione ista non parum
adjuvantur_, saith Balduin. Bellarmine,(336) rejecteth Cassander’s
reconciliation,(337) for this reason among others, because, according to
the judgment of the fathers, we should not change nor innovate the
smallest matters for gratifying of heretics.

The best way, then, which we can use for winning of the Papists, is to
shine as lights in the world, Phil. ii. 15, 16, holding forth the word of
life by a pure and plain profession, to be blameless and harmless, the
sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse
nation, that so the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed, 1 Tim.
vi. 1. If thus we hold fast the profession of the truth, and walk in all
honest conversation according to the truth, so many as are ordained to
eternal life shall be converted, and made to glorify God in the day of
visitation, 1 Pet. ii. 12.

_Sect. 4._ If it be said, that the Apostle observed some Jewish ceremonies
for winning of the Jews, as we read, Acts xviii. 21; xx. 16; xxi. 26; and
that it appeareth, we may by the same reason yield to some popish
ceremonies for winning of the Papists. _Ans._ 1. There is not a like
reason of the weak Jews, who then could not have been fully instructed
concerning Christian liberty, and obstinate Papists who might have been,
and yet may be instructed, but will not. Nor, 2. Is the same to be done in
the bright shining meridian light of the gospel, which was done before the
full promulgation of the same? Nor, 3. Is so much honour to be given,(338)
and so great respect to be had to popish and antichristian rites, as to
the ceremonies which were ordained by God himself. These were to be
suffered awhile, that they might be honourably buried; to those we are to
say with detestation, “Get you hence.” Nor, 4. Can the same things be done
at Antioch which are done at Jerusalem. At Antioch Peter sinned by using
Jewish rites, because there the greatest part were Gentiles, who had both
heard his preaching and seen his practice against the ceremonies of the
Jews. But at Jerusalem Paul had to do with the weak Jews, who had heard
little or no preaching against those ceremonies, and had seen as little
practice contrary unto them. Now Scotland must not be likened to
Jerusalem, no not to Antioch; for Scotland hath been filled both with
preaching and practice contrary to the ceremonies of the Papists, yea,
hath moreover spewed them out openly and solemnly, with a religious and
strict oath never to lick them up again.

CHAPTER VII.

THAT THE CEREMONIES ARE INEXPEDIENT, BECAUSE THEY DISTURB THE PEACE OF THE
CHURCH.

_Sect._ 1. The great evils which have befallen to many famous churches,
through the means of intestine dissensions, should teach us not to admit
the occasions of the like inconveniences among ourselves; for as by
concord _minima crescunt_, so by discord _maxima dilabuntur_.

Now, the ceremonies are the bane of our church’s peace, and the unhappy
instruments of lamentable discord among brethren who should dwell together
in unity. I know that the refusers of the ceremonies are blamed, as if
they were the troublers of the peace of the church, and the tumultuating
contentious spirits who make so much ado about matters of rite and
ceremony. But I know also that none have been more ordinarily and commonly
blamed for troubling the peace of the church than they who least deserved
to be blamed for it. So was Elijah himself(339) thought to be he that
troubled Israel, when he contended against the corruptions of the church
in his time, 1 Kings xviii. 17. I will therefore observe four marks
whereby it may be known when contentions are in a church, which side is
reprehensible, and also who are to be blamed as the troublers of our
Israel.

_Sect._ 2. In contentions raised in the church, we are to consider the
motive, the measure, the matter, the manner. And, 1st. Touching the
motive: They who contend in a church reprehensibly, are moved and induced
to the course which they follow, by some worldly respect, Acts xix. 26; 1
Tim. vi. 5. Now, as for those in our church who contend for the
ceremonies, many of them are led by such _argumenta inartificialia_, as
wealth, preferment, &c., and if conscience be at all looked to by them,
yet they only throw and extort an assent and allowance from it, when
worldly respects have made them to propend and incline to an anterior
liking of the ceremonies. We do not judge them when we say so, but by
their fruits we know them. As Pope Innocent VII., while he was yet a
cardinal, used to reprehend the negligence and timidity of the former
popes, who had not removed the schism and trouble of the church of Rome,
yet when himself was advanced to the popedom, he followed the footsteps of
his predecessors, governing all things tumultuously, and making the schism
worse; so among our opposites, not a few have been overcome with ease,
pleasure, riches, favour, pre-eminence, &c., to like well of the
ceremonies which never had their first love, when they had both spoken and
disputed against them. What drew them overstays to contend for them,
except (I say not the seeking of, lest I be thought uncharitable, but)
their being sought by some worldly benefit? And how could such an one
excuse himself but by Paris’s apology, _Ingentibus ardent, judicium domis
solicitare meum._ And what marvel that Balak’s promotion, Num. xxii. 17;
and Saul’s fields and vineyards, 1 Sam. xxii. prevail with such as love
this present world, 2 Tim. iv. 10.

The popish oil and chrism were defended by Islebius and Sidonius, _ut ipsi
nimirum __ discederent unctiores_.(340) How like to them have we known
many Formalists! The best respect which Bishop Lindsey nameth for kneeling
at the communion is,(341) the eschewing the prince’s offence; but, as for
us, let it be told, who hath ever of a Conformist become a Non-Conformist,
for any worldly benefit which he might expect by his non-conformity? What
worldly respect have we to move us to refuse the ceremonies? What wealth?
What preferment? What ease? What pleasure? What favour? Do we not expose
ourselves to the hazard of all these things? Only our consciences suffer
us not to consent to such things as we see to be unlawful and hurtful for
the church.

_Sect._ 3. 2d. Let it be considered which side exceeds in contending they
are in the fault, 1 Tim. vi. 4. Now, our opposites do far overmatch us and
overstride us in contention; for, 1. They harbour an inveterate dislike of
every course and custom which we like well of, and they carp at many
deeds, words, writings, opinions, fashions, &c. in us, which they let pass
in others of their own mind. Whereas we (God knows) are glad to allow in
them anything which we allow in others, and are so far from _nitimur in
vetitum, semper cupimusque negata_, that most heartily we condescend to
apply ourselves, by all possible means, to observe them, please them, and
entertain peace with them, who impose and urge upon us an unconscionable
observation of certain ceremonies, and to do as much for them as any
ground of conscience or reason can warrant. So far as we have attained, we
walk by the same rule with them, Phil. iii. 16, and so exceed not in the
measure. 2. It may be seen that they exceed in contending with us, if we
be compared with the Papists; against them they contend more remissly,
against us more intensively. Saravia professeth(342) that he thinketh
worse of us than of Papists. He hath reason who complaineth of Formalists’
desire not to stir and contend against the Papists, and their fierceness
against their own brethren.(343) “This (saith he) is ill provided for, and
can have no excuse, that some, not to contend with Papists, should contend
with their brethren, and displease the sons of their own mother, to please
the enemies of their father, and beat not the dog before the lion, but the
lion for favour of the dog, and make the natural child to weep, while the
son of the bondwoman doth triumph.” 3. That they exceed, appeareth from
the effects of their contending; hurt and damage is a main effect of
contention. Calvin, Perkins, and Pareus, observe upon Gal. v. 15, that
contentions breed hurtful and pernicious effects, which tend to
consumption and destruction. Now, wherein do we injure or harm our
opposites in their persons, callings, places, &c.? Yet in all these, and
many other things, do they wrong us, by defamation, deprivation,
spoliation, incarceration, &c.? How much better were it to remove the
Babylonian baggage of antichristian ceremonies, which are the mischievous
means, both of the strife and of all the evil which ariseth out of it! Put
away the ceremonies, cast out this Jonas, and, behold, the storm will
cease. A wise pilot will, in an urgent storm, cast out even some precious
wares, that the rest may be safe. “And shall we then (saith Parker(344))
cast out the pilots of the ship themselves, and all to spare the wares of
Rome, which are no lawful traffic?”

_Sect._ 4. 3d. Let the matter be looked to for which each side contendeth.
“Brethren (saith the Archbishop of St Andrews),(345) to contend is not be
contentious in a light business, this is faulty.” Now, I wish it may
please him to understand that when we contend about the removal of the
ceremonies, we content for a very weighty matter; for we prove the removal
of them to be necessary, in respect of their inconvenience and
unlawfulness. They who urge the ceremonies, contend for things which are
not necessary; and we who refuse them, contend for things which are most
necessary, even for the doctrine and discipline warranted by God’s word,
against all corruptions of idolatry and superstition. That the ceremonies
can neither be purged of superstition nor idolatry I have proved in the
third part of this dispute.

_Sect._ 5. 4th. If the manner of contending be observed, our opposites
will be found reprovable, not we. We contend by the grounds of truth and
reason; but they use to answer all objections, and resolve all questions,
by the sentence of superiors and the will of the law; we contend from
God’s word and good reason, they from man’s will and no reason. This was
clearly seen at the first conclusion of the five Articles at Perth
Assembly.

Bishop Lindsey himself, relating the proceedings of the same, tells
us,(346) that Mr John Carmichell and Mr William Scot alleged, that if any
would press to abolish the order which had been long kept in this church,
and draw in things not received yet, they should be holden to prove either
that the things urged were necessary and expedient for our church, or the
order hitherto kept not meet to be retained. This was denied, upon this
ground, that it was the prince (who by himself had power to reform such
things as were amiss in the outward policy of the church) that required to
have the change made. Well, since they must needs take the opponent’s
part, they desired this question to be reasoned, “Whether kneeling or
sitting at the communion were the fitter gesture?” This also was refused,
and the question was propounded thus: “His Majesty desires our gesture of
sitting at the communion to be changed into kneeling, why ought not the
same to be done?” At length, when Mr John Carmichell brought an argument
from the custom and practice of the church of Scotland, it was
answered,(347) That albeit the argument held good against the motions of
private men, yet his Majesty requiring the practice to be changed, matters
behoved to admit a new consideration, and that because it was the prince’s
privilege, &c.

I must say, the Bishop was not well advised to insert this passage, which
(if there were no more) lets the world see that free reasoning was denied;
for his Majesty’s authority did both exeem the affirmers from the pains of
probation (contrary to the laws of disputation), and state the question,
and also answer arguments.

And, moreover, when the Articles were put in voting, the Archbishop, in
calling on the names, did inculcate these and the like words: “Have the
king in your mind—remember on the king—look to the king.” This Bishop
Lindsey passeth over in deep silence, though it be challenged by his
antagonist. Plinius proveth,(348) that _animalia insecta_ do sometimes
sleep, because sometimes when light is holden near them, yet they stir
not. And may not we conclude that the Bishop was sleeping, when, though
both in this and divers other places, such convincing light was holden out
before them, yet hath he said nothing, nor stirred himself at all for the
matter? Yet, farther, we find that Bishop Spotswood, in his sermon at that
pretended Assembly, answereth all such as cannot yield to the ceremonies
with the peace of their consciences, that without any more ado, they may
not control public judgment, but must always esteem that to be best and
most seemly which seemeth so in the eye of public authority,—that even
such rites and orders as are not rightly established must be obeyed so
long as they have the force of a constitution,—that the sentence of
superiors ought to direct us, and be a sufficient ground to our conscience
for obeying. This is the best of their reasoning, and before all fail. The
Bishop of Winchester reasoneth from bare custom.(349) Have we not cause to
renew the complaint which John Lascus made in behalf of the Protestants in
Germany,(350) _nulla cognitione causae per colloquium aut amicam
suffragiorum collationem habita, sed praejudicio tantum ipsorum sententiam
damnari_.

CHAPTER VIII.

THAT THE INEXPEDIENCY OF THE CEREMONIES, IN RESPECT OF THE SCANDAL OF THE
WEAK, MAY BE PLAINLY PERCEIVED. TWELVE PROPOSITIONS TOUCHING SCANDAL ARE
PREMITTED.

_Sect._ 1. There remaineth yet another inconveniency found in the
ceremonies, which is scandal. They hinder our spiritual edification and
growth in faith and plerophory, and make us stumble instead of going
forward. The best members of the body should be cut off when they offend,
much more the superfluous humours, such as the popish ceremonies must be
reckoned to be, Matt. v. 29, 30. And what if some wide consciences think
the ceremonies no stumbling-blocks? Nay, what if some pretend that they
edify? _Ferulae asinis gratissimae sunt in pabulo, caeteris vero jumentis
praesentaneo veneno._(_351_) It is enough to evince the inconveniency of
the ceremonies, that some are scandalised, yea, many tender consciences
are made to stumble by their means. We learn from our Master, that the
scandal of one is to be cared for, much more the scandal of many,
especially if those many be of the number of the little ones which believe
in him, Matt. xviii. 6. But for our clearer proceeding in this argument I
will premit these propositions, of which we are to make use.

_Sect_ 2. 1st. Σκάνδαλον ὀν προσκομρια, Scandal or offence is not the
grieving or displeasing of my brother, for peradventure when I grieve him
or displease him, I do edify him. Now edification and scandal are not
compatible, but scandal is a word or deed proceeding from me, which is, or
may be, the occasion of another man’s halting, or falling, or swerving
from the straight way of righteousness. _Scandalum_ (saith Jerome(352))
_nos offendiculum, vel j uinam et impactionem pedis possumus dcac quando
ergo legimus, quieunque de minimus istis scandalizavenit quempiam hoc
intelligimus quieunque dicto factove occasionem j uinoe cuiquam dederit
Scandalum_ (saith Almandus Polanus(353)) _est dictum vel factum, quo alius
detenor redditum_.

2d. This occasion of halting, stumbling, or swerving, which we call
scandal, is some times only given on the part of the offender, sometimes
only taken on the part of the offended, sometimes both given on the one
part, and taken on the other. The first sort is _scandal given and not
taken_, the second is _scandal taken and not given_, the third is _scandal
both taken and given_.

3d. All these three kinds of scandal are sinful. The first is the sin of
the offender, for it is a fault to give my brother occasion of stumbling,
though he stumble not. The second is the sin of the offended, who should
not take offence where he hath no cause. The third is a sin on both sides,
for as it is a fault to lay an occasion of falling before another, so it
is a fault in him to fall, though he have occasion.

_Sect._ 3. 4th. A scandal given, or active, is not only such a word or
deed whereby we intend the fall of our brother, but also such a word or
deed(354), _quod de sui ratione habet, quod sit inductivum ad peccandum,
puta __ cum aliquis publice facit peccatum, vel quod habet similitudinem
peccati_, John xvi. 2. Put the case: A man staying away from the Christian
assemblies and public worship of God, intending to employ his studies all
this time for the good of the church by writing, such a man doth not only
not intend the fall of others, but, by the contrary, he intendeth
edification; yet doth he scandalise them, because _ratio et conditio
operis_ is scandalous and inductive to sin.

5th. An active scandal is given (and so is faulty) many ways. If it be in
a thing lawful, then it makes our brother condemn our lawful deed, yea,
animates him by our example to that which in his conscience he condemneth,
both which are sin. If it be in a thing unlawful, then is the scandal
given and peccant, it, 1. Either our brother be made to fall into the
outward act of sin; or, 2. If he be made to stumble in his conscience, and
to call in question the way of truth; or, 3. If it do so much as to make
him halt, or weaken his plerophory or full assurance; or, 4. If it hinder
his growth and going forward, and make him, though neither to fall, nor to
stumble, nor to halt, yet to have a smaller progress; or, 5. If none of
these evils be produced in our brother, yet when, either through our
intention and the condition of the deed together, or through the condition
of the deed alone, occasion is given him of sinning any one of these ways.
_Opus nostrum_ (saith a great proctor for popish ceremonies(355)) _quoties
sive natura sua, sive superaddito accidente alicujus circumstantiae, est
inductivum proximi ad peccatum, sive causativum magni mali, sive
turbativum boni spiritualis; sive impeditivum fidei, &c., quamvis etiam
effectus non sequeretur, malum est et peccatum._

_Sect._ 4. 6th. A passive scandal, which is taken and not given, is not
only faulty when it proceedeth of malice, but also when it proceedeth of
ignorance and infirmity; and _scandalum pusillorum_ may be _scandalum
acceptum_, on the part of the offended faulty, as well as _scandalum
Pharisaeorum_. When weak ones are offended at me for the use of a lawful
thing, before I know of their weakness, and their taking of offence, the
scandal is only passive; and so we see that weak ones may take offence
where none is given, as well as the malicious. Now, their taking of
offence, though it proceed of weakness, yet is sinful; for their weakness
and ignorance is a fault, and doth not excuse them.

7th. A scandal may be at first only passive, and yet afterward become
active. For example, Gideon’s ephod and the brazen serpent were monuments
of God’s mercies, and were neither evil nor appearances of evil; so that
when people were first scandalised by them the scandal was merely passive,
but the keeping and retaining of them, after that scandal rose out of
them, made the scandal to become active also, because the reserving of
them after that time was not without appearance of evil.

_Sect._ 5. 8th. The occasion of a scandal which is only passive should be
removed, if it be not some necessary thing, and we are not only to shun
that which giveth scandal, but also that whereupon followeth a scandal
taken, whatsoever it be, if it be not necessary. This is so evident, that
Papists themselves subscribe to it; for both Cardinal Cajetan(356) and
Dominicus Bannes say, that we should abstain even _a spiritualibus non
necessariis_ when scandal riseth out of them.

9th. Neither can the indifferency or lawfulness of the thing done, nor the
ordinance of authority commanding the use of it, make the scandal
following upon it to be only passive, which otherwise, _i.e._, in case the
thing were neither lawful nor ordained by authority, should be active. Not
the former; for our divines teach,(357) that _scandalum datum_ riseth
sometimes, _ex facto in se adiaphoro_, when it is done _intempestive,
contra charitatis regulam_. Not the latter; for no human authority can
take away the condition of scandal from that which otherwise should be
scandal, because _nullus homo potest vel charitati, vel conscientiis
nostris imperare, vel periculum scandali dati prestare_, saith a learned
Casuist.(358)

10th. A scandal is passive and taken by the scandalised without the fault
of the doer, only in this case,(359) _cum factum unius est alteri occasio
peccandi praeter intentionem facientis, et conditionem facti_, so that to
the making of the doer blameless, is not only required that he intend not
his brother’s fall, but also that the deed be neither evil in itself, nor
yet done inordinately, and with appearance of evil.

_Sect._ 6. 11th. The scandal not to be cared for is only in necessary
things, such as the hearing of the word, prayer, &c., from which we may
not abstain, though all the world should be offended at us. In these, I
say, and these only, _scandalum quod oritur ex rebus per se bonis et
necessariis, non licet evitare, &c., at rerum legitimarum sed non
necessariarum dispar est ratio, &c.,_ saith a great Formalist.(360)

12th. We ought, for the scandal of the malicious, to abstain from all
things from which we ought to abstain for the scandal of the weak; for we
ought not to abstain from necessary things for the scandal of the weak, no
more than for the scandal of the malicious, and from things that are not
necessary, we ought to abstain for the scandal of the malicious as well as
for the scandal of the weak. So that weakness and malice in the offended
_non variant speciem scandali_, but only _gradum ejusdem speciei_. Both
his fault who is offended through malice, is greater than his fault who is
offended through weakness, and likewise his fault who offends the weak in
the faith, is greater than his fault who offends those who are malicious
against the faith, because as we ought to do good to all men, so chiefly
to those of the household of faith. Nevertheless, the kind of scandal
remains the same, whether we have to do with the malicious or the weak.

They are, therefore, greatly mistaken, who conclude from Paul’s not
circumcising of Titus, Gal. ii. 4, 5, that he cared not for the scandal of
the malicious. The argument were good if those false brethren had been
scandalised by his not circumcising of Titus; but they were only
displeased hereby, not scandalised. The Apostle saw that they were to be
scandalised by his circumcising of Titus; therefore, of very purpose, he
circumcised him not, because he foresaw _statim fore ut illi traherent in
calumniam_, saith Calvin.(361) _Ne eo circumciso gloriarentur evangelicam
libertatem quam Paulus praedicabat sublatam_, saith Bullinger.(362) If
they had compelled him to circumcise Titus, _falsis fratribus parata erat
calumniandi ansa adversus Paulum_, saith Pareus,(363) who also inferreth
well from this place, that we are taught to beware of two extremes, to
wit, the scandal of the weak on the one part, and the pervicacy of false
brethren on the other part: _Si enim_, saith he, _usu rerum mediarum
videmus, vel illos offendi, hoc est, in fide labefactari vel istos in
falsa opinione obfirmari omittendae potius sunt, quia tunc per accidens
fiunt illicitae._ Whereupon I throw back the argument, and prove from this
place, that Paul cared to shun the scandal of the malicious, which should
have followed upon his circumcising of Titus, as well as he cared to shun
the offence of the weak, which should have followed upon his not
circumcising of Timothy; and that Paul cared for the scandal of the
malicious is further confirmed by his not taking wages at Corinth. They
who would have been offended at his taking wages there were malicious, and
did but seek occasion against him, 2 Cor. xi. 12, yet his taking wages
there not being necessary (as appeareth from 2 Cor. xi. 9), he abstained.

Christ’s not caring for the scandal of the Pharisees is also objected, to
prove that if the thing be lawful or indifferent, we are not to care for
the offence of the malicious. But Parker answereth well:(364) “The scandal
there not cared for is, when the Pharisees are offended at his abstaining
from their washings and his preaching of true doctrine,—both of which were
necessary duties for him to do. And when he defendeth his healing on
Sabbaths, Luke xiii. 15, and his disciples’ plucking ears, Matt. xii. 7,
upon this reason they are duties of necessity and charity, he plainly
insinuateth, there is no defence for deeds unnecessary when the malicious
are scandalised. When the thing was indifferent, doth he not forego his
liberty for to please them, as when he paid tribute, lest he should offend
them, although he knew they were malicious?” Matt. xvii. 27.

Thus have I evinced a main point, namely, that when scandal is known to
follow upon anything, if it be not necessary, there is no respect
whatsoever which can justify it.

CHAPTER IX.

ALL THE DEFENCES OF THE CEREMONIES, USED TO JUSTIFY THEM AGAINST THE
SCANDAL IMPUTED TO THEM, ARE CONFUTED.

_Sect._ 1. From that which hath been said it followeth inevitably, that
since scandal riseth out of the controverted ceremonies, and since they
are not things necessary, they are to be condemned and removed as most
inconvenient. But that the inconveniency of them, in respect of the
scandal which they cause, may be particularly and plainly evinced, I come
to discuss all the defences which our opposites use against our argument
of scandal. These Formalists, who acknowledge the inconveniency of the
ceremonies in respect of scandal, and yet conform themselves to the same,
are brought in by Hooker(365) making their apology on this wise: “Touching
the offence of the weak, we must adventure it; if they perish, they
perish, &c. Our pastoral charge is God’s absolute commandment, rather than
that shall be taken from us,” &c. The opinion of such, beside that it will
be hateful and accursed to every one who considereth it, I have said
enough against it heretofore.(366)

_Sect._ 2. Wherefore I will here meddle only with such as go about to
purge the ceremonies from the inconveniency of scandal. And first, they
commonly answer us, that the scandal which followeth upon the ceremonies
is passive and taken only, not active and given, which answer I find both
impertinent and false. It is impertinent, because, put the case: the
scandal were only passive and taken, yet the occasion of it should be
removed out of the way when it is not a thing necessary, according to my
8th, 11th, and 12th propositions; and if any of our opposites will deny
this, let them blush for shame. A Jesuit shall correct them,(367) and
teach them from Matt. xvii. 27, that Christ shunned a scandal which would
have been merely passive, and therefore that this is not to be taken for a
sure and perpetual rule, _scandalum datum, not acceptum esse vitandum_.
One of our own writers upon this same place noteth,(368) that this scandal
which Christ eschewed, had been a scandal taken only, because the exactors
of the tribute-money ought not to have been ignorant of Christ’s immunity
and dignity; yet because they were ignorant of the same, lest he should
seem to give a scandal, _cedere potius sua libertate voluit. Ideo non
tantum dicit: ne scandalizentur: sed ne scandalizemus eos, hoc est, ne
scandali materiam eis demus_.

_Sect_. 3. Their answer is also false: 1. There is no scandal taken but
(if it be known to be taken, and the thing at which it is taken be not
necessary) it is also given. The scandal of the weak, in the apostles’
times, who were offended with the liberty of eating all sorts of meats,
was passive and taken, as Zanchius observeth,(369) yet was that scandal
given and peccant upon their part, who used their liberty of eating all
sorts of meats, and so cared not for the offence of the weak. Think they
then that our taking of offence can excuse their giving of offence? Nay,
since the things whereby they offend us are no necessary things, they are
greatly to be blamed.

That the ceremonies are not necessary in themselves our opposites
acknowledge, and that they are not necessary in respect of the church’s
determination, I have proved in the first part of my dispute. Wherefore,
having no necessity in them, they ought to be abolished, when scandal is
known to arise out of them.

2. Giving and not granting that the scandal of them who were first
offended at the ceremonies was only passive, yet the using of them after
scandal is known to rise out of them, must be an active scandal, because
the keeping of a thing which is not necessary, after scandal riseth out of
it, is an active scandal, though the scandal which at first rose out of it
had been only passive, as I show in my seventh proposition.

3. The truth is, that both first and last the scandal of the ceremonies is
active and given; for an active scandal is _dictum vel factum vere malum,
aut mali speciem habens, quo auctor aliis peccandi occasionem praebet_,
say our divines.(370) An active scandal is ever a sin in him who
offendeth, _quia vel ipsum opus quod facit est peccatum, vel etiam si
habeat speciem peccati_, &c., say the schoolmen.(371) A scandal given and
faulty, _id opus aut ex se malum, aut apparentur_, say Formalists
themselves.(372)

_Sect._ 4. Now to say the least that can be said, the ceremonies have a
very great appearance of evil, and so the scandal which followeth them
shall be proved to be active. The divines of Magdeburg(373) infer from 1
Thess. v. 22, _speciem mali etiam scandala conficere_. Junius
teacheth,(374) that scandal is given, _sive exemplo malo, sive speciem
habente mali_. M. Ant. de Dominis maketh(375) the scandal sin, _Ubi quis
opere suo aliquo, vel de se malo vel indifferenti, aut bono, sed cum
specie apparentis mali, proximum inducit ad peccandum, etiamsi intentio
ipsius ad hoc non feratur._

But to discover the appearance of evil which is in the ceremonies, let us
consider with Zanchius,(376) that the appearance of evil from which the
Apostle exhorteth to abstain may be expounded two ways. First, It may be
referred to the preceding words, and so meant of prophecy and trying the
doctrine of prophets or preachers, for we should beware in this matter of
all which hath any appearance of evil, that is, from all things, _quae ab
haereticis in suam sententiam, malamque consequentiam trahi possunt_. For
example, saith Zanchius, Nestorius said, that we are saved by the blood,
not of the Son of God, but of the Son of man. Now if any, suppressing that
negative, should say, we are saved by the blood of the Son of man, though
this might receive a right explication, yet it hath an appearance of evil,
because from it Nestorius might confirm his heresy. Appearance of evil
thus expounded will be found in the ceremonies in question. If a phrase or
form of speaking from which heretics may draw bad consequences, and
confirm their errors, though not truly, yet in show, be an appearance of
evil, then much more are visible ceremonies and received customs, from
which heretics get occasion to confirm their heretical errors, and
damnable superstitions, very plain and undeniable appearances of much
evil.

Now Papists confirm many of their superstitions by the English ceremonies.
Parker(377) giveth too many clear instances, namely, that by the English
cross Martial justifieth the popish cross, and Saunders the popish images.
That the English service-book is drawn by Parsons and Bristowe, to a
countenancing of their mass-book; that Rainold draweth private baptism to
a proof of the necessity which they put in that sacrament; that the
Rhemists draw the absolution of the sick, prescribed in the
communion-book, to an approbation of their absolution, auricular
confession, and sacrament of penance. To these instances I add, that the
Rhemists(378) confirm the least of their assumption of Mary for the other
feasts which the church of England observeth. And so doth J. Hart.(379)

_Sect._ 5. It will be said, that Papists have no ground nor reason to
confirm any of their superstitions by the English ceremonies. But I
answer: 1. If it were so, yet forasmuch as Papists draw them to a
confirmation of their superstitions, we should abstain from them as
appearances of evil. Eating (at a private banquet) of that which was
sacrificed to idols, did confirm an idolator and infidel in his religion,
as Pareus(380) noteth; yet from this the idolator had no reason to confirm
himself in his idolatry; but because the idolator, seeing it, might draw
it to a confirmation, the Apostle will have it for that respect forborne.
When the Arians abused trin-immersion in baptism, to signify three natures
of the three persons, Pope Gregory,(381) and the fourth council of Toledo
ordained,(382) that in Spain, thrice washing should no longer be used in
baptism, but once only. The Arians had no just reason to draw such a
signification from the ceremony of trin-immersion, yet was it abolished
when those heretics did so abuse it. If any say, that we are saved by the
blood of the Son of man, the phrase is orthodox, because of the
communication, or rather communion of properties, and the Nestorians
cannot with good reason by it confirm their heresy, yet are we to abstain
from this form of speech, in Zanchius’s judgment, when it is drawn to the
confirmation of that error.

I conclude with that which Parker(383) allegeth out of the _Harmony of
Confessions: Cum adiaphora rapiuntur ad confessionem, libera esse
desinunt_. Mark _rapiuntur_. 2. The ceremonies do indeed greatly
countenance those superstitions of Papists, because _communio rituum est
quasi symbolum communionis in religione_;(384) so that Papists get
occasion from the ceremonies, of confirming, not only those popish rites
which we have not yet received, but also the whole popish religion,
especially since they see Conformists so siding with them against
Non-Conformists, and making both their opinions and practices to be better
than we reckon them to be.

Saravia,(385) perceiving how much the popish sacrament of confirmation is
countenanced and confirmed by our bishoping, thinks it best to put the
fairest face he can upon the Papists’ judgment of that bastard sacrament.
He would have us believe, that the Papists do not extol the dignity of the
sacrament of confirmation above baptism. But he should have considered
that which Cartwright(386) marketh out of the first tome of the councils,
that in the epistle which is ascribed to Eusebius and Melciades, bishops
of Rome, it is plainly affirmed, that the sacrament of confirmation “is
more to be reverenced than the sacrament of baptism.”

_Sect._ 6. Zanchius hath another exposition of the appearance of evil,
which doth also agree to the ceremonies. The appearance of evil which
maketh scandal, and from which the Apostle would have us to abstain, may
be taken generally of all sorts of sin, and all evil things whatsoever;
for so we should abstain from all that which hath any appearance of evil;
_nullam proebentes occasionem proximo nostro aliquid mali de nobis
suspicandi_. He instanceth for example, the eating of idolothites in
Paul’s time, 1 Cor. x. Now if the eating of idolothite meats was an
appearance of evil, and so scandalous, because it gave the weak occasion
to suspect some evil of such as did eat them, much more idolothite rites
which have not only been dedicated and consecrated to the honour of idols,
but also publicly and commonly used and employed in idolatrous worship;
surely whosoever useth such idolothites, gives great occasion to his
brother to suspect some evil of him, because of such evil-favoured
appearances. And thus we see how great appearance of evil is more than
manifest in the ceremonies, which maketh the scandal active, if there were
no more; but afterwards we shall see the ceremonies to be evil and
unlawful in themselves, and so to be in the worst kind of active scandal.

_Sect._ 7. Two things are objected here by our adversaries, to make it
appear that the scandal of conformity is not active nor faulty upon their
part. 1. They say they are blameless, because they render a reason of that
which they do, so that we may know the lawfulness of it. To this
sufficient answer hath been made already by one whose answers I may well
produce to provoke Conformists therewith, because no reply hath ever been
made to them. “This (saith he(387)), if it be true, then see we an end of
all the duty of bearing with the weak; of forbearing our own liberty,
power, and authority in things indifferent, for their supportance; yea, an
end of all the care to prevent their offence, by giving them occasion _aut
condemnandi factum nostrum, aut illud imitandi contra conscientiam_,(388)
which we have so often,(389) so seriously, with so many reasons,
obtestations, yea, woes and threatenings, commanded to us throughout the
word. What needed Paul to write so much against the scandal of meats, and
against the scandal of idolothious meats? This one precept might have
sufficed, let the strong give a reason for his eating, &c. Though he hath
given many reasons to them of Corinth for the lawfulness of taking wages;
though he hath given divers reasons for the lawfulness of all sorts of
meats to them of Rome, yet neither will take wages himself, nor suffer
others to eat all sorts of meats, when others are offended. And what is
that which he writeth Rom. x.? Take and receive the weak for their
supportance, and not for controversy and disputation,” &c.

It will be said that they are to be thought obstinate, who, after a reason
given, are still scandalised. But the answer is in readiness: _Fieri
potest ut quidam nondum sint capaces rationis redditæ, qui idcirco quamvis
ratio sit illis reddita, habendi sunt adhuc propusillis_.(390) They are
rather to be thought obstinate in scandalising, who, perceiving the
scandal to remain, notwithstanding of their reason given, yet for all that
take not away the occasion of the scandal. But say some,(391) whoever
ought to be esteemed weak, or not capable of reason, ministers must not be
so thought of. Whereunto I answer with Didoclavius:(392) _Infirmitatem in
doctiores cadere posse, neminem negaturum puto, et superiorum temporum
historia de dimicatione inter doctores ecclesiæ, ob ceremonias, idipsum
probat. Parati etiam sunt coram Deo testari se non posse acquiescere __ in
Formalistarum foliis ficulneis_. The reason which they give us commonly is
will and authority; or if at any time they give another reason, it is such
an one as cannot clear nor resolve our consciences. But let their reasons
be so good as any can be, shall we be thought obstinate for being
offended, notwithstanding of their reason? Dare they say that those who
contended so much of old about the celebration of Easter, and about the
feast of the Sabbath, were not weak, but obstinate and malicious, after a
reason was given? Why consider they not, that “men may, for their
science,(393) be profitable ministers, and yet fail of that measure of
prudence whereby to judge of a particular use of indifferent things?”

_Sect._ 8. 2d. They say they give no scandal by the ceremonies, because
they have no such intent as to draw any into sin by them. _Ans._ A
scandalous and inordinate quality or condition of an action, any way
inductive to sin, maketh an active scandal, though the doer have no
intention to draw into sin. This I made good in my fourth proposition; and
it is further confirmed by that great scandal whereby Peter compelled the
Gentiles to Judaise, Gal. ii. 14. “He constrained them (saith
Perkins(394)) by the authority of his example, whereby he caused them to
think that the observation of the ceremonial law was necessary.” It was
then the quality of his action which made the scandal active, because that
which he did was inductive to sin, but we are not to think that Peter had
an intention to draw the Gentiles to sin. Cardinal Baronius(395) laboureth
to make Peter blameless, and his fact free of all fault; _quia præter
ipsius spem id acciderat_, and it fell forth only _ex accidenti et
inopinato, ac præter intentionem ipsius_. M. Ant. de Dominis(396)
confuteth him well: _Est scandalum et cum peccato, quando quis licet non
intendat peccatum alterius, facit autem opus aut ex se malum aut
apparenter, ex quo scit, aut scire debet, consequuturum alterius peccatum,
aut quodeunque malum: nam etiam dicitur illud voluntarium interpretative._

_Sect._ 9. I will yet descend more particularly to confute our opposites’
several answers and defences, which they have used against our argument of
scandal. And I begin with our Lord Chancellor: “As for the godly amongst
us (saith he(397)), we are sorry they should be grieved; but it is their
own fault, for if the things be in themselves lawful, what is it that
should offend them?”

_Ans._ 1. He does not well express scandal (whereof he is there speaking)
by grief; for I may be grieved, yet not scandalised, and scandalised, yet
not grieved, according to my first proposition touching scandal.

2. To what purpose tells he it is their own fault? Thinks he that there
are any offended without their own fault? To be offended is ever a
fault,(398) as I show in my third and sixth propositions; so that if a
scandal be not removed where it is men’s own fault that they are offended,
then no scandal shall ever be removed, because all who are scandalised
commit a fault in being scandalised. _Nihil potest esse homini causa
sufficiens peccati, quod est spiritualis ruina, nisi propria voluntas; et
ideo dicta vel facta alterius hominis possunt esse solum causa imperfecta
aliqualiter inducens ad ruinam_, saith Aquinas,(399) giving a reason why,
in the definition of scandals, he saith not that it giveth cause, but that
it giveth occasion of ruin.

3. Why thinks he that if the things be in themselves lawful, they are
purged of scandal? What if they edify not? 1 Cor. xx. 23. What if they be
not expedient? Are they not therefore scandalous, because in themselves
lawful? This shift is destroyed by my ninth proposition. And, I pray, were
not all meats lawful for the Gentiles in the apostles’ times? Yet this
could not excuse their eating all sorts of meats, when the Jews were
thereby offended.

4. Whereas he demandeth, if the things be in themselves lawful, what is it
that should offend them? I demand again, though adultery, murder, &c., be
in themselves unlawful, what is it that should offend us? Should we offend
or be scandalised for anything? Nay, then, we should sin; for to be
offended is a sin.

5. He had said to better purpose, What is it that may offend them, or doth
offend them, that it may be voided? Whereunto I answer, that there is a
twofold scandal which may be and hath been given by things lawful in
themselves (as I touched in my fifth proposition), viz, the giving of
occasion to the weak to condemn our lawful deeds, and the animating of
them to follow our example against their own consciences—both ways we may
make them to sin. The Apostle, 1 Cor. x. 29, where he is speaking of a
certain kind of idolothites which are in themselves lawful, and only evil
in the case of scandal, showeth, that if the weak, in a private banquet,
see the strong eating such meats as have been offered to idols,
notwithstanding of warning given, then is the weak one scandalised,
because, would the Apostle say, _Vel ipse etiam edet tuo exemplo,
vacillante conseientia, vel tacite factum tuum damnabit._(400) Behold what
scandal may arise even out of things which are in themselves lawful, which
also ariseth out of the ceremonies (let them be as lawful as can be). 1.
We art provoked to disallow of lawful things, and to condemn the doers as
superstitious and popishly affected. 2. We are animated by the example of
Formalists to practise conformity, which in our consciences we condemn,
and by consequence do sin, because he that doubteth is damned, and
whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

_Sect._ 10. Let us see next how the Bishop of Edinburgh can help the
cause. He will have us not to respect scandal, because it is removed by
the law. “For (saith he(401)) by obedience to a lawful ordinance, no man
gives scandal, and if any take offence, both the cause and occasion
thereof is the perverseness only of the person offended.” Tertullian saith
well, _Res bona neminem offendit nisi malam mentem_.

_Ans._ 1. I show in my ninth proposition, that the ordinance of superiors
cannot make that to be no scandal which otherwise should be scandal. If
this be not taken well from us, let one of our opposites speak for us, who
acknowledgeth that human power cannot make us do that which we cannot do
without giving of scandal, and that, in this case, the pretext of
obedience to superiors shall not excuse us at the hands of the Supreme
Judge.

2. I would learn of him what makes a lawful ordinance about matters of
fact or things to be done? Not the will of superiors, else there shall be
no unlawful ordinances (for every ordinance hath the will of the
ordainer), not the lawfulness of the thing in itself which is ordained
neither, for then every ordinance which prescribeth a thing lawful in
itself, were it never so inexpedient in respect of supervenient
circumstances, should be lawful. To a lawful ordinance then is required,
not only that the thing ordained be lawful in itself, but also that it be
not inexpedient, so that a thing may be lawful in itself, yet not lawfully
ordained, because the ordinance commandeth the doing of it, whereas there
are many things lawful which ought not to be done, because they are not
expedient, 1 Cor. vi. 12.

3. Since it cannot be a lawful ordinance which ordaineth a thing
inexpedient, it cannot be a lawful obedience which is yielded to such an
ordinance.

4. If by a lawful ordinance he mean (as it seems he doth) an ordinance
prescribing that which is lawful in itself, then his answer is false. What
if an ordinance of superiors had ordained the Corinthians to eat freely of
all meats which were in themselves clean? Durst the Bishop say that this
ordinance of superiors had been of greater weight and superior reason than
the law of charity, which is God’s law? Had no man given scandal by
obedience to this ordinance? And would not the Apostle for all that have
forbidden, as he did, the using of this liberty with the offence of
others?

5. When any man is offended at a thing lawful, prescribed by an ordinance,
the cause thereof is indeed in himself (yet it is not always his
perverseness, but oftimes weakness), but the occasion of it is the thing
at which he offendeth, which occasion should ever be removed when it is
not a thing necessary, as I showed already.

6. As for that sentence of Tertullian, it must admit the exception of a
reverend divine. He signifieth, saith Pareus,(402) scandal not to be
properly committed, save in things evil in themselves, or else indifferent
_quanquam interdum cuma bonas intempestive factas, etiam committi possit_.

_Sect._ 11. In the third place, we will look what weapons of war Dr
Forbesse produceth in his _Irenicum_,(403) falsely so called. And first,
he will not hear us touching scandal, except we first acknowledge the
ceremonies not to be evil in themselves otherwise he thinks we debate in
vain about scandal, since we have a more convenient way to exterminate the
ceremonies, by proving them to be evil in themselves, and also because,
when we are pressed with the weight of arguments, we will still run back
to this point, that nothing which in itself is unlawful can be done
without scandal.

_Ans._ 1. The argument of scandal is not vainly or idly debated, for
though we prove the ceremonies to be evil in themselves, yet fitly we
argument also from the scandal of them, because this maketh yet more. 1.
_Ad rem_, for the scandal of a thing is more than the unlawfulness of it;
every unlawful thing is not scandalous, but that only which is done to the
knowledge of another. 2. _Ad hominem_, for that we may either content or
convince our opposites, we argument _ex ipsorum concessis_, to this
purpose,—that since they yield the ceremonies to be in themselves
indifferent, therefore they must acknowledge that they are to be forborne,
because scandal followeth upon them, and they should abstain from things
indifferent, in the case of scandal.

2. Whereas he thinks we will still turn back to the unlawfulness of the
ceremonies in themselves, albeit we may justly make use of this answer,
when they go about to purge the ceremonies from scandal by the lawfulness
of them in themselves, (because the argument of scandal doth not
presuppose our concession of the lawfulness of the ceremonies, but
theirs,) yet he deceives himself in thinking that we cannot handle this
argument without it, for were they never so lawful in themselves, we
evince the scandal of them from the appearance of evil which is in
them,(404) so that, without respecting the unlawfulness of the ceremonies
in themselves, we can and do make good our argument of scandal, so far as
concerneth the ceremonies considered by themselves.

But when our opposites object, that many are scandalised by us who refuse
the ceremonies, we here compare the scandal of non-conformity, if there be
any such (for though some be displeased at it, I see not how they are
scandalised by it), with the scandal of conformity, and show them that the
scandal of non-conformity is not to be cared for, because it is necessary,
and that by reason of the unlawfulness of the ceremonies. I will make all
this plain by a simile.

A pastor dealing with a fornicator, layeth before him both his sin and the
scandal of it too. Now, as touching the scandal, the fornicator careth not
for it, because he is in the opinion that fornication is indifferent.
Whereupon the pastor thus proceedeth, If it were indifferent, as you say,
yet because scandal riseth out of it, you should abstain. And so, amongst
many arguments against fornication, the pastor useth this argument taken
from the scandal of it, both for aggravating the sin in itself, and for
convincing the sinner, and this argument of scandal the pastor can make
good against the fornicator out of his own ultroneous and unrequired
concession of the indifferency of fornication (because things indifferent,
and in the case of scandal, and when they are done with the appearance of
evil, should be forborne), without ever mentioning the unlawfulness of it.
But if in a froward tergiversation, the fornicator begin to reply, that he
also is scandalised and provoked to go on in his fornication obstinately,
by the pastor rebuking him for so light a matter, and that the pastor’s
reproof to him hath appearance of evil, as much as his fornication hath to
the pastor, albeit here it may be answered, that the pastor’s reproof is
not done inordinate, neither hath any appearance of evil, except in the
fornicator’s perverse interpretation, yet for stopping the fornicator’s
mouth, as well more forceably as more quickly, the pastor rejoineth, that
if any scandal follow upon his reproof, it is not to be regarded, because
the thing is necessary, and that because fornication being a great sin, he
may not but reprove it.

So, albeit our argument of scandal holdeth out against the ceremonies
considered by themselves, without making mention of the unlawfulness of
them in themselves albeit also when the scandal of non-conformity (if
there be any such) is compared with the scandal of conformity, we say
truly that this hath appearance of evil in its own condition, and that
hath none, except in the false interpretation of those who glory in
gainsaying.

Yet for further convincing of our opposites, and darting through their
most subtile subterfuges with a mortal stroke, we send them away with this
final answer,—You should abstain from the ceremonies when scandal riseth
out of them, because you confess them to be in themselves indifferent. But
we do avouch and prove them to be unlawful, wherefore it is necessary for
us to abstain, though all the world should be offended.

_Sect._ 12. The Doctor(405) proceedeth to throw back the argument of
scandal upon our own heads, and to charge us with scandalising both the
church and commonwealth by our refusing the ceremonies. But what? should a
doctor be a dictator? or a proctor a prater? Why, then, doth he ventilate
words for reason? That some are displeased at our non-conformity, we
understand to our great grief; but that thereby any are scandalised, we
understand not; and if we did, yet that which is necessary, such as
non-conformity is, can be taken away by no scandal.

But the Doctor(406) goeth forward, denying that there is in the ceremonies
so much as any appearance of evil, to make them scandalous. Where I
observe, that he dare not adventure to describe how a thing is said to
have appearance of evil, and consequently a scandalous condition. The man
is cautelous, and perceiveth, peradventure, that the appearance of evil
can be made to appear no other thing than that which doth more than appear
in the ceremonies. And this I have heretofore evinced out of Zanchius.

The Doctor(407) holdeth him upon kneeling in receiving the sacramental
elements, and denieth that it is scandalous, or any way inductive to
spiritual ruin. But (if he will) he may consider that the ruder sort, who
cannot distinguish betwixt worshipping the bread, and worshipping before
the bread, nor discern how to make Christ the passive object of that
worship and the bread the active, and how to worship Christ in the bread,
and make the worship relative from the bread to Christ, are, by his
example, induced to bread-worship, when they perceive bowing down before
the consecrated bread in the very same form and fashion wherein Papists
are seen to worship it, but cannot conceive the nice distinctions which he
and his companions use to purge their kneeling in that act from idolatry.
As for others who have more knowledge, they are also induced to ruin,
being animated by his example to do that which their consciences do
condemn.

There occurreth next an objection, taken from Paul’s not taking wages at
Corinth (though he might lawfully), for shunning the offence both of the
malicious and the weak; in the solution whereof the Doctor(408) spendeth
some words. The substance of his answer is this, that Paul taught it was
lawful to take wages, and that they should not be offended at it; and if
we do as he did, we must teach that the ceremonies are lawful in
themselves, yet not using our power for the time, lest the weak be
offended, or lest the malicious glory: but for all that, not denying our
right and liberty, nor suffering a yoke of bondage to be imposed upon us
by contumacious men. And, besides, that the Apostle was commanded by no
ecclesiastical decree to take wages from the Corinthians, as we are
commanded by the decree of Perth to receive the five Articles; so that
Paul might, without contempt of ecclesiastical authority, abstain from
taking of wages, but we cannot, without contempt of the church, reject the
Articles.

_Ans._ 1. This importeth, that if the question were not _de jure_, and if
we disliked the ceremonies, and were offended at them, for some other
reason than their unlawfulness, for this offence they would abstain. It
may be his reverend fathers return him small thanks for this device. For
let some men be brought forth, acknowledging the ceremonies to be in
themselves indifferent, yet offended at them for their inexpediency,
whether they be weak or malicious, the Doctor thinks he should abstain for
their cause.

2. How knows he that they who were offended at Paul’s taking of wages at
Corinth, thought not his taking of wages there unlawful, even as we think
the ceremonies unlawful?

3. Why judgeth he that we are not scandalised through weakness, but
through malice and contumacy? So he giveth it forth both in this place and
elsewhere.(409) Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant?

But, 4. If we were malicious in offending at the ceremonies as things
unlawful, and in urging of non-conformity as necessary, should they
therefore contemn our being scandalised? Those that would have Titus
circumcised, were they not malicious? Did they not urge circumcision as
necessary? Held they it not unlawful not to circumcise Titus? Yet did the
Apostle abstain because they were to be scandalised, that is, made worse
and more wicked calumniators by the circumcising of Titus, as I have
showed;(410) so that albeit we know not to take care for the displeasing
of men that maliciously (as necessary) abstaining from that which is
lawful to be done, yet must we take care for scandalising them and making
them worse; rather, ere that be, we ought to abstain from the use of our
liberty.

5. If an ecclesiastical decree had commanded Paul at that time to take
wages at Corinth, the Doctor thinks he had contemned ecclesiastical
authority in not taking wages, though some should be offended at his
taking wages. What! could an ecclesiastical decree command Paul to take
wages in the case of scandal? or could he have obeyed such a decree in the
case of scandal? We have seen before that no human authority can make that
no scandal which otherwise were scandal, so that Paul had not contemned
ecclesiastical authority by not obeying their command in this case of
scandal which had followed by his obeying, for he had not been bound to
obey, nay, he had been bound not to obey in such a case, yea, further,
albeit scandal had not been to follow by his taking wages, yet he had no
more contemned the church by not obeying a command to take wages than he
had done by living unmarried, if the church had commanded him to marry.
The bare authority of the church could neither restrain his liberty nor
ours in things indifferent, when there is no more to bind but the
authority of an ordinance.

6. Why holds he us contemners of the church for not receiving the five
Articles of Perth? We cannot be called contemners for not obeying, but for
not subjecting ourselves, wherewith we cannot be charged. Could he not
distinguish betwixt subjection and obedience? Art thou a Doctor in Israel,
and knowest not these things? Nil, art thou a Conformist, and knowest not
what thy fellow Conformists do hold?

_Sect._ 13. One point more resteth, at which the Doctor(411) holdeth him
in this argument, namely, that for the offence of the weak necessary
things are not to be omitted, such as is obedience to superiors, but their
minds are to be better informed.

_Ans._ 1. Obedience to superiors cannot purge that from scandal which
otherwise were scandal, as we have seen before.(412)

2. That information and giving of a reason cannot excuse the doing of that
out of which scandal riseth, we have also proved already.(413)

3. That the ordinance of superiors cannot make the ceremonies necessary, I
have proved in the first part of this dispute. This is given for one of
the chief marks of the man of sin,(414) “That which is indifferent, he by
his laws and prohibitions maketh to be sin;” and shall they who profess to
take part with Christ against antichrist, do no less than this? It will be
replied, that the ceremonies are not thought necessary in themselves, nor
non-conformity unlawful in itself, but only in respect of the church’s
ordinance. Just so the Papists profess,(415) that the omission of their
rites and observances is not a sin in itself, but only in respect of
contemning the church’s customs and commandments. How comes it, then, that
they are not ashamed to pretend such a necessity for the stumbling-blocks
of those offending ceremonies among us, as Papists pretend for the like
among them?

_Sect._ 14. But the English Formalists have here somewhat to say, which we
will hear. Mr Hooker tells us,(416) that ceremonies are scandalous, either
in their very nature, or else through the agreement of men to use them
unto evil; and that ceremonies of this kind are either devised at first
unto evil, or else having had a profitable use, they are afterwards
interpreted and wrested to the contrary. As for the English ceremonies, he
saith, that they are neither scandalous in their own nature, nor because
they were devised unto evil, nor yet because they of the church of England
abuse them unto evil.

_Ans._ 1. Though all this were true, yet forasmuch as they have been
abused by the Papists unto idolatry and superstition, and are monuments of
Popery, the trophies of Antichrist, and the relics of Rome’s whorish
bravery,—they must be granted, at least for this respect, to be more than
manifest appearances of evil, and so scandalous.

But secondly, It is false which he saith; for kneeling in receiving the
communion is, in its own nature, evil and idolatrous, because religious
adoration before a mere creature, which purposely we set before us in the
act of adoring, to have state in the worship, especially if it be an
actual image in that act representing Christ to us (such as the bread in
the act of receiving) draweth us within the compass of co-adoration or
relative worship, as shall be copiously proved afterwards.

Other of the ceremonies that are not evil in their own nature, yet were
devised to evil; for example, the surplice. The replier(417) to Dr
Mortoune’s particular defence, observeth, that this superstition about
apparel in divine worship, began first among the French bishops, unto whom
Cælestinus writeth thus:—_Discernendi, &c._ “We are to be distinguished
from the common people and others by doctrine, not by garment,—by
conversation, not by habit,—by the purity of mind, not by attire; for if
we study to innovation, we tread under foot the order which hath been
delivered unto us by our fathers, to make place to idle superstitions;
wherefore we ought not to lead the minds of the faithful into such things,
for they are rather to be instructed than played withal; neither are we to
blind and beguile their eyes, but to infuse instructions into their
minds.” In which words Cælestinus reprehends this apparel, as a novelty
which tended to superstition, and made way to the mocking and deceiving of
the faithful.

Lastly, Whereas he saith the ceremonies are not abused by them in England,
I instance the contrary in holidays. Perkins saith,(418) that the feast of
Christ’s nativity, so commonly called, is not spent in praising the name
of God, but in rifling, dicing, carding, masking, mumming, and in all
licentious liberty, for the most part, as though it were some heathen
feast of Ceres or Bacchus. And elsewhere(419) he complaineth of the great
abuses of holidays among them.

_Sect._ 15. As touching the rule which is alleged against the ceremonies
out of Paul’s doctrine, namely, that in those things from which we may
lawfully abstain, we should frame the usage of our liberty with regard to
the weakness of our brethren. Hooker answereth to it, 1. That the weak
brethren among them were not as the Jews, who were known to be generally
weak, whereas, saith he, the imbecility of ours is not common to so many,
but only here and there some such an one is found. 2. He tells us that
these scandalous meats, from which the Gentiles were exhorted to abstain
for fear of offending the Jews, cannot represent the ceremonies, for their
using of meats was a matter of private action in common life, where every
man was free to order that which himself did, but the ceremonies are
public constitutions for ordering the church, and we are not to look that
the church is to change her public laws and ordinances, made according to
that which is judged ordinarily and commonly fittest for the whole,
although it chance that, for some particular men, the same be found
inconvenient, especially when there may be other remedies also against the
sores of particular inconveniences. Let them be better instructed.

_Ans._ 1. This is bad divinity that would make us not regard the
scandalising of a few particular men. Christ’s woe striketh not only upon
them who offend many, but even upon them who offend so much as one of his
little ones, Matt. xviii 6.

2. That which he saith of the few in England, and not many, who are
scandalised by the ceremonies, hath been answered by a countryman of his
own.(420) And as for us, we find most certainly that not a few, but many,
even the greatest part of Scotland, one way or other, are scandalised by
the ceremonies. Some are led by them to drink in superstition, and to fall
into sundry gross abuses in religion, others are made to use them
doubtingly, and so damnably. And how many who refuse them are animated to
use them against their consciences, and so to be damned? Who is not made
to stumble? And what way do they not impede the edificatlon of the church?

3. What if there had been a public constitution, commanding the Gentiles
to eat all meats freely, and that this hath been judged ordinarily and
commonly fittest for the whole, even to signify the liberty of the church
of the New Testament? Should not the Gentiles, notwithstanding of this
constitution, have abstained because of the scandal of the Jews? How comes
it then, that that which the Apostle writeth against the scandal of meats,
and the reasons which he giveth, are found to hold over good, whether
there be a constitution or not?

4. As for his remedy against the scandal of particular men, which is to
instruct them better, it hath been answered before.(421)

_Sect._ 16. Now, if I reckon Paybody to be no body, perhaps some body will
not take it well. I will therefore examine how he handleth this argument.
Four things are answered by him(422) to those places, Rom. xiv. 16; 1 Cor.
viii. 10; Matt. xviii. 6, which are alleged against the use of things
indifferent, when we cannot use them without scandal.

First, he saith, that all those Scriptures which are quoted as condemning
the scandalising of others in things indifferent, speak only of
scandalising them who are weak.

_Ans._ 1. Be it so, thought he, that they are all malicious, and none
weak, who are offended by the ceremonies. He himself describeth the weak
whom we are forbidden to scandalise, to be such as are weak in knowledge
and certainty of the truth. Now there are many who are in this respect
weak, scandalised by the ceremonies. But I say, moreover, that his
description is imperfect; for there are some who know the truth, and that
certainly, who are, notwithstanding, to be accounted weak, in regard of
the defect of that prudence which should guide, and that stability which
should accompany all their actions, in the particular usage of such things
as they know certainly, in their general kind, to be agreeable to truth
and righteousness. Such Christians are impeded by the ceremonies from
going on in their Christian course so fast as otherwise they would, if not
also made to waver or stumble. And thus are they properly scandalised
according to my fifth proposition. _Si quis nostra culpa vel impingit, vel
abducitur a recto cursu, vel tardatur, cum dicimur offendere_, saith
Calvin.(423) _Porro scandalum est dictum vel factum quo impeditur
evangelii cursus, cujus ampliationem et propagationem, totius vitae
nostrae scopum esse oportet_, saith Martyr.(424)

2. It is a fault to give offence even to the strong, or else Peter was not
to be blamed for giving offence to Christ, Matt. xvi. 23. Yea, it is a
fault to offend the very malicious by things that are not necessary, as I
have proved in my twelfth proposition.

_Sect._ 17. Secondly, saith he, all those Scriptures condemn only the
scandal of the weak which is made at that time when we know they will be
scandalised.

_Ans._ 1. If he speak of certain and infallible knowledge, none but God
knoweth whether a man shall be scandalised or not, by that which we are to
do. He must mean, therefore, of such knowledge as we can have of the event
of our actions, and so his answer bringeth great damage to his own cause.
Formalists know that then weak brethren have been of a long time
scandalised by the ceremonies, and they hear them professing that they are
yet scandalised, and how then can they but know that scandal will still
follow upon that which they do?

2. Albeit they know not that their brethren will be scandalised by the
ceremonies, yea, albeit then brethren should not be scandalised thereby,
yet because the ceremonies are appearances of evil, inductive to sin, and
occasions of ruin, scandal is given by them, whether it be taken by their
brethren or not, according to my fourth and fifth propositions.

_Sect._ 18. Thirdly, saith Paybody, all those Scriptures condemn only that
offence of another in things indifferent, which is made by him who is at
liberty and not bound, they speak not of using or refusing those things,
as men are tied by the commandment of authority. Where he laboureth to
prove that obedience to the magistrate in a thing indifferent is a better
duty than the pleasing of a private person in such a thing.

_Ans._ 1. I have proved heretofore, that the commandment of authority
cannot make the use of a thing indifferent to be no scandal, which
otherwise were scandal.

2. I have also proved in the first part of this dispute, that an
ecclesiastical constitution cannot bind us, nor take away our liberty in
the using or not using of a thing indifferent in itself, except some other
reason be showed us than the bare authority of the church. As touching the
civil magistrate’s place and power to judge and determine in things
pertaining to the worship of God, we shall see it afterwards, and so shall
we know how far his decisions and ordinances in this kind of things have
force to bind us to obedience.

3. He should have proved that obedience to the magistrate in a thing
indifferent, is a better duty than abstaining from that which scandaliseth
many Christians. He should not have opposed pleasing and scandalising (for
perhaps a man is most scandalised when he is most pleased), but edifying
and scandalising, according to my first proposition. Now, will anybody
except Paybody say, that obedience to the magistrate in a thing
indifferent, out of which scandal riseth, is a better duty than forbearing
for the edification of many Christian souls, and for shunning to
scandalise them. This we must take to be his meaning, or else he saith
nothing to the purpose.

_Sect._ 19. His fourth answer is, that all those scriptures condemning
scandal, must needs especially condemn that which is greatest. Peter and
his companions coming to Antioch, were in danger of a double scandal;
either of the Jews by eating with the Gentiles, which was the less, or of
the Gentiles in refusing their company, as if they had not been brethren,
which was far the greater. Now Paul blamed Peter very much, that for the
avoiding the lesser scandal, he and his companions fell into the greater.

_Ans._ 1. He is greatly mistaken whilst he thinks that a man can be so
straitened betwixt two scandals, that he cannot choose but give the one of
them. For, _nulla datur talis perplexitas, ut necessarium sit pro homini
sive hoc sive illud faciat, scandalum alicui dare_.(425)

2. That sentence of choosing the least of two evils, must be understood of
evils of punishment, not of evils of sin, as I showed before,(426) so that
he is in a foul error whilst he would have us to choose the least of two
scandals.

3. As for the example which he allegeth, he deceiveth himself to think
that Peter had given scandal to the Jews by his eating with the Gentiles.
_Cum Gentibus cibum capiens, recte utebatur libertate Christiana_, say the
Magdeburgians;(427) but when certain Jews came from James, he withdrew
himself, fearing the Jews, and so _quod ante de libertate Christiana
aedificarat, rursus destruebat_, by eating, then, with the Gentiles, he
gave no scandal, but by the contrary he did edify. And farther, I say,
that his eating with the Gentiles was a thing necessary, and that for
shunning of two great scandals; the one of the Gentiles, by compelling
them to Judaise; the other of the Jews, by confirming them in Judaism,
both which followed upon his withdrawing from the Gentiles; so that by his
eating with the Gentiles no scandal could be given, and if any had been
taken, it was not to be cared for. Wherefore there was but one scandal
which Peter and his companions were in danger of, which also they did
give, and for which Paul apprehended them, namely, their withdrawing of
themselves from the Gentiles, and keeping company only with the Jews,
whereby both the Jews and the Gentiles were scandalised, because both were
made to think (at least occasion was given to both for thinking) the
observation of the ceremonial law necessary. That which deceiveth Paybody,
is the confounding of _scandalising_ and _displeasing_. Peter, by eating
with the Gentiles, perhaps had displeased the Jews, but he had thereby
edified them, though the scandal which he gave them was by Judaising;
_Judaizabat olim Petrus per dissimulationem_, saith Gerson:(428) by this
Judaising through such dissimulation and double-dealing, as was his eating
with the Gentiles first, and then withdrawing of himself, when certain
Jews came; for keeping company with them only, he scandalised the Jews and
confirmed them in Judaism, as Pareus noteth.(429) How then can it be said,
that he that scandalised them by his eating with the Gentiles? For
hereupon it should follow that there was a necessity of doing evil laid
upon Peter, so that he behoved to offend the Jews 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 is therefore plain,
that if he scandalised the Jews by his not eating with the Gentiles, as I
have showed, then had he not scandalised them, but edified them by his
eating with the Gentiles.

I perceive he would say, that the scandal of non-conformity is a greater
scandal than the scandal of conformity; and so he would make us gain
little by our argument of scandal. He is bold to object,(430) “Where one
is offended with our practice of kneeling, twenty, I may say ten thousand,
are offended with your refusal.” O adventurous arithmetic! O huge
hyperbole! O desultorious declamation! O roving rethoric! O prodigal
paradox!

Yet, I reply, 1. Though sundry (yet not ten thousand for one) are
displeased by our refusal, who can show us that any are thereby
scandalised; that is, made worse and induced to ruin? This man is bold to
say well to it; but we have solidly proved that scandal riseth out of
kneeling and the rest of the ceremonies: let it be measured to us with the
same measure wherewith we mete.

2. Put the case, that ten thousand were scandalised by our refusal, will
it thereupon follow that our refusal is a greater scandal than their
practising? Nay, then, let it be said that the cross of Christ is a
greater scandal than a private man’s fornication, because both Jews and
Greeks were offended at that, 1 Cor. i. 23; whereas, perhaps, a small
congregation only is offended at this.

3. Our refusal is necessary, because of the unlawfulness of the ceremonies
which we refuse, so that we may not receive them, but must refuse them,
notwithstanding of any scandal which can follow upon our refusal. If he
had aught to say against this answer, why is he silent? He might have
found it at home. “Our forbearance of conformity (saith Parker(431)) is a
necessary duty, there is therein no fault of any scandal in us.”

4. Our opposites should do well to assail our argument of scandal before
they propound any other argument against us; for so long as they make it
not evident that the scandal of the ceremonies, which we object, is an
active or faulty scandal, so long they cannot object the scandal of
non-conformity to us; because if the scandal (which is to be avoided) be
in their practising of the ceremonies, it cannot be in our refusing of
them.

5. We know many are grieved and displeased with our non-conformity, yet
that every one who is grieved is not by and by scandalised, the Bishop of
Winchester teacheth as well as we. “Many times (saith he(432)) men are
grieved with that which is for their good, and earnestly set on that which
is not expedient for them.” But, in good earnest, what do they mean who
say they are scandalised, or made worse by our non-conformity? for neither
do we make them condemn our lawful deed as unlawful, nor yet do we animate
them by our example to do that which, in their consciences, they judge
unlawful. They themselves acknowledge that sitting is as lawful as
kneeling; that the not-observing of the five holidays is as lawful as the
observing of them; that the not-bishoping of children is as lawful as the
bishoping of them. Do they not acknowledge the indifferency of the things
themselves? Do they not permit many of their people either to kneel or to
sit at the communion? Have not many of themselves taken the communion
sitting in some places? Have not our Conformists in Scotland hitherto
commonly omitted bishoping of children, and the ministration of the
sacraments in private places? As for ourselves we make our meaning plain
when we object the scandal of conformity; for many ignorant and
superstitious persons are, by the ceremonies, confirmed (_expertus
loquor_) in their error and superstition; so that now they even settle
themselves upon the old dregs of popish superstition and formality, from
which they were not well purged. Others are made to practise the
ceremonies with a doubting and disallowing conscience, and to say with
Naaman, “In this the Lord be merciful unto us if we err:” with my own ears
have I heard some say so. And even those who have not practised the
ceremonies, for that they cannot see the lawfulness of them, yet are
animated by the example of practising Conformists to do these things
which, in their consciences, they condemn as unlawful (which were to sin
damnably), and if they do them not, then is there no small doubting and
disquietness, trouble, and trepidation, harboured in their consciences.
And thus, one way or other, some weakening or deterioration cometh to us
by the means of the ceremonies; and if any of our opposites dare think
that none of us can be so weak as to stumble or take any harm in this
kind, because of the ceremonies, we take God himself to witness, who shall
make manifest the counsels of the heart, that we speak the truth, and lie
not.

Finally, Let that be considered which divines observe to be the perpetual
condition of the church,(433) namely, that as in any other family there
are found some great, some small, some strong, some weak, some wholesome,
some sickly, so still is there found such an inequality in the house of
God, which is the church,—and that because some are sooner, some are later
called, some endued with more gifts of God, and some with fewer.(434)

THE THIRD PART.

AGAINST THE LAWFULNESS OF THE CEREMONIES.

CHAPTER I.

THAT THE CEREMONIES ARE UNLAWFUL, BECAUSE SUPERSTITIOUS, WHICH IS
PARTICULARLY INSTANCED IN HOLIDAYS, AND MINISTERING THE SACRAMENTS IN
PRIVATE PLACES.

_Sect._ 1. The strongest tower of refuge to which our opposites make their
main recourse, is the pretended lawfulness of the ceremonies, which now we
are to batter down and demolish, and so make it appear how weak they are
even where they think themselves strongest.

My first argument against the lawfulness of the ceremonies I draw from the
superstition of them. I cannot marvel enough how Dr Mortoune and Dr Burges
could think to rub the superstition upon Non-conformists, whom they set
forth as fancying their abstinence from the ceremonies to be a singular
piece of service done to God, placing religion in the not using of them,
and teaching men to abstain from them for conscience’ sake. Dr Ames(435)
hath given a sufficient answer, namely, that abstaining from sin is one
act of common obedience, belonging as well to things forbidden in the
second table, as to those forbidden in the first; and that we do not
abstain from those ceremonies but as from other unlawful corruptions, even
out of the compass of worship. We abstain from the ceremonies even as from
lying, cursing, stealing, &c. Shall we be holden superstitious for
abstaining from things unlawful? The superstition therefore is not on our
side, but on theirs:—

_Sect._ 2. For, 1st, Superstition is the opposite vice to religion, in the
excess, as our divines describe it; for it exhibits more in the worship of
God than he requires in his worship. Porro saith,(436) _Zanchius in cultum
ipsum excessu ut, peccatur; si quid illi quem Christus instituit, jam
addas, aut ab aliis additum sequar is; ut si sacramentis a Christo
institutis, alia addas sacramenta; si sacrificiis, alia sacrificia; si
ceremoniis cujusvis sacramenti, alios addas ritus, qui merito omnes
superstitionis nomine appellantur._ We see he accounteth superstition to
be in the addition of ceremonies not instituted by Christ, as well as in
the addition of more substantial matters. _Superstitio_ (as some derive
the word) is that which is done _supra statutum_; and thus are the
controverted ceremonies superstitious, as being used in God’s worship upon
no other ground than the appointment of men.

_Sect._ 3. 2d. Superstition is that which exhibits divine worship, _vel
cui non debet, vel eo non modo quo debet_, say the schoolmen.(437) Now our
ceremonies, though they exhibit worship to God, yet this is done
inordinately, and they make the worship to be otherwise performed than it
should be; for example, though God be worshipped by the administration of
the sacraments in private places, yet not so as he should be worshipped.
The Professors of Leyden(438) condemn private baptism as inordinate,
because _baptismus publici ministerii, non privatæ exhortationis est
appendix_. It is marked in the fourth century,(439) both out of councils
and fathers, that it was not then permitted to communicate in private
places; but this custom was thought inordinate and unbeseeming. If it be
said, that the communion was given to the sick privately in the ancient
church, I answer: Sometimes this was permitted, but for such special
reasons as do not concern us; for, as we may see plainly by the fourteenth
canon of the first Council of Nice (as those canons are collected by
Ruffinus), the sixty-ninth canon of the Council of Eleberis, and the sixth
canon of the Council of Ancyra, the communion was only permitted to be
given in private houses to the _paenitentes_, who were _abstenti_ and
debarred from the sacrament, some for three years, some for five, some for
seven, some for ten, some for thirteen, some longer, and who should
happily be overtaken with some dangerous and deadly sickness before the
set time of abstention was expired. As for the judgment of our own
divines, _Calviniani_, saith Balduine,(440) _morem illum quo eucharastia
ad aegrotos tanquam viaticum defertur improbant, eamque non nisi in
coetibus publicis usurpendam censent_. For this he allegeth Beza, Aretius,
and Musculus. It was a better ordinance than that of Perth, which said,
_non oportet in domibus oblationes ab episcopis sive presbyteris
fieri_.(441) But to return.

_Sect._ 4. 3d. The ceremonies are proved to be superstitious, by this
reason, if there were no more, they have no necessary nor profitable use
in the church (as hath been proved), which kind of things cannot be used
without superstition. It was according to this rule that the
Waldenses(442) and Albigenses taught that the exorcisms, breathings,
crossings, salt, spittle, unction, chrism, &c. used by the church of Rome
in baptism, being neither necessary nor requisite in the administration of
the same, did occasion error and superstition, rather than edification to
salvation,

4th. They are yet more superstitious, for that they are not only used in
God’s worship unnecessary and unprofitably, but likewise they hinder other
necessary duties. They who, though they serve the true God, “yet with
needless offices, and defraud him of duties necessary,” are superstitious
in Hooker’s judgment.(443) I wish he had said as well to him as from him.
What offices more unnecessary than those Roman rituals? yet what more
necessary duties than to worship God in a spiritual and lively manner,—to
press the power of godliness upon the consciences of professors,—to
maintain and keep faithful and well qualified ministers in the church,—to
bear the bowels of mercy and meekness,—not to offend the weak, nor to
confirm Papists in Popery,—to have all things in God’s worship disposed
according to the word, and not according to the will of man,—not to
exercise lordship over the consciences of those whom Christ hath made
free,—to abolish the monuments of by-past and badges of present idolatry;
yet are those and other necessary duties shut quite out of doors by our
needless ceremonial service.

_Sect._ 5. 5th. The ceremonies are not free of superstition, inasmuch as
they give to God an external service, and grace-defacing worship, which he
careth not for, and make fleshly observations to step into the room of
God’s most spiritual worship. Augustine(444) allegeth that which is
said,—“The kingdom of God is within you,” Luke xvii. against superstitious
persons, who _exterioribus principalem curam impendunt_. The Christian
worship ought to be “in spirit, without the carnal ceremonies and rites,”
saith one of our divines;(445) yea, the kingdom of God cometh not _cum
apparatu aut pompa mundana, ita ut observari possit tempus vel locus_,
saith a Papist.(446) Carnal worship, therefore, and ceremonial
observations, are (to say the least) superfluous in religion, and by
consequence superstitious.

_Sect._ 6. 6th. Worship is placed in the ceremonies, therefore they are
most superstitious. To make good what I say, holiness and necessity are
placed in the ceremonies, _ergo_, worship. And, 1st, Holiness is placed in
them. Hooker(447) thinks festival days clothed with outward robes of
holiness; nay, he saith plainly,(448)—“No doubt, as God’s extraordinary
presence hath hallowed and sanctified certain places, so they are his
extraordinary works that have truly and worthily advanced certain times,
for which cause they ought to be, with all men that honour God, more holy
than other days.” He calleth also the cross an holy sign.(449) Dr
Burges(450) defendeth that the ceremonies are and may be called worship of
God, not only _ratione modi_, as belonging to the reverend usage of God’s
prescribed worship, but also _ratione medii_, though not _medii per se_,
of and by itself, yet _per aliud_, by virtue of somewhat else. Now, do not
Papists place worship in their cross and crucifix? yet do they place no
holiness in it _per se_, but only _per aliud_, in respect of Christ
crucified thereby represented, and they tell us,(451) that _creaturae
insensibili non debetur honor vel reverentia, nisi ratione rationalis
naturae_; and that they give no religious respect unto the tree whereon
Christ was crucified, the nails, garments, spear, manger, &c., but only
_quantum ad rationem contactus membrorum Christi_. Saith Dr Burges any
less of the ceremonies? Nay, he placeth every way as much holiness and
worship in them in the forequoted place. And elsewhere he teacheth,(452)
that after a sort the ceremonies are worship in themselves, even such a
worship as was that of the free-will offerings under the law, and such a
worship as was the building and use of altars here and there(453) (before
God had chosen out the standing place for his altar), though to the same
end for which the Lord’s instituted altar served. Thus we see that they
offer the ceremonies as worship to God: yet put the case they did not, the
school saith,(454) that a thing belongeth to the worship of God, _vel quo
ad offerendum, vel quo ad assumendum_. Whereupon it followeth, that
superstition is not only to be laid to their charge who offer to God for
worship that which he hath not commanded, but theirs also who assume in
God’s worship the help of anything as sacred or holy which himself hath
not ordained. 2. They place as great a necessity in the ceremonies as
Papists place in theirs, whereby it shall also appear now superstitiously
they place worship in them; for _quaecunque observatio quasi necessaria
commendatur, continuo censetur ad cultum Dei pertinere_, saith
Calvin.(455) The Rhemists think,(456) that meats of themselves, or of
their own nature, do not defile, “but so far as by accident they make a
man to sin; as the disobedience of God’s commandment, or of our superiors,
who forbid some meats for certain times and causes, is a sin.” And they
add, “that neither flesh nor fish of itself doth defile, but the breach of
the church’s precept defileth.” Aquinas(457) defendeth that trin-immersion
is not _de necessitate baptismi_, only he thinks it a sin to baptise
otherwise, because this rite is instituted and used by the church. Do not
Formalists place the same necessity in the ceremonies, while, as they say,
they urge them not as necessary in themselves, but only as necessary in
respect of the determination of the church, and the ordinance of those who
are set over us? Nay, Papists place not so great necessity in many
ordinances of their church as Formalists place in the ceremonies. If the
cause be doubtful, Aquinas(458) sends a man to seek a dispensation from
the superior. But _si causa sit evidens, per seipsum licite potest homo
statuti observantiam praeterire_. What Formalist dare yield us such
liberty, as by ourselves, and without seeking a dispensation from
superiors, to neglect the observation of their statutes, when we see
evident cause for so doing? They think that we have no power at our own
hand to judge that we have an evident cause of not obeying those who are
set over us; yet this much is allowed by this Papist, who also elsewhere
acknowledged(459) that there is nothing necessary in baptism but the form,
the minister, and the washing of water, and that all the other ceremonies
which the church of Rome useth in baptism are only for solemnity.
Bellarmine saith,(460) that the neglecting and not observing the
ceremonies of the church, with them is not a mortal sin, except it proceed
_ex contemptu_. And that he who, entering into a church, doth not asperge
himself with holy water, sinneth not,(461) if so be he do it _circa
contemptum_. Now, to be free of contempt will not satisfy our Formalists,
except we obey and do that very same thing which we are commanded to do.
Cornelius Jansenius,(462) commenting upon these words, “In vain do they
worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men,” saith, that
the commandments of men there forbidden and condemned, are those which
command nothing divine, but things merely human; and therefore he pleadeth
for the constitutions of the church about feasts, choice of meats,
festivities, &c., and for obedience to the same upon no other ground than
this, because _pius quisque facile videt quam habeant ex scripturis
originem et quomodo eis consonant, eo quod faciant ad __ carnis
castigationem et temperantiam, aut ad fidelium unionem et edificationem_.
I know it to be false which this Papist affirmeth; yet in that he thus
pleadeth for those constitutions of the church from Scripture and reason,
forsaking the ground of human authority, he is a great deal more modest
and less superstitious than those our opposites, who avouch the ceremonies
as necessary, and will have us bound to the practice of them upon no other
ground than the bare will and authority of superiors, who have enjoined
them, as hath been shown in the first part of this dispute. Yea, some of
them place a certain and constant necessity in the ceremonies themselves,
even beside and without the church’s constitution (which is more than
Papists have said of their ceremonies). Dr Forbesse(463) calleth the
Articles of Perth, _pauca necessaria_, &c., a few things necessary for
God’s glory, and the promoting of piety in our church, for order, peace,
unity, and charity; and particularly he teacheth, that a minister may not
lawfully omit to administer the sacraments in private places, and without
the presence of the congregation, to such as through sickness cannot come
to the public assemblies; which he calleth, _eis necessaria ministrare_.
To say the truth, the ministration of the sacraments in private places
importeth a necessity in the matter itself, for which cause the divines of
Geneva resolved(464) that in _Ecclesiis publice institutis_, baptism might
not be administered in private places, but only publicly in the
congregation of the faithful, _partim ne sacramenta, &c._, “partly (say
they) lest the sacraments, being separate from the preaching of the word,
should be again transformed in certain magical ceremonies, as in Popery it
was; partly that the gross superstition of the absolute necessity of
external baptism may be rooted out of the minds of men.” Sure, the
defenders of private baptism place too great necessity in that sacrament.
Hooker plainly insinuates(465) the absolute necessity of outward baptism,
at least in wish or desire, which is the distinction of the schoolmen, and
followed by the modern Papists to cloak their superstition. But whatsoever
show it hath, it was rightly impugned in the Council of Trent(466) by
Marianarus, who alleged against it that the angel said to Cornelius his
prayers were acceptable to God, before ever he knew of the sacrament of
baptism; so that, having no knowledge of it, he could not be said to have
received it, no not in vow or wish; and that many holy martyrs were
converted in the heat of persecution, by seeing the constancy of others,
and presently taken and put to death, of whom one cannot say, but by
divination, that they knew the sacraments, and made a vow.

_Sect._ 7. 7th. I will now apply this argument, taken from superstition,
particularly to holidays. _Superstitiosum esse docemus_, saith Beza,(467)
_arbitrari unum aliquem diem altero sanctiorem_. Now I will show that
Formalists observe holidays, as mystical and holier than other days,
howbeit Bishop Lindsey thinks good to dissemble and deny it.(468) “Times
(saith he) are appointed by our church for morning and evening prayers in
great towns; hours for preaching on Tuesday, Thursday, &c.; hours for
weekly exercises of prophecying, which are holy in respect of the use
whereunto they are appointed; and such are the five days which we esteem
not to be holy, for any mystic signification which they have, either by
divine or ecclesiastical institution, or for any worship which is
appropriated unto them, that may not be performed at another time, but for
the sacred use whereunto they are appointed to be employed as
circumstances only, and not as mysteries.” _Ans._ This is but falsely
pretended, for as Didoclavius observeth,(469) _aliud est deputare, aliud
dedicare, aliud sanctificare_. Designation or deputation is when a man
appoints a thing for such an use, still reserving power and right to put
it to another use if he please; so the church appointeth times and hours
for preaching upon the week-days, yet reserving power to employ those
times otherwise, when she shall think fit. Dedication is when a man so
devotes a thing to some pious or civil use, that he denudes himself to all
right and title which thereafter he might claim unto it, as when a man
dedicates a sum of money for the building of an exchange, a judgment-hall,
&c., or a parcel of ground for a church, a churchyard, a glebe, a school,
an hospital, he can claim no longer right to the dedicated thing.
Sanctification is the setting apart of a thing for a holy and religious
use, in such sort that hereafter it may be put to no other use, Prov. xx.
25. Now whereas times set apart for ordinary and weekly preaching, are
only designed by the church for this end and purpose, so that they are not
holy, but only for the present they are applied to an holy use; neither is
the worship appointed as convenient or beseeming for those times, but the
times are appointed as convenient for the worship. Festival days are holy
both by dedication and consecration of them; and thus much the Bishop
himself forbeareth not to say,(470) only he laboureth to plaster over his
superstition with the untempered mortar of this quidditative distinction,
that some things are holy by consecration of them to holy and mystical
uses,(471) as water in baptism, &c., but other things are made holy by
consecration of them to holy political uses. This way, saith he, the
church hath power to make a thing holy, as to build and consecrate places
to be temples, houses to be hospitals; to give rent, lands, money and
goods, to the ministry and to the poor; to appoint vessels, and vestures,
and instruments for the public worship, as table, table-cloths, &c. _Ans._
1. The Bishop, I see, taketh upon him to coin new distinctions at his own
pleasure; yet they will not, I trust, pass current among the judicious. To
make things holy by consecration of them to holy uses for policy, is an
uncouth speculation, and, I dare say, the Bishop himself comprehendeth it
not. God’s designation of a thing to any use, which serves for his own
glory, is called the sanctification of that thing, or the making of it
holy, and so the word is taken, Isa. xiii. 3; Jer. i. 5, as G. Sanctius
noteth in his commentaries upon these places; and Calvin, commenting upon
the same places, expoundeth them so likewise; but the church’s appointing
or designing of a thing to an holy use, cannot be called the making of it
holy. It must be consecrated at the command of God, and by virtue of the
word and prayer: thus are bread and wine consecrated in the holy supper,
_Res sacrae_, saith Fennerus,(472) _sunt quae Dei verbo in praedictum usum
sanctificatae et dedicatae sunt_. Polanus, speaking of the sacramental
elements, saith,(473) _Sanctificatio rei terrenae est actio ministri, qua
destinat __ rem terrenam ad sanctum usum, ex mandato Dei, &c._ The
Professors of Leyden(474) call only such things, persons, times and places
holy, as are consecrated and dedicated to God and his worship, and that
_divina praescriptione_. If our ordinary meat and drink cannot be
sanctified to us, so that we may lawfully, and with a good conscience, use
those common things, but by the word of God and prayer, how then shall
anything be made holy for God’s worship but by the same means? 1 Tim. iv.
5. And, I pray, which is the word, and which be the prayers, that make
holy those things which the Bishop avoucheth for things consecrated and
made holy by the church, namely, the ground whereupon the church is built,
the stones and timber of an hospital; the rents, lands, money, or goods
given to the ministry and the poor; the vessels, vestures, tables,
napkins, basons, &c., appointed for the public worship.

_Sect._ 8. 2d. Times, places and things, which the church designeth for
the worship of God, if they be made holy by consecration of them to holy
political uses, then either they may be made holy by the holy uses to
which they are to be applied, or else by the church’s dedicating of them
to those uses. They cannot be called holy by virtue of their application
to holy uses; for then (as Ames argueth(475)) the air is sacred, because
it is applied to the minister’s speech whilst he is preaching, then is the
light sacred which is applied to his eye in reading, then are his
spectacles sacred which are used by him reading his text, &c. But neither
yet are they holy, by virtue of the church’s dedicating of them to those
uses for which she appointed them; for the church hath no such power as by
her dedication to make them holy. P. Martyr(476) condemneth the dedication
or consecration (for those words he useth promiscuously) whereby the
Papists hallow churches, and he declareth against it the judgment of our
divines to be this, _Licere, imo jure pietatis requiri, ut in prima
cujusque rei usurpatione gratias Deo agamus, ejusque bonitatem celebremus,
&c. Collati boni religiosum ac sanctum usum poscamus._ This he opposeth to
the popish dedication of temples and bells, as appeareth by these words:
_Quanto sanius rectusque decernimus._ He implieth, therefore, that these
things are only consecrated as every other thing is consecrated to us. Of
this kind of consecration he hath given examples. _In libro Nehemiae
dedicatio maeniam civitatis commemoratur, quae nil aliud fuit nisi quod
muris urbis instauratis, populus una cum Levitis et sacerdotibus, nec non
principibus, eo se contulit, ibique gratias Deo egerunt de maenibus
reaedificatis, et justam civitatis usuram postularunt, qua item ratione
prius quam sumamus cibum, nos etiam illum consecramus._ As the walls of
Jerusalem then, and as our ordinary meat are consecrated, so are churches
consecrated, and no otherwise can they be said to be dedicated, except one
would use the word _dedication_, in that sense wherein it is taken, Deut.
xx. 5; where Calvin turns the word _dedicavit_; Arias Montanus,
_initiavit_; Tremelius, _caepit uti_. Of this sort of dedication, Gaspar
Sanctius writeth thus: _Alia dedicatio est, non solum inter prophanos, sed
etiam inter Haebreos usitata, quae nihil habet sacrum sed tantum est
auspicatio aut initium operis, ad quod destinatur locus aut res cujus tunc
primum libatur usus. Sic Nero Claudius dedicasse dicitur domum suam cum
primum illam habitare caepit. Ita Suetonius in Nerone. Sic Pompeius
dedicavit theatrum suum, cum primum illud publicis ludis et communibus
usibus aperuit; de quo Cicero,_ lib. 2, epist. 1. Any other sort of
dedicating churches we hold to be superstitious. Peter Waldus, of whom the
Waldenses were named, is reported to have taught that the dedication of
temples was but an invention of the devil.(477) And though churches be
dedicated by preaching and praying, and by no superstition of sprinkling
them with holy water, or using such magical rites, yet even these
dedications, saith the Magdeburgians,(478) _ex Judaismo natae videntur
sine nullo Dei praecepto_. There is, indeed, no warrant for such
dedication of churches as is thought to make them holy. Bellarmine would
warrant it by Moses’ consecrating of the tabernacle, the altar, and the
vessels of the same; but Hospinian answereth him:(479) _Mosis factum
expressum habuit Dei mandatum: de consecrandis autem templis
Christianorum, nullum uspiam in verbo Dei praeceptum extat, ipso quoque
Bellarmino teste._ Whereupon he concludeth that this ceremony of
consecrating or dedicating the churches of Christians, is not to be used
after the example of Moses, who, in building and dedicating of the
tabernacle, did follow nothing without God’s express commandment. What I
have said against the dedication of churches, holds good also against the
dedication of altars; the table whereupon the elements of the body and
blood of Christ are set, is not to be called holy; neither can they be
commended who devised altars in the church, to be the seat of the Lord’s
body and blood, as if any table, though not so consecrated, could not as
well serve the turn. And what though altars were used in the ancient
church? Yet this custom _à Judaica, in ecclesiam Christi permanavit ac
postea superstitioni materiam præbuit_, say the Magdeburgians.(480) Altars
savour of nothing but Judaism, and the borrowing of altars from the Jews,
hath made Christians both to follow their priesthood and their sacrifices.
_Hæc enim trio, scilicet sacerdos, altare, et sacrificium, sunt
correlativa, ut ubi unum est, coetera duo adesse necesse sit_, saith
Cornelius à Lapide.(481)

_Sect._ 9. 3d. If some times, places and things, be made holy by the
church’s dedication or consecration of them to holy uses, then it
followeth that other times, places and things, which are not so dedicated
and consecrated by the church, howbeit they be applied to the same holy
uses, yet are more profane, and less apt to divine worship, than those
which are dedicated by the church. I need not insist to strengthen the
inference of this conclusion from the principles of our opposites; for the
most learned among them will not refuse to subscribe to it. Hooker
teacheth us,(482) that the service of God, in places not sanctified as
churches are, hath not in itself (mark _in itself_) such perfection of
grace and comeliness, as when the dignity of the place which it wisheth
for, doth concur; and that the very majesty and holiness of the place
where God is worshipped, bettereth even our holiest and best actions. How
much more soundly do we hold with J. Rainolds,(483) that unto us
Christians, “no land is strange, no ground unholy,—every coast is Jewry,
every town Jerusalem, and every house Sion,—and every faithful company,
yea, every faithful body, a temple to serve God in.” The contrary opinion
Hospinian rejecteth as favouring Judaism,(484) _alligat enim religionem ad
certa loca_. Whereas the presence of Christ among two or three gathered
together in his name, maketh any place a church, even as the presence of a
king with his attendants maketh any place a court. As of places, so of
times, our opposites think most superstitiously. For of holidays Hooker
saith thus,(485) “No doubt as God’s extraordinary presence hath hallowed
and sanctified certain places, so they are his extraordinary works that
have truly and worthily advanced certain times, for which cause they ought
to be with all men that honour God more holy than other days.” What is
this but popish superstition? For just so the Rhemists think that the
times and places of Christ’s nativity,(486) passion, burial, resurrection,
and ascension, were made holy; and just so Bellarmine holdeth,(487) that
Christ did consecrate the days of his nativity, passion, and resurrection,
_eo quod nascens consecrarit præsepe, moriens crucem, resurgens
sepulchrum_. Hooker hath been of opinion, that the holidays were so
advanced above other days, by God’s great and extraordinary works done
upon them, that they should have been holier than other days, even albeit
the church had not appointed them to be kept holy. Yet Bishop Lindsey
would have us believe that they think them holy, only because of the
church’s consecration of them to holy political uses. But that now, at
last, I may make it appear to all that have common sense, how falsely
(though frequently) it is given forth by the Bishop, that holidays are
kept by them only for order and policy, and that they are not so
superstitious as to appropriate the worship to those days, or to observe
them for mystery and as holier than other days:—

_Sect._ 10. First, I require the Bishop to show us a difference betwixt
the keeping of holidays by Formalists, and their keeping of the Lord’s
day; for upon holidays they enjoin a cessation from work, and a dedicating
of the day to divine worship, even as upon the Lord’s day. The Bishop
allegeth five respects of difference,(488) but they are not true. _First_,
he saith, that the Lord’s day is commanded to be observed of necessity,
for conscience of the divine ordinance as a day sanctified and blessed by
God himself. _Ans._ 1. So have we heard from Hooker, that holidays are
sanctified by God’s extraordinary works; but because the Bishop dare not
say so much, therefore I say, 2. This difference cannot show us that they
observe holidays only for order and policy, and that they place no worship
in the observing of them, as in the observing of the Lord’s day (which is
the point that we require), for worship is placed in the observing of
human as well as of divine ordinances, otherwise worship hath never been
placed in the keeping of Pharisaical and popish traditions. This way is
worship placed in the keeping of holidays, when for conscience of an human
ordinance, they are both kept as holy and thought necessary to be so kept.
3. The Bishop contradicteth himself; for elsewhere he defendeth,(489) that
the church hath power to change the Lord’s day. _Secondly_, He giveth us
this difference, that the Lord’s day is observed as the Sabbath of
Jehovah, and as a day whereon God himself did rest after the creation.
_Ans._ 1. This is false of the Lord’s day; for after the creation, God
rested upon the seventh day, not upon the first. 2. Dr Downame saith,(490)
that festival days also are to be consecrated as Sabbaths to the Lord.
_Thirdly_, The Bishop tells us, that the Lord’s day is observed in memory
of the Lord’s resurrection. _Ans._ He shall never make this good; for, we
observe the Lord’s day in memory of the whole work of redemption. 2. If it
were so, this could make no difference; for just so Christmas is observed
in memory of the Lord’s nativity, Good Friday in memory of his passion,
&c. His _fourth_ and _fifth_ respects of differences are certain mysteries
in the Lord’s day. But we shall see by and by how his fellow Formalists
who are more ingenuous than himself, show us mysteries in the festival
days also. Lastly, Albeit the Bishop hath told us that there is no worship
appropriated unto the festival days, which may not be performed at any
other time, yet this cannot with him make a difference betwixt them and
the Lord’s day; for in his epistle, which I have quoted, he declareth his
judgment to be the same of the Lord’s day, and teacheth us, that the
worship performed on it is not, so appropriated to that time, but lawfully
the same may be performed at any other convenient time, as the church
shall think fit. Now, as the worship performed on the Lord’s day is
appropriated (in his judgment) to that time, so long as the church
altereth it not, and no longer, just as much thinks he of the
appropriating to festival days the worship performed on the same.

_Sect._ 11. 2d. If the holidays be observed by Formalists only for order
and policy, then they must say the church hath power to change them. But
this power they take from the church, by saying that they are dedicated
and consecrated to those holy uses to which they are applied. _Simul Deo
dicatum non est ad usus humanos ulterius transferendum_, saith one of the
popes.(491) And, by the dedication of churches, the founders surrender
that right which otherwise they might have in them, saith one of the
Formalists themselves.(492) If, then, the church hath dedicated holidays
to the worship of God, then hath she denuded herself of all power to
change them, or put them to another use: which were otherwise if holidays
were appointed to be kept only for order and policy. Yea, farther, times
and places which are applied to the worship of God, as circumstances only
for outward order and policy, may be by a private Christian applied to
civil use, for in so doing he breaketh not the ordinance of the church.
For example, material churches are appointed to be the receptacles of
Christian assemblies, and that only for such common commodity and decency
which hath place as well in civil as in holy meetings, and not for any
holiness conceived to be in them more than in other houses. Now, if I be
standing in a churchyard when it raineth, may I not go into the church
that I may be defended from the injury of the weather? If I must meet with
certain men for putting order to some of my worldly affairs, and it fall
out that we cannot conveniently meet in any part but in the church, may we
not there keep our trust? A material church, then, may serve for a civil
use the same way that it serveth to an holy use. And so, for times
appointed for ordinary preaching upon week-days in great towns, may not I
apply those times to a civil use when I cannot conveniently apply them to
the use for which the church appointeth them? I trust our prelates shall
say, I may, because they use to be otherwise employed than in divine
worship during the times of weekly preaching. Now if holidays were
commanded to be kept only for order and policy, they might be applied to
another use as well as those ordinary times of weekly meetings in great
towns, whereas we are required of necessity to keep them holy.

_Sect._ 12. 3d. If the holidays be kept only for order and policy, why do
they esteem some of them above others? Doth not Bishop Andrews call the
feast of Easter the highest and greatest of our religion?(493) and doth
not Bishop Lindsey himself, with Chrysostom, call the festival of Christ’s
nativity, _metropolim omnium festorum_?(494) By this reason doth
Bellarmine prove(495) that the feasts of Christians are celebrated _non
solum ratione ordinis et politiæ, sed etiam mysterii_, because otherwise
they should be all equal in celebrity, whereas Leo calls Easter _festum
festorum_, and Nazianzen, _celebritatem celebritatum_.

_Sect._ 13. 4. If the holidays be kept only for order and policy, then the
sanctification of them should be placed _in ipso actuali externi cultus
exercitio_.(496) But Hooker hath told us before, that they are made holy
and worthily advanced above other days by God’s extraordinary works
wrought upon them. Whereupon it followeth, that as _Deus septimum
sanctificavit vacatione sancta, et ordinatione ad usum sanctum_(497) so
hath he made festival days no less holy in themselves, and that as the
Sabbath was holy from the beginning, because of God’s resting upon it, and
his ordaining of it for an holy use, howbeit it had never been applied by
men to the exercises of God’s worship, even so festival days are holy,
being advanced truly and worthily by the extraordinary works of God, and
for this cause commended to all men that honour God to be holier with them
than other days, albeit it should happen that by us they were never
applied to an holy use. If Bishop Lindsey thinketh that all this toucheth
not him, he may be pleased to remember that he himself hath
confessed,(498) that the very presence of the festivity puts a man in mind
of the mystery, howbeit he have not occasion to be present in the holy
assembly. What order or policy is here, when a man being quiet in his
parlour or cabinet, is made to remember of such a mystery on such a day?
What hath external order and policy to do with the internal thoughts of a
man’s heart, to put in order the same?

_Sect._ 14. 5th. By their fruits shall we know them. Look whether they
give so much liberty to others, and take so much to themselves upon their
holidays, for staying from the public worship and attending worldly
business, as they do at the diets of weekly and ordinary preaching, yet
they would make the simple believe that their holidays are only appointed
to be kept as those ordinary times set apart for divine service on the
week-days, nay, moreover, let it be observed whether or not they keep the
festival days more carefully, and urge the keeping of them more earnestly
than the Lord’s own day. Those prelates that will not abase themselves to
preach upon ordinary Sabbaths, think the high holidays worthy of their
sermons. They have been also often seen to travel upon the Lord’s day,
whereas they hold it irreligion to travel upon an holiday. And whereas
they can digest the common profanation of the Lord’s day, and not
challenge it, they cannot away with the not observing of their
festivities.

_Sect._ 15. 6th. By their words shall we judge them. Saith not Bishop
Lindsey(499) that the five anniversary days are consecrate to the
commemoration of our Saviour, his benefits being separate from all other
ordinary works, and so made sacred and holidays? Will he say this much of
ordinary times appointed for weekly preaching? I trow not. Dr Downame(500)
holdeth that we are commanded, in the fourth commandment, to keep the
feasts of Christ’s nativity, passion, resurrection, ascension, and
Pentecost, and that these feasts are to be consecrated as sabbaths to the
Lord. Bishop Andrews, a man of the greatest note amongst our opposites,
affordeth us here plenty of testimonies of the proof of the point in hand,
namely, that the anniversary festival days are kept for mystery, and as
holier than other days. Simon on Psal. lxxxv. 10, 11, he saith of
Christmas, That mercy and truth, righteousness and peace, “of all the days
of the year meet most kindly on this day.” Sermon on Psal. ii. 7, he saith
of the same day, That of all other “_hodies_, we should not let slip the
_hodie_ of this day, whereon the law is most kindly preached, so it will
be most kindly practised of all others.” Sermon on Heb. xii. 2, he saith
of Good Friday, “Let us now turn to him, and beseech him by the sight of
this day.” Sermon on 1 Cor. v. 7, 8, he saith of the keeping of the
Christian passover upon Easter, That then “it is best for us to do it, it
is most kindly to do it, most like to please Christ, and to prosper with
us. And, indeed, if at any time we will do it, _quando pascha nisi in
pascha, &c._, so that without any more ado, the season pleadeth for this
effectually,” &c. Sermon on Col. iii. 1, he saith, That “there is no day
in the year so fit for a Christian to rise with Christ, and seek the
things above, as Easter day.” Sermon on Job. ii. 19, he saith, That “the
act of receiving Christ’s body is at no time so proper, so in season, as
this very day.” Sermon on 1 Cor. xi. 16, he tells us out of Leo, “This is
a peculiar that Easter day hath, that on it all the whole church obtaineth
remission of their sins.” Sermon on Acts ii. 1-3, he saith of the feast of
Pentecost, That “of all days we shall not go away from the Holy Ghost
empty on this day, it is _dies donorum_ his giving day.” Sermon on Eph.
iv. 30, he saith, “This is the Holy Ghost’s day, and not for that
originally so it was, but for that it is to be intended, ever he will do
his own chief work upon his own chief feast, and _opus diei_, the day’s
work upon the day itself.” Sermon on Psal. lxviii. 18, he saith, That
“love will be best and soonest wrought by the sacrament of love upon
Pentecost, the feast of love.” Sermon on Acts x. 34, 35, he saith, That
the receiving of the Holy Ghost in a more ample measure is _opus diei_,
“the proper work of this day.” Sermon on James i. 16, 17, he calls the
gift of the Holy Ghost the gift of the day of Pentecost, and tells us that
“the Holy Ghost, the most perfect gift of all, this day was, and any day
may be, but chiefly this day, will be given to any that will desire.”
Sermon on Luke iv. 18, he saith of the same feast, That “because of the
benefit that fell on this time, the time itself it fell on, is, and cannot
be but acceptable, even _eo nomine_, that at such a time such a benefit
happened to us.” Much more of this stuff I might produce out of this
prelate’s holiday sermons,(501) which I supersede as more tedious than
necessary; neither yet will I stay here to confute the errors of those and
such like sentences of his; for my purpose is only to prove against Bishop
Lindsey, that the festival days, whereabout we dispute, are not observed
as circumstances of worship, for order and policy, but that, as the chief
parts of God’s worship are placed in the celebration and keeping of the
same, so are they kept and celebrated most superstitiously, as having
certain sacred and mystical significations, and as holier in themselves
than other days, because they were sanctified above other days by the
extraordinary works and great benefits of God which happened upon them; so
that the worship performed on them is even appropriated to them; all which
is more than evident from those testimonies which I have in this place
collected.

And, finally, the author of _The Nullity of Perth Assembly_(502) proveth
this point forcibly: Doth not Hooker say “That the days of public
memorials should be clothed with the outward robes of holiness? They
allege for the warrant of anniversary festivities, the ancients, who call
them sacred and mystical days. If they were instituted only for order and
policy, that the people might assemble to religious exercises, wherefore
is there but one day appointed betwixt the passion and the resurrection;
forty days betwixt the resurrection and ascension; ten betwixt the
ascension and Pentecost? Wherefore follow we the course of the moon, as
the Jews did, in our moveable feasts? &c. Wherefore is there not a certain
day of the month kept for Easter as well as for the nativity?” &c. That
which is here alleged out of Hooker and the ancients, Bishop Lindsey
passeth quite over it, and neither inserts nor answers it. As touching
those demands which tie him as so many Gordian knots, because he cannot
unloose them, he goeth about to break them, telling us,(503) that they
order these things so for unity with the catholic church. This is even as
some natural philosophers, who take upon them to give a reason and cause
for all things in nature, when they can find no other, they flee to
_sympathia physica_. When it is asked, wherefore the loadstone doth
attract iron rather than other metal? they answer, that the cause thereof
is _sympathia physica inter magnetem et ferrum_. With such kind of
etymology doth the Bishop here serve us; yet peradventure he might have
given us another cause. If so, my retractation is, that if he be excused
one way, he must be accused another way; and if he be blameless of
ignorance, he is blameworthy for dissimulation. The true causes why those
things are so ordered, we may find in Bishop Andrew’s sermons, which I
have made use of in handling this argument. For example,(504) the reason
why there is but one day betwixt the passion and the resurrection, is,
because that Jonas was but one day in the whale’s belly, and Christ but
one day in the bosom of the earth; for in their going thither he sets out
Good Friday; in their being there, Easter eve; in their coming thence,
Easter day. As for the fifty days betwixt Easter and Pentecost, he
saith,(505) “Fifty is the number of the jubilee; which number agreeth well
with this feast, the feast of Pentecost;—what the one in years, the other
in days;—so that this is the jubilee as it were of the year, or the yearly
memory of the year of jubilee: that, the pentecost of years; this, the
jubilee of days.” In the end of the same sermon, he tells us the reason
why there are ten days appointed betwixt the ascension and Pentecost. “The
feast of jubilee (saith he) began ever after the high priest had offered
his sacrifice, and had been in the _sancta sanctorum_, as this jubilee of
Christ also took place from his entering into the holy places, made
without hands, after his propitiatory sacrifice, offered up for the quick
and the dead, and for all yet unborn, at Easter. And it was the tenth day;
and this now is the tenth day since.” He hath told us also why there is
not a certain day of the month appointed for Easter,(506) as there is for
the nativity, namely, because the fast of Lent must end with that high
feast, according to the prophecy of Zechariah. Wherefore I conclude,
_aliquid mysterii alunt_, and so _aliquid monstri_ too.

CHAPTER II.

THAT THE CEREMONIES ARE UNLAWFUL BECAUSE THEY ARE MONUMENTS OF BY-PAST
IDOLATRY, WHICH NOT BEING NECESSARY TO BE RETAINED, SHOULD BE UTTERLY
ABOLISHED, BECAUSE OF THEIR IDOLATROUS ABUSES: ALL WHICH IS PARTICULARLY
MADE GOOD OF KNEELING.

_Sect._ 1. I have here proved the ceremonies to be superstitious; now I
will prove them to be idolatrous. These are different arguments; for every
idolatry is superstition, but every superstition is not idolatry, as is
rightly by some distinguished.(507) As for the idolatry of the
controverted ceremonies, I will prove that they are thrice idolatrous: 1.
_Reductive_, because they are monuments of by-past idolatry;
2._Participative_, because they are badges of present idolatry;
3._Formaliter_, because they are idols themselves.

First, then, they are idolatrous, because having been notoriously abused
to idolatry heretofore, they are the detestable and accursed monuments,
which give no small honour to the memory of that by-past idolatry which
should lie buried in hell. Dr Burges(508) reckons for idolatrous all
ceremonies devised and used in and to the honouring of an idol, whether
properly or by interpretation such. “Of which sort (saith he) were all the
ceremonies of the pagans, and not a few of the Papists.” If an opposite,
writing against us, be forced to acknowledge this much, one may easily
conjecture what enforcing reason we have to double out our point. The
argument in hand I frame thus:—

All things and rites which have been notoriously abused to idolatry, if
they be not such as either God or nature hath made to be of a necessary
use, should be utterly abolished and purged away from divine worship, in
such sort that they may not be accounted nor used by us as sacred things
or rites pertaining to the same.

But the cross, surplice, kneeling in the act of receiving the communion,
&c., are things and rites, &c., and are not such as either God or nature,
&c.

Therefore they should be utterly abolished, &c.

_Sect._ 2. As for the proposition I shall first explain it and then prove
it. I say, “all things and rites,” for they are alike forbidden, as I
shall show. I say, “which have been notoriously abused to idolatry,”
because if the abuse be not known, we are blameless for retaining the
things and rites which have been abused. I say, “if they be not such as
either God or nature hath made to be of a necessary use,” because if they
be of a necessary use, either through God’s institution, as the
sacraments, or through nature’s law, as the opening of our mouths to speak
(for when I am to preach or pray publicly, nature makes it necessary that
I open my mouth to speak audibly and articularly), then the abuse cannot
take away the use. I say, “they may not be used by us as sacred things,
rites pertaining to divine worship,” because without the compass of
worship they may be used to a natural or civil purpose. If I could get no
other meat to eat than the consecrated host, which Papists idolatrise in
the circumgestation of it, I might lawfully eat it; and if I could get no
other clothes to put on than the holy garments wherein a priest hath said
mass, I might lawfully wear them. Things abused to idolatry are only then
unlawful when they are used no otherwise than religiously, and as things
sacred.

_Sect._ 3. The proposition thus explained is confirmed by these five
proofs: 1. God’s own precept,—“Ye shall defile also the covering of thy
graven images of silver, and the ornaments of thy molten images of gold:
thou shalt cast them away as a menstruous cloth, thou shalt say unto it,
Get thee hence,” Isa. xxx. 22. The covering of the idol here spoken of,
Gaspar Sanctus(509) rightly understandeth to be that, _quo aut induebantur
simulacra Gentilico ritu, aut bracteas quibus ligneae imagines integantur,
aut quo homines idolis sacrificaturi amiciebantur_; so that the least
appurtenances of idols are to be avoided. When the apostle Jude(510) would
have us to hate garments spotted with the flesh, his meaning is,
_detestandam essevel superficiem ipsam mali sive peccati, quam tunicae
appellatione subinnuere videtur_, as our own. Rolloke hath observed,(511)
If the very covering of an idol be forbidden, what shall be thought of
other things which are not only spotted, but irrecoverably polluted with
idols? Many such precepts were given to Israel, as “Ye shall destroy their
altars, break their images, and cut down their groves,” Exod. xxxiv. 13.
“The graven images of their gods shall ye burn with fire: thou shalt not
desire the silver nor gold that is on them, nor take it unto thee, lest
thou be snared therein; for it is an abomination to the Lord thy God,”
Deut. vii. 25, 26. Read to the same purpose, Num. xxxiii. 52; Deut. vii.
5; xii. 2, 3.

Secondly, God hath not only by his precepts commanded us to abolish all
the relics of idolatry, but by his promises also manifested unto us how
acceptable service this should be to him. There is a command “That the
Israelites should destroy the Canaanites,” Num. xxxiii. 52, _evertantque
res omnes idololatricas ipsorum cui mandato_, saith Junius,(512)
_subjicitur sua promissio_, namely, that the Lord would give them the
promised land, and they should dispossess the inhabitants thereof, ver.
53; yea, there is a promise of remission and reconciliation to this work:
“By this shall the iniquity of Jacob be purged, and this is all the fruit
to take away his sin; when he maketh all the stones of the altar as
chalk-stones that are beaten asunder, the groves and images shall not
stand up.” Isa. xxvii. 9.

_Sect._ 4. Thirdly, The churches of Pergamos and Thyatira are reproved for
suffering the use of idolothites, Rev. ii. 14-20, where the eating of
things sacrificed to idols is condemned as idolatry and spiritual
adultery, as Perkins(513) noteth. Paybody, therefore, is greatly mistaken
when he thinks that meats sacrificed to idols, being the good creatures of
God, were allowed by the Lord, out of the case of scandal, notwithstanding
of idolatrous pollution; for the eating of things sacrificed to idols is
reproved as idolatry, Rev. ii.; and the eating of such things is condemned
as a fellowship with devils, 1 Cor. x. 20. Now idolatry and fellowship
with devils, I suppose, are unlawful, though no scandal should follow upon
them. And whereas he thinks meats sacrificed to idols to be lawful enough
out of the case of scandal, for this reason, because they are the good
creatures of God, he should have considered better the Apostle’s mind
concerning such idolothites; which Zanchius(514) setteth down thus: _Verum
est, per se haec nihil __ sunt, sed respectu eorum quibut immolantur
aliquid sunt; quia per hoec illis quibus immolantur, nos consociamur. Qui
isti? Daemones._ For our better understanding of this matter, we must
distinguish two sorts of idolothites, both which we find, 1 Cor. x. Of the
one, the Apostle speaks from the 14th verse of that chapter to the 23d; of
the other, from the 23d verse to the end. This is Beza’s distinction in
his Annotations on that chapter. Of the first sort, he delivers the
Apostle’s mind thus: That as Christians have their holy banquets, which
are badges of their communion both with Christ and among themselves; and
as the Israelites, by their sacrifices, did seal their copulation in the
same religion, so also idolaters, _cum suis idolis aut potius daemonibus,
solemnibusillis epulis copulantur_. So that this sort of idolothites were
eaten in temples, and public solemn banquets, which were dedicated to the
honour of idols, 1 Cor. viii. 10. Cartwright showeth(515) that the Apostle
is comparing the table of the Lord with the table of idolaters; whereupon
it followeth, that as we use the Lord’s table religiously, so that table
of idolaters of which the Apostle speaketh, had state in the idolatrous
worship like that feast, Num. xxv. 3; _quod in honorem falsorum Deorum
celebrabatur_, saith Calvin.(516) This first sort of idolothites
Pareus(517) calls the sacrifices of idols; and from such, he saith, the
Apostle dissuadeth by this argument, _Participare epulis idolorum, est
idololatria_. Of the second sort of idolothites, the Apostle begins to
speak in ver. 23. The Corinthians moved a question, Whether they might
lawfully eat things sacrificed to idols? _In privatis conviviis_, saith
Pareus.(518) The Apostle resolves them that _domi in privato convictu_,
they might eat them, except it were in the case of scandal; thus
Beza.(519) The first sort of idolothites are meant of Rev. ii., as Beza
there noteth; and of this sort must we understand Augustine(520) to mean
whilst he saith, that it were better _mori fame, quam idolothites vesci_.
These sorts are simply and in themselves unlawful. And if meats sacrificed
to idols be so unlawful, then much more such things and rites as have not
only been sacrificed and destinated to the honour of idols (for this is
but one kind of idolatrous abuse), but also of a long time publicly and
solemnly employed in the worshipping of idols, and deeply defiled with
idolatry, much more, I say, are they unlawful to be applied to God’s most
pure and holy worship, and therein used by us publicly and solemnly, so
that the world may see us conforming and joining ourselves unto idolaters.

_Sect._ 5. Fourthly, I fortify my proposition by approved examples; and,
first, we find that Jacob, Gen. xxxv. 4, did not only abolish out of his
house the idols, but their ear-rings also, because they were
_superstitionis insignia_, as Calvin; _res ad idololatriam pertinentes_,
as Junius; _monilia idolis consecrata_, as Pareus calleth them; all
writing upon that place. We have also the example of Elijah, 1 Kings
xviii. 30: he would by no means offer upon Baal’s altar, but would needs
repair the Lord’s altar, though this should hold the people the longer in
expectation. This he did, in P. Martyr’s judgment, because he thought it a
great indignity to offer sacrifice to the Lord upon the altar of Baal;
whereupon Martyr(521) reprehendeth those who, in administering the true
supper of the Lord, _uti velint Papisticis vestibus et instrumentis_.
Further, we have the example of Jehu, who is commended for the destroying
of Baal out of Israel, with his image, his house, and his very vestments,
2 Kings x. 22-28. And what example more considerable than that of
Hezekiah, who not only abolished such monuments of idolatry as at their
first institution were but men’s invention, but brake down also the brazen
serpent (though originally set up at God’s own command), when once he saw
it abused to idolatry? 2 Kings xviii. 4. This deed of Hezekiah Pope
Steven(522) doth greatly praise, and professeth that it is set before us
for our imitation, that when our predecessors have wrought some things
which might have been without fault in their time, and afterward they are
converted into error and superstition, they may be quickly destroyed by us
who come after them. Farellus saith,(523) that princes and magistrates
should learn by this example of Hezekiah what they should do with those
significant rites of men’s devising which have turned to superstition.
Yea, the Bishop of Winchester acknowledgeth,(524) that whatsoever is taken
up at the injunction of men, when it is drawn to superstition, cometh
under the compass of the brazen serpent, and is to be abolished; and he
excepteth nothing from this example but only things of God’s own
prescribing. Moreover, we have the example of good Josiah, 2 Kings xxiii.,
for he did not only destroy the houses, and the high places of Baal, but
his vessels also, and his grove, and his altars; yea, the horses and
chariots which had been given to the sun. The example also of penitent
Manasseh, who not only overthrew the strange gods, but their altars too, 2
Chron. xxxiii. 15. And of Moses, the man of God, who was not content to
execute vengeance on the idolatrous Israelites, except he should also
utterly destroy the monument of their idolatry, Exod. xxxii. 17-20.
Lastly, we have the example of Daniel, who would not defile himself with a
portion of the king’s meat, Dan. i. 8; because, saith Junius,(525) it was
converted in _usum idololatricum_; for at the banquets of the Babylonians
and other Gentiles, _erant praemessa sive praemissa, quoe diis
proemittebantur_, they used to consecrate their meat and drink to idols,
and to invocate the names of their idols upon the same, so that their meat
and drink fell under the prohibition of idolothites. This is the reason
which is given by the most part of the interpreters for Daniel’s fearing
to pollute himself with the king’s meat and wine; and it hath also the
approbation of a Papist.(526)

_Sect._ 6. Fifthly, Our proposition is backed with a twofold reason, for
things which have been notoriously abused to idolatry should be abolished:
1. Quia _monent. Quia movent._ First, then, they are monitory, and
preserve the memory of idols; _monumentum_ in good things is both
_monimentum_ and _munimentum_; but _monumentum_ in evil things (such as
idolatry) is only _monimentum_, which _monet mentem_, to remember upon
such things as ought not to be once named among saints, but should lie
buried in the eternal darkness of silent oblivion. Those relics therefore
of idolatry, _quibus quasi monumentis posteritas admoneatur_ (as Wolphius
rightly saith(527)), are to be quite defaced and destroyed, because they
serve to honour the memory of cursed idols. God would not have so much as
the name of an idol to be remembered among his people, but commanded to
destroy their names as well as themselves, Exod. xxiii. 13; Deut. xii. 3;
Josh. xxiii. 7; whereby we are admonished, as Calvin saith,(528) how
detestable idolatry is before God, _cujus memoriam vult penitus deleri, ne
posthac ullum ejus vestigium appareat_: yea, he requireth,(529) _eorum
omnium memoriam deleri, quoe semeldicata sunt idolis_. If Mordecai would
not give his countenance, Esth. iii. 2, nor do any reverence to a living
monument of that nation whose name God had ordained to be blotted out from
under heaven, much less should we give connivance, and far less
countenance, but least of all reverence, Deut. xxv. 19, to the dead and
dumb monuments of those idols which God hath devoted to utter destruction,
with all their naughty appurtenances, so that he will not have their names
to be once mentioned or remembered again. But, secondly, _movent_ too;
such idolothous remainders move us to turn back to idolatry. For _usu
compertum habemus, superstitiones etiam postquam explosoe essent, si qua
relicta fuissent earum monumenta, cum memoriam sui ipsarum apud homines,
tum id tandem ut revocerantur obtinuisse_, saith Wolphius,(530) who
hereupon thinks it behoveful to destroy _funditus_ such vestiges of
superstition, for this cause, if there were no more: _ut et aspirantibus
ad revocandam idololatriam spes frangatur, et res novas molientibus ansa
pariter ac materia proeripiatur_. God would have Israel to overthrow all
idolatrous monuments, lest thereby they should be snared, Deut. vii. 25;
xii. 30. And if the law command to cover a pit, lest an ox or an ass
should fall therein, Exod. xxi. 23, shall we suffer a pit to be open
wherein the precious souls of men and women, which all the world cannot
ransom, are likely to fall? Did God command to make a battlement for the
roof of a house, and that for the safety of men’s bodies, Deut. xxii. 8,
and shall we not only not put up a battlement, or object some bar for the
safety of men’s souls, but also leave the way slippery and full of snares?
Read we not that the Lord, who knew what was in man, and saw how propense
he was to idolatry, did not only remove out of his people’s way all such
things as might any way allure or induce them to idolatry (even to the
cutting off the names of the idols out of the land, Zech. xiii. 2), but
also hedge up their way with thorns that they might not find their paths,
nor overtake their idol gods, when they should seek after them? Hos. ii.
6, 7. And shall we by the very contrary course not only not hedge up the
way of idolatry with thorns, which may stop and stay such as have an
inclination aiming forward, but also lay before them the inciting and
enticing occasions which add to their own propension, such delectation as
spurreth forward with a swift facility?

_Sect._ 7. Thus, having both explained and confirmed the proposition of
our present argument, I will make my next for the confutation of the
answers which our opposites devise to elude it. And, First, They tell us,
that it is needless to abolish utterly things and rites which the Papists
have abused to idolatry and superstition, and that it is enough to purge
them from the abuse, and to restore them again to their right use. Hence
Saravia(531) will not have _pium crucis usum_ to be abolished _cum abusu_,
but holds it enough that the abuse and superstition be taken away. Dr
Forbesse’s answer is,(532) that not only things instituted by God are not
to be taken away for the abuse of them, but farther, _neque res medioe ab
hominibus prudenter introductoe, propter sequentem abusum semper tollendoe
sunt. Abusi sunt Papistoe templis, et oratoriis, et cathedris, et sacris
vasis, et campanis, et benedictione matrimoniali; nec tamen res istas
censuerunt prudentes reformatores abjiciendas. Ans._ 1. Calvin,(533)
answering that which Cassander allegeth out of an Italian writer, _abusu
non tolli bonum usum_, he admits it only to be true in things which are
instituted by God himself, not so in things ordained by men, for the very
use of such things or rites as have no necessary use in God’s worship, and
which men have devised only at their own pleasure, is taken away by
idolatrous abuse. _Pars tutior_ here, is to put them wholly away, and
there is by a great deal more danger in retaining than in removing them.
2. The proofs which I have produced (or the proposition about which now we
debate,) do not only infer that things and rites which have been
notoriously abused to idolatry should be abolished, in case they be not
restored to a right use, but simply and absolutely that in any wise they
are to be abolished. God commanded to say to the covering, and the
ornaments of idols, “Get you hence,” Isa. xxx. 22. It is not enough they
be purged from the abuse, but _simpliciter_ they themselves must pack them
and be gone. How did Jacob with the ear-rings of the idols; Elijah with
Baal’s altar; Jehu with his vestments; Josiah with his houses; Manasseh
with his altars; Moses with the golden calf; Joshua with the temples of
Canaan; Hezekiah with the brazen serpent? Did they retain the things
themselves, and only purge them from the abuse? Belike, if these our
opposites had been their councillors, they had advised them to be
contented with such a moderation; yet we see they were better counselled
when they destroyed utterly the things themselves, whereby we know that
they were of the same mind with us, and thought that things abused to
idolatry, if they have no necessary use, are far better away than a-place.
Did Daniel refuse Bel’s meat because it was not restored to the right use?
Nay, if that had been all, it might have been quickly helped, and the meat
sanctified by the word of God and prayer. Finally, Were the churches of
Pergamos and Thyatira reproved because they did not restore things
sacrificed to idols to their right use? Or, were they not rather reproved
for having anything at all to do with the things themselves?

_Sect._ 8. As for that which Dr Forbesse objecteth to us, we answer, that
temples, places of prayer, chairs, vessels, and bells, are of a necessary
use, by the light and guidance of nature itself; and matrimonial
benediction is necessary by God’s institution, Gen. i. 28; so that all
those examples do except themselves from the argument in hand. But the
Doctor(534) intendeth to bring those things within the category of things
indifferent; and to this purpose he allegeth, that it is indifferent to
use this or that place for a temple, or a place of prayer; also to use
these vessels, and bells, or others. And of matrimonial benediction to be
performed by a pastor, he saith there is nothing commanded in Scripture.
_Ans._ Though it be indifferent to choose this place, &c., also to use
these vessels or other vessels, &c.; yet the Doctor, I trust, will not
deny that temples, houses of prayer, vessels and bells, are of a necessary
use (which exempteth them from the touch of our present argument);
whereas, beside that it is not necessary to kneel in the communion in this
place more than in that place, neither to keep the feast of Christ’s
nativity, passion, &c. upon these days more than upon other days, &c., the
things themselves are not necessary in their kind; and it is not necessary
to keep any festival day, nor to kneel at all in the act of receiving the
communion. There is also another respect which hindereth temples, vessels,
&c. from coming within the compass of this our argument, but neither doth
it agree to the controverted ceremonies. Temples, houses of prayer,
vessels for the ministration of the sacraments, and bells, are not used by
us in divine worship as things sacred, or as holier than other houses,
vessels, and bells; but we use them only for natural necessity,—partly for
that common decency which hath no less place in the actions of civil than
of sacred assemblies; yea, in some cases they may be applied to civil
uses, as hath been said;(535) whereas the controverted ceremonies are
respected and used as sacred rites, and as holier than any circumstance
which is alike common to civil and sacred actions, neither are they used
at all out of the case of worship. We see now a double respect wherefore
our argument inferreth not the necessity of abolishing and destroying such
temples, vessels, and bells, as have been abused to idolatry, viz. because
it can neither be said that they are not things necessary, nor yet that
they are things sacred.

_Sect._ 9. Nevertheless (to add this by the way), howbeit for those
reasons the retaining and using of temples which have been polluted with
idols be not in itself unlawful, yet the retaining of every such temple is
not ever necessary, but sometimes it is expedient, for farther extirpation
of superstition, to demolish and destroy some such temples as have been
horribly abused to idolatry, Calvin also(536) and Zanchius(537) do plainly
insinuate. Whereby I mean to defend (though not as in itself necessary,
yet as expedient _pro tunc_,) that which the reformers of the church of
Scotland did in casting down some of those churches which had been
consecrate to popish idols, and of a long time polluted with idolatrous
worship. As on the one part the reformers (not without great probability)
feared, that so long as these churches were not made even with the ground,
the memory of that superstition, whereunto they had been employed and
accustomed, should have been in them preserved, and, with some sort of
respect, recognised; so, on the other part, they saw it expedient to
demolish them, for strengthening the hands of such as adhered to the
reformation, for putting Papists out of all hope of the re-entry of
Popery, and for hedging up the way with thorns, that the
idolatrously-minded might not find their paths. And since the pulling down
of those churches wanted neither this happy intent not happy event, I must
say that the bitter invectives given forth against it, by some who carry a
favourable eye to the pompous bravery of the Romish whore, and have
deformed too much of that which was by them reformed, are to be detested
by all such as wish the eternal exile of idolatrous monuments out of the
Lord’s land, yet let these Momus-like spirits understand that their
censorious verdicts do also reflect upon those ancient Christians of whom
we read,(538) that with their own hands they destroyed the temples of
idols, and upon Chrysostom, who stirred up some monks, and sent them into
Phœnicia, together with workmen, and sustained them on the expences and
charges of certain godly women, that they might destroy the temples of
idols, as the Magdeburgians(539) have marked out of Theodoret, likewise
upon them of the religion in France, of whom Thuanus recordeth, that
_templa confractis ac disjectis statuis et altaribus, expilaverant_,
lastly, upon foreign divines,(540) who teach, that not only _idola_, but
_idolia_ also, and _omnia idololatria instrumenta_ should be abolished.
Moreover, what was it else but reason’s light which made Cambyses to fear
that the superstition of Egypt could not be well rooted out if the temples
wherein it was seated were not taken away; so that _offensus
superstitionibus AEgyptiorum, Apis cœterorumque Deorum œdes dirui jubet:
ad Ammonis quoque nobilissimum templum expugnandum, exercitum mittit_,
saith Justinus.(541) And is not the danger of retaining idolatrous
churches thus pointed at by P. Martyr: _Curavit_, &c. “Jehu (saith
he(542)) took care to have the temples of Baal overthrown, lest they
should return any more to their wonted use. Wherefore, it appears, that
many do not rightly, who, having embraced the gospel of the Son of God,
yet, notwithstanding, keep still the instruments of Popery. And they have
far better looked to piety who have taken care to have popish images,
statues and ornaments, utterly cut off; for, as we read in the
ecclesiastical histories, Constantine the Great, after he had given his
name to Christ, by an edict provided and took order that the temples of
the idols might be closed and shut up; but, because they did still remain,
Julian the Apostate did easily open and unlock them, and thereafter did
prostitute the idols of old superstition to be worshipped in them,—which
Theodosius, the best and commended prince, animadverting, commanded to
pull them down, lest they should again any more be restored.” But because
I suppose no sober spirit will deny that sometimes, and in some cases, it
may be expedient to rase and pull down some temples polluted with idols,
where other temples may be had to serve sufficiently the assemblies of
Christian congregations (which is all I plead for), therefore I leave this
purpose and return to Dr Forbesse.

_Sect._ 10. As touching matrimonial benediction, it is also exempted out
of the compass of our present argument, because through divine institution
it hath a necessary use, as we have said. And though the Doctor, to make
it appear that a pastor’s performing of the same is a thing indifferent,
allegeth, that in Scripture there is nothing commanded thereanent; yet
plain it is from Scripture itself, that matrimonial benediction ought to
be given by a pastor; for God hath commanded his ministers to bless his
people, Num. vi., which by just analogy belongeth to the ministers of the
gospel; neither is there any ground for making herein a difference betwixt
them and the minister of the law, but we must conceive the commandment to
tie both alike to the blessing of God’s people. Unto which ministerial
duty of blessing, because no such limits can be set as may exclude
matrimonial blessing, therefore they are bound to the performance of it
also. And if farther we consider, that the duty of blessing was performed
by the minister of the Lord, Heb. vi. 7, even before the law of Moses, we
are yet more confirmed to think, that the blessing of the people was not
commanded in the law as a thing peculiar and proper to the Levitical
priesthood, but as a moral and perpetual duty belonging to the Lord’s
ministers for ever. Wherefore, notwithstanding of any abuse of matrimonial
benediction among Papists, yet, forasmuch as it hath a necessary use in
the church, and may not (as the controverted ceremonies may) be well
spared, it is manifest that it cometh not under the respect and account of
those things whereof our argument speaketh.

_Sect._ 11. Lastly, Whereas the Doctor would bear his reader in hand, that
in the judgment of wise reformators, even such things as have been brought
in use by men only, without God’s institution, are not to be ever taken
away, for the abuse which followeth upon them; let reformators speak for
themselves: _Nos quoque priscos ritus, quibus indifferenter uti licet,
quia verbo Dei consentanei sunt, non rejicimus; modo ne superstitio et
pravus abusus eos abolere cogat_.(543) This was the judgment of the wisest
reformators,—that rights which were both ancient and lawful, and agreeable
to God’s word, were notwithstanding of necessity to be abolished, because
of their superstition and wicked abuse.

_Sect._ 12. Secondly, Our opposites answer us, that beside the purging of
things and rites abused by idolaters from the idolatrous pollution, and
the restoring of them to a right use, preaching and teaching against the
superstition and abuse which hath followed upon them, is another means to
avoid that harm which we fear to ensue upon the retaining of them. _Ans._
1. This is upon as good ground pretended for the keeping of images in
churches: _At inquiunt statim, docemus has imagines non esse adorandas.
Quasi vero_, saith Zanchius,(544) _non idem olim fecerit diligentius Deus,
per Mosen et prophetas, quam nos faciamus. Cur igitur etiam volebat tolli
imagines omnes? quia non satis est verbo docere non esse faciendum malum;
sed tollenda etiam sunt malorum offendicula, irritamenta, causœ,
occasiones._ It is not enough, with the scribes and Pharisees, to teach
out of Moses’ chair what the people should do, but all occasions, yea,
appearances of evil, are to be taken out of their sight. _Efficacious enim
et plus movent, quae in oculos quam quae in aures incidunt. Potuerat et
Hezekias populum monere, ne serpentem adorarent, sed muluit confringere et
penitus e conspectu auferre; et rectius fecit,_ saith one well to this
purpose.(545) 2. Experience hath taught to how little purpose such
admonitions do serve. Calvin,(546) writing to the Lord Protector of
England of some popish ceremonies which did still remain in that church
after the reformation of the same, desireth that they may be abolished,
because of their former abuse, in time of Popery. _Quid enim_, saith he,
_illae ceremoniae aliud fuerunt, quam totidem lenocinia quae miseras
animas ad malum perducerent?_ &c. But because he saw that some might
answer that which our Formalists answer now to us, and say, it were enough
to warn and teach men that they abuse not these ceremonies, and that the
abolishing of these ceremonies themselves were not necessary; therefore
immediately he subjoineth these words: _Jam si de cautione agitur,
monebuntur homines scilicet, ne ad illas nunc impingant, &c. Quis tamen
non videt obdurari ipsos nihilominus, nihil ut infelici illa cautione
obtineri possit._ Whereupon he concludes, that if such ceremonies were
suffered to remain, this should be a means to nourish a greater hardness
and confirmation in evil, and a veil drawn, so that the sincere doctrine
which is propounded should not be admitted as it ought to be. In another
epistle to Cranmer,(547) archbishop of Canterbury, he complaineth that
external superstitions were so corrected in the church of England, _ut
residui maneant innumeri surculi, qui assidue pullulent_. And what good,
then, was done by their admonitions, whereby they did, in some sort, send
the reviving twigs of old superstition, since forasmuch as they were not
wholly eradicate, they did still shoot forth again? If a man should dig a
pit by the way-side, for some commodity of his own, and thou admonish the
travellers to take heed to themselves, if they go that way in the darkness
of the night, who would hold him excusable? How then shall they be excused
who dig a most dangerous pit, which is like to ruin many souls, and yet
will have us to think that they are blameless, for that they warn men to
beware of it?

_Sect._ 13. Thirdly, we are told that if these answers which our opposites
give get no place, then shall we use nothing at all which hath been used
by idolaters, and by consequence, neither baptism nor the Lord’s supper.
But let Zanchius answer for us,(548) that these things are by themselves
necessary, so that it is enough they be purged from the abuse. And
elsewhere(549) he resolveth, that things which are by themselves both good
and necessary, may not for any abuse be put away. _Si vero res sint
adiaphorae sua natura et per legem Dei, eoque tales quae citra jacturam
salutis omitti possunt, etiam si ad bonos usus initio fuerunt institutae;
si tamen postea videamus illas in abusus pernitiosos esse conversas;
pietas in Deum, et charitas erga proximum, postulant ut tollantur, &c._ He
adds, for proof of that which he saith, the example of Hezekiah in
breaking down that brazen serpent; which example doth indeed most
pregnantly enforce the abolishing of all things or rites notoriously
abused to idolatry when they are not of any necessary use, but it
warranteth not the abolishing of anything which has a necessary use,
because the brazen serpent is not contained in the number of those things,
_quibus carere non possumus_, saith Wolphius,(550) answering to the same
objection which presently I have in hand. Now, that the ceremonies have
not in themselves, nor by the law of God, any necessary use, and that
without hazard of salvation they may be omitted, is acknowledged by
Formalists themselves; wherefore I need not stay to prove it.

_Sect._ 14. Besides these answers which are common in our adversaries’
mouths, some of them have other particular subterfuges, which now I am to
search. “We must consider (saith Bishop Lindsey(551)) the ceremony itself
(dedicated to, and polluted with idolatry,) whether it be of human or
divine institution. If it be of human institution it may be removed, &c.;
but if the ceremony be of divine institution, such as kneeling is,—for the
same is commended by God unto us in his word,—then we ought to consider
whether the abuse of that ceremony hath proceeded from the nature of the
action wherein it was used; for if it be so, it ought to be abolished,
&c.; but if the abuse proceed not from the nature of the action, but from
the opinion of the agent, then, the opinion being removed, the religious
ceremony may be used without any profanation of idolatry. For example, the
abuse of kneeling in elevation, &c., proceedeth not only from the opinion
of the agent, but from the nature of the action, which is idolatrous and
superstitious, &c., and, therefore, both the action and gesture ought to
be abolished. But the sacrament of the supper, being an action instituted
by God, and kneeling being of its own nature an holy and religious
ceremony, it can never receive contagion of idolatry from it, but only
from the opinion of the agent: then remove the opinion, both the action
itself may be rightly used, and kneeling therein,” &c. _Ans._ 1. Since he
granteth that a ceremony dedicated to and polluted with idolatry, may (he
answereth not the argument which there he propounded, except he say must)
be abolished, if it be of human institution, he must grant from this
ground, if there were no more, that the cross, surplice, kneeling at the
communion, &c., having been so notoriously abused to idolatry, must be
abolished, because they have no institution except from men only. But, 2,
Why saith he that kneeling is a ceremony of divine institution? which he
pronounceth not of kneeling, as it is actuated by some individual case, or
clothed with certain particular circumstances, (for he maketh this
kneeling whereof he speaketh to be found in two most different actions,
the one idolatrous, the other holy,) but kneeling in the general, _per
se_, and _praecise ab omnibus circumstantiis_. Let him now tell where
kneeling thus considered is commended unto us in God’s word. He would
possibly allege that place, Psal. xcv. 6, “O come, let us worship and bow
down: let us kneel before the Lord our Maker,” which is cited in the Canon
of Perth about kneeling; but I answer, whether one expounded that place
with Calvin,(552) in this sense, _ut scilicet ante arcam faederis populus
se prosternat, quia sermo de legali cultu habetur_: whereupon it should
follow that it commendeth only kneeling to the Jews in that particular
case, or whether it be taken more generally, to commend kneeling (though
not as necessary, yet as laudable and beseeming) in the solemn acts of
God’s immediate worship, such as that praise and thanksgiving whereof the
beginning of the psalm speaketh,—whether, I say, it be taken in this or
that sense, yet it condemneth not kneeling, except in a certain kind of
worship only. And as for kneeling in the general nature of it, it is not
of divine institution, but in itself indifferent, even as sitting,
standing, &c., all which gestures are then only made good or evil when in
_actu exercito_, they are actuated and individualised by particular
circumstances. 3. If so be the ceremony be abused to idolatry, it skills
not how, for, as I have showed before, the reasons and proofs which I have
produced for the proposition of our present argument, hold good against
the retaining of anything which hath been known to be abused to idolatry,
and only such things as have a necessary use are to be excepted. 4. The
nature of an action, wherein a ceremony is used, cannot be the cause of
the abuse of that ceremony; neither can the abuse of a ceremony proceed
from the nature of the action wherein it is used, as one effect from the
cause, for _nihil potest esse homini causa sufficiens peccati_, except
only _propria voluntas_(_553_). 5. The abuse of kneeling in the idolatrous
action of elevation, proceedeth not from the nature of the action, but
from the opinion of the agent, or rather from his will, for (_principium
actionum humanarum_, is not opinion, but will, choosing that which opinion
conceiteth to be chosen, or _voluntas praeunte luce intellectus_,) it is
the will of the agent only which both maketh the action of elevation to be
idolatrous, and likewise kneeling in this action to receive the contagion
of idolatry. For the elevation of the bread _materialiter_ is not
idolatrous (more than the lifting up of the bread among us by elders or
deacons, when in taking it off the table, or setting it on, they lift it
above the heads of the communicants), but _formaliter_ only, as it is
elevated with a will and intention to place it in state of worship. So
likewise kneeling to the bread _materialiter_ is not idolatry (else a man
were an idolater who should be against his will thrust down and holden by
violence kneeling on his knees when the bread is elevated), but
_formaliter_, as it proceedeth from a will and intention in men to give to
the bread elevated a state in that worship, and out of that respect to
kneel before it. 6. What can he gain by this device, that the abuse of
kneeling in the Lord’s supper proceeded not from the nature of the action,
but from the will of the agent? Can he hereupon infer, that kneeling in
that action is to be retained notwithstanding of any contagion of idolatry
which it hath received? Nay, then, let him say that Hezekiah did not
rightly in breaking down the brazen serpent, which was set up at God’s
command, and the abuse whereof proceeded not from the thing itself, which
had a most lawful, profitable, and holy use, but only from the perverse
opinion and will of them who abused it to idolatry.

_Sect._ 15. But the comparing of kneeling to the brazen serpent is very
unsavoury to the Bishop; and wherefore? “The brazen serpent (saith he), in
the time it was abolished, had no use: that ceased with the virtue of the
cure that the Israelites received by looking upon it; the act of kneeling
continueth always in a necessary use, for the better expressing of our
thankfulness to God.” _Ans._ 1. Both kneeling, and all the rest of the
popish ceremonies, may well be compared to the brazen serpent. And divines
do commonly allege this example, as most pregnant to prove that things or
rites polluted with idols, and abused to idolatry, may not be retained, if
they have no necessary use; and I have cited before the Bishop of
Winchester, acknowledging that this argument holdeth good against all
things which are taken up, not at God’s prescription, but at men’s
injunction. J. Rainold(554) argumenteth from Hezekiah’s breaking down of
the brazen serpent, to the plucking down of the sign of the cross. 2. Why
saith he that the brazen serpent, in the time it was abolished, had no
use? The use of it ceased not with the cure, but it was still kept for a
most pious and profitable use, even to be a monument of that mercy which
the Israelites received in the wilderness, and it served for the better
expressing of their thankfulness to God, which the Bishop here calleth a
necessary use. 3. When he saith that kneeling continueth always in a
necessary use, we must understand him to speak of kneeling in the act of
receiving the communion; else he runs at random; for it is not kneeling in
the general, but kneeling in this particular case, which is compared to
the brazen serpent. Now, to say that this gesture in this action is
necessary for our better expressing of our thankfulness to God, importeth
that the church of Scotland, and many famous churches in Europe, for so
many years have omitted that which was necessary for the better expressing
of their thankfulness to God, and that they have not well enough expressed
it. And, moreover, if kneeling be necessary in the Lord’s supper for our
better expressing of our thankfulness to God, then it is also necessary at
our own common tables. Though we be bound to be more thankful at the
Lord’s table, and that because we receive a benefit of infinite more
worth, yet we are bound to be _tam grati_, as well thankful at our own
tables, albeit not _tanta gratitudine_. If, then, the same kind of
thankfulness be required of us at our own tables (for _intentio et
remissio graduum secundum magis et minus, non variant speciem rei_,) that
which is necessary for expressing of our thankfulness at the Lord’s table
must be necessary also for the expressing of it at our own. When I see the
Bishop sitting at his table, I shall tell him that he omitteth the gesture
which is necessary for the expressing of his thankfulness to God. 4. Did
not the apostles’ receiving this sacrament from Christ himself well enough
express their thankfulness to God? yet they kneeled not, but sat, as is
evident, and shall be afterwards proved against them who contradict
everything which crosseth them. 5. God will never take a ceremony of men’s
devising for a better expressing of our thankfulness than a gesture which
is commended to us by the example of his own Son, and his apostles,
together with the celebration of this sacrament in all points according to
his institution. 6. How shall we know where we have the Bishop and his
fellows? It seems they know not where they have themselves; for sometimes
they tell us that it is indifferent to take the communion sitting, or
standing, or passing, or kneeling, yet here the Bishop tells us that
kneeling is necessary. 7. I see the Bishop perceiveth that no answer can
take kneeling at the communion out of the compass of the brazen serpent,
except to say it hath a necessary use; this is the dead lift, which yet
helpeth not, as I have showed. All things, then, which are not necessary
(whereof kneeling is one), being notoriously abused to idolatry, fall
under the brazen serpent.

_Sect._ 16. Paybody also will here talk with us, therefore we will talk
with him too. He saith,(555) that God did not absolutely condemn things
abused to idolatry, and tells us of three conditions on which it was
lawful to spare idolatrous appurtenances. 1. If there were a needful use
of them in God’s worship. 2. In case they were so altered and disposed, as
that they tended not to the honour of the idol, and his damnable worship.
3. If they were without certain danger of ensnaring people into idolatry.
_Ans._ 1. Either he requires all these conditions in every idolothite and
idolatrous appurtenance which may be retained, or else he thinks that any
one of them sufficeth. If he require all these, the last two are
superfluous; for that which hath a needful use in God’s worship, can
neither tend to the honour of the idol, nor yet can have in it any danger
of ensnaring people into idolatry. If he think any one of those conditions
enough, then let us go through them: The first I admit, but it will not
help his cause, for while the world standeth they shall never prove that
kneeling in the act of receiving the communion, and the other controverted
ceremonies, have either a needful, or a profitable, or a lawful use in
God’s worship. As for his second condition, it is all one with that which
I have already confuted,(556) namely, that things abused to idolatry may
be kept, if they be purged from their abuse, and restored to the right
use. But he allegeth for it a passage of Parker, _of the Cross_, cap. 1,
sect. 7, p. 10, where he showeth out of Augustine, that an idolothite may
not be kept for private use, except, 1. _Omnis honor idoli, cum
appertessima destructione subvertatur_. 2. That not only his honour be not
despoiled, but also all show thereof. How doth this place (now would I
know) make anything for Paybody? Do they keep kneeling for private use? Do
they destroy most openly all honour of the idol to which kneeling was
dedicated? Hath their kneeling not so much as any show of the breaden
god’s honour? Who will say so? And if any will say it, who will believe
it? Who knoweth not that kneeling is kept for a public, and not for a
private use, and that the breaden idol receiveth very great show of honour
from it? He was scarce of warrants when he had no better than Parker could
afford him. His third condition rests, and touching it I ask, what if
those idolatrous appurtenances be not without apparent danger of ensnaring
people into idolatry? Are we not commanded to abstain from all appearance
of evil? Will he correct the Apostle, and teach us, that we need not care
for apparent, but for certain dangers? What more apparent danger of
ensnaring people into idolatry than unnecessary ceremonies, which have
been dedicated to and polluted with idols, and which, being retained, do
both admonish us to remember upon old idolatry, and move us to return to
the same, as I have before made evident?(557)

_Sect._ 17. Now, as for the assumption of our present argument, it cannot
be but evident to any who will not harden their minds against the light of
the truth, that the ceremonies in question have been most notoriously
abused to idolatry and superstition, and withal, that they have no
necessary use to make us retain them. I say, they have been notoriously
abused to idolatry. 1. Because they have been dedicated and consecrated to
the service of idols. 2. Because they have been deeply polluted, and
commonly employed in idolatrous worship. For both these reasons does
Zanchius condemn the surplice,(558) and such like popish ceremonies left
in England, because the whore of Rome has abused, and does yet abuse them,
_ad alliciendos homines ad scortandum. Sunt enim pompae istae omnes, et
ceremoniae Papistisae, nihil aliud quam fuci meretricii, ad hoc
excogitati, ut homines ad spiritualem scortationem alliciantur._ O golden
sentence, and worthy to be engraven with a pen of iron, and the point of a
diamond! for most needful it is to consider, that those ceremonies are the
very meretricious bravery and veigling trinkets wherewith the Romish whore
doth faird and paint herself, whilst she propineth to the world the cup of
her fornications. This makes Zanchius(559) to call those ceremonies the
relics and symbols of popish idolatry and superstition. When Queen Mary
set up Popery in England, and restored all of it which King Henry had
overthrown, she considered that Popery could not stand well-favoredly
without the ceremonies; whereupon she ordained,(560) _ut dies omnes
festicelebrentur, superioris aetatis ceremoniae restituantur, pueri
adultiores __ ante baptisati, ab episcopis confirmentur._ So that not in
remote regions, but in his Majesty’s dominions,—not in a time past memory,
but about fourscore years ago,—not by people’s practice only, but by the
laws and edicts of the supreme magistrate, the ceremonies have been abused
to the reinducing and upholding of Popery and idolatry. Both far and near,
then, both long since and lately, it is more than notorious how grossly
and grievously the ceremonies have been polluted with idolatry and
superstition.

I cannot choose but marvel much how Paybody was not ashamed to deny that
kneeling has been abused by the Papists.(561) Blush, O paper, which art
blotted with such a notable lie! What will not desperate impudency dare to
aver? But Bishop Lindsey seemeth also to hold that kneeling hath been
abused by the Papists(562) only in the elevation and circumgestation of
the host, but not in the participation, and that Honorius did not command
kneeling in the participation, but only in the elevation and
circumgestation. _Ans._ 1. _Saltem mendacem oportet essememorem._ Saith
not the Bishop himself elsewhere of the Papists,(563) “In the sacrament
they kneel to the sign,” whereby he would prove a disconformity between
their kneeling and ours; for we kneel, saith he, “by the sacrament to the
thing signified.” Now if the Papists in the sacrament kneel to the sign,
then they have idolatrously abused kneeling, even in the participation;
for the Bishop dare not say that, in the elevation or circumgestation,
there is either sacrament or sign. 2. Why do our divines controvert with
the Papists, _de adoratione euchuristiae_, if Papists adore it not in the
participation? for the host, carried about in a box, is not the sacrament
of the eucharist. 3. In the participation, Papists think that the bread is
already transubstantiate into the body of Christ, by virtue of the words
of consecration. Now, if in the participation they kneel to that which
they falsely conceive to be the body of Christ (but is indeed corruptible
bread), with an intention to give it _latria_ or divine worship, then in
the participation they abuse it to idolatry. But that is true; therefore,
&c. 4. Durand showeth,(564) that though in the holidays of Easter and
Pentecost, and the festivities of the blessed Virgin, and in the Lord’s
day, they kneel not in the church, but only stand (because of the joy of
the festivity), and at the most do but bow or incline their heads at
prayer, yet _in praesentia corporis et sanguinis Christi_, in presence of
the bread and wine, which they think to be the body and blood of Christ,
they cease not to kneel. And how will the Bishop make their participation
free of this idolatrous kneeling? The Rhemists show us,(565) that when
they are eating and drinking the body and blood of our Lord, they adore
the sacrament, and, humbling themselves, they say to it, _Domine non sum
dignus, Deus propitius esto mihi peccatori_. 5. As for that which Honorius
III. decreed, Dr White calleth it the adoration of the sacrament,(566)
which, if it is so, then we must say, that he decreed adoration in the
participation itself, because _extra usum sacramenti_, the bread cannot be
called a sacrament. Honorius commanded that the priest should frequently
teach his people to bow down devoutly when the host is elevated in the
celebration of the mass, and that they should do the same when it is
carried to the sick. All this was ordained in reference to the
participation. _Ad usum illa instituta sunt_, says Chemnitius,(567)
speaking of this decree, _quando scilicet panis consecratur, et quando ad
infirmos defertur, ut exhibeatur et sumatur_. So that that which was
specially respected in the decree, was adoring in the participation.

Lastly, Here we have to do with Dr Burges, who will have us to think, that
adoration in receiving the sacrament(568) hath not been idolatrously
intended to the sacrament in the church of Rome, neither by decree nor
custom. Not by decree, because albeit Honorius appointed adoration to be
used in the elevation and circumgestation, yet not in the act of
receiving. And albeit the Roman ritual do appoint, that clergymen coming
to receive the sacrament do it kneeling, yet this was done in veneration
of the altar,(569) or of that which standeth thereupon, and not for
adoration of the host put into their mouths. Not by custom; for he will
not have it said that kneeling in the time of receiving was ever in the
church of Rome any rite of or for adoration of the sacrament, because
albeit the people kneel in the act of receiving, yet I “deny (saith he)
that they ever intended adoration of the species, at that moment of time
when they took it in their mouths, but then turned themselves to God,” &c.
_Ans._ 1. As for the decree of Honorius, I have already answered with
Chemnitius, that it had reference specially to the receiving. 2. When
clergymen are appointed in the Roman 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 approached to it, but this was
required particularly in their receiving of the sacrament, for adoration
of it. Neither is there mention made of the altar as conferring anything
to their kneeling in receiving the sacrament; for the sacrament was not
used the more reverently because it stood upon the altar, but by the
contrary, for the sacrament’s sake reverence was done to the altar, which
was esteemed the seat of the body of Christ. It appeareth, therefore, that
the altar is mentioned, not as concerning the kneeling of the clergymen in
their communicating, but simply as concerning their communicating, because
none but they were wont to communicate at the altar, according to that
received canon, _Solis autem ministris altaris liceat ingredi ad altare et
ibidem communicare_.(570) The one of the Doctor’s own conjectures is, that
they kneeled for reverence of that which stood upon the altar; but I would
know what that was which, standing upon the altar, made them to kneel in
the participation, if it was not the host itself? Now, whereas he denies,
as touching custom, that people did ever intend the adoration of the
species, I answer: 1. How knows he what people in the Roman church did
intend in their minds? 2. What warrant hath he for this, that they did not
in the participation adore the host, which was then put into their mouth?
3. Though this which he saith were true, he gaineth nothing by it; for put
the case, they did not intend the adoration of the species, dare he say,
that they intended not the adoration of that which was under the species?
I trow not. Now, that which was under the species, though in their conceit
it was Christ’s body, yet it was indeed bread; so that, in the very
participation, they were worshipping the bread. But, 4, What needeth any
more? He maketh himself a liar, and saith plainly,(571) that after
transubstantiation was embraced, and when all the substance of the visible
creature was held to be gone, they did intend the adoration of the
invisible things, as if there had been now no substance of any creature
left therein, whereby he destroyeth all which he hath said of their not
intending the adoration of the species.

_Sect._ 20. Last of all, for the other part of my assumption, that the
ceremonies have no necessary use in God’s worship, I need no other proof
than the common by-word of Formalists, which saith they are things
indifferent. Yet the Bishop of Edinburgh(572) and Paybody(573) have turned
their tongues bravely, and chosen rather to say anything against us than
nothing. They spare not to answer, that kneeling hath a necessary use.
They are most certainly speaking of kneeling in the act of receiving the
communion, for they and their opposites, in those places, are disputing of
no other kneeling but this only. Now we may easily perceive they are in an
evil taking, when they are driven to such an unadvised and desperate
answer. For, 1. If kneeling in the act of receiving the Lord’s supper be
necessary, why have themselves too written so much for the indifferency of
it? O desultorious levity that knows not where to hold itself! 2. If it be
necessary, what makes it to be so? What law? What example? What reason? 3.
If it be necessary, not only many reformed churches, and many ancient too,
but Christ himself and his apostles have, in this sacrament, omitted
something that was necessary. 4. If it be necessary, why do many of their
own disciples take the communion sitting, in places where sitting is used?
What need I to say more? In the first part of this dispute I have proved
that the ceremonies are not necessary, in respect of the church’s
ordinance, howbeit if it were answered in this place, that they are in
this respect necessary, it helpeth not, since the argument proceedeth
against all things notoriously abused to idolatry, which neither God nor
nature hath made necessary. And for any necessity of the ceremonies in
themselves, either our opposites must repudiate what hath unadvisedly
fallen from their pens hereanent, or else forsake their beaten ground of
indifferency, and say plainly, that the ceremonies are urged by them, to
be observed with an opinion of necessity, as worship of God, and as things
in themselves necessary. Look to yourselves, O Formalists, for you stand
here upon such slippery places, that you cannot hold both your feet.

CHAPTER III.

THAT THE CEREMONIES ARE UNLAWFUL, BECAUSE THEY SORT US WITH IDOLATERS,
BEING THE BADGES OF PRESENT IDOLATRY AMONG THE PAPISTS.

_Sect._ 1. It followeth according to the order which I have proposed, to
show next, that the ceremonies are idolatrous, _participativè_. By
communicating with idolaters in their rites and ceremonies, we ourselves
become guilty of idolatry; even as Ahaz, 2 Kings xvi. 10, was an idolater,
_eo ipso_, that he took the pattern of an altar from idolators. Forasmuch,
then, as kneeling before the consecrated bread, the sign of the cross,
surplice, festival days, bishopping, bowing down to the altar,
administration of the sacraments in private places, &c., are the wares of
Rome, the baggage of Babylon, the trinkets of the whore, the badges of
Popery, the ensigns of Christ’s enemies, and the very trophies of
antichrist,—we cannot conform, communicate and symbolise with the
idolatrous Papists in the use of the same, without making ourselves
idolaters by participation. Shall the chaste spouse of Christ take upon
her the ornaments of the whore? Shall the Israel of God symbolise with her
who is spiritually called Sodom and Egypt? Shall the Lord’s redeemed
people wear the ensigns of their captivity? Shall the saints be seen with
the mark of the beast? Shall the Christian church be like the
antichristian, the holy like the profane, religion like superstition, the
temple of God like the synagogue of Satan? Our opposites are so far from
being moved with these things, that both in pulpits and private places
they used to plead for the ceremonies by this very argument, that we
should not run so far away from Papists, but come as near them as we can.
But for proof of that which we say, namely, that it is not lawful to
symbolise with idolaters (and by consequence with Papists), or to be like
them in their rites or ceremonies, we have more to allege than they can
answer.

_Sect._ 2. For, 1st, We have Scripture for us. “After the doings of the
land of Egypt, wherein you dwelt, shall ye not do and after the doings of
the land of Canaan, whither I bring ye, shall ye not do, neither shall ye
walk in their ordinances,” Lev. xviii. 3. “Take heed to thyself that thou
be not snared by following them, &c., saying, How did these nations serve
their gods? even so will I do likewise. Thou shalt not do so unto the Lord
thy God,” Deut. xii. 30. “Thou shalt not do after their works,” Exod.
xxiii. 24. Yea, they were straitly forbidden to round the corners of their
heads, or to make any cuttings in the flesh for the dead, or to print any
mark upon them, or to make baldness upon their heads, or between their
eyes, forasmuch as God had chosen them to be a holy and a peculiar people,
and it behoved them not to be framed nor fashioned like the nations, Lev.
xix. 27, 28, and xxi. 5, and Deut. xiv. 1. And what else was meant by
those laws which forbade them to suffer their cattle to gender with a
diverse kind, to sow their field with diverse seed, to wear a garment of
diverse sorts, as of woollen and linen, to plough with an ox and an ass
together? Levit. xix. 19, Deut. xxii. 6-11. This was the hold that people
in simplicity and purity, _ne hinc inde accersat ritus alienos_, saith
Calvin, upon these places. Besides, find we not that they were sharply
reproved when they made themselves like other nations? “Ye have made you
priests after the manner of the nations of other lands,” 2 Chron. xxii. 9.
“They followed vanity, and became vain, and went after the heathen that
were round about them, concerning whom the Lord had charged them, that
they should not do like them,” 2 Kings xvii. 15. The gospel commendeth the
same to us which the law did to them: “Be not ye unequally yoked with
unbelievers, for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness?
and what communion hath light with darkness? and what concord hath Christ
with Belial? and what agreement hath the temple of God with idols,” &c.
“Wherefore, come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord,
and touch not the unclean thing,” 2 Cor. vi. 14-17. “If any man worship
the beast, and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his
hand, the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God,” Rev. xiv. 9.
And the apostle Jude ver. 12, will have us to hate the very garment
spotted with the flesh, importing, that as under the law men were made
unclean not only by leprosy, but by the garments, vessels and houses of
leprous men, so do we contract the contagion of idolatry, by communicating
with the unclean things of idolaters.

_Sect._ 3. Before we go further, we will see what our opposites have said
to those Scriptures which we allege. Hooker saith,(574) that the reason
why God forbade his people Israel the use of such rites and customs as
were among the Egyptians and the Canaanites, was not because it behoved
his people to be framed of set purpose to an utter dissimilitude with
those nations, but his meaning was to bar Israel from similitude with
those nations in such things as were repugnant to his ordinances and laws.
_Ans._ 1. Let it be so, he has said enough against himself. For we have
the same reason to make us abstain from all the rites and customs of
idolaters, that we may be barred from similitude with them in such things
as are flatly repugnant to God’s word, because dissimilitude in ceremonies
is a bar to stop similitude in substance, and, on the contrary, similitude
in ceremonies openeth a way to similitude in greater substance. 2. His
answer is but a begging of that which is in question, forasmuch as we
allege those laws and prohibitions to prove that all the rites and customs
of those nations were repugnant to the ordinances and laws of God, and
that Israel was simply forbidden to use them. 3. Yet this was not a
framing of Israel of set purpose to an utter dissimilitude with those
nations, for Israel used food and raiment, sowing and reaping, sitting,
standing, lying, walking, talking, trading, laws, government, &c.,
notwithstanding that the Egyptians and Canaanites used so. They were only
forbidden to be like those nations in such unnecessary rites and customs
as had neither institution from 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 dissimilitude with the idolatrous Papists; for the ceremonies
in controversy are not only proved to be under the compass of such, but
are, besides, made by the Papists badges and marks of their religion, as
we shall see afterwards.

_Sect._ 4. To that place, 2 Cor. vi., Paybody answereth,(575) that nothing
else is there meant, than that we must beware and separate ourselves from
the communion of their sins and idolatries. _Ans._ 1. When the Apostle
there forbiddeth the Corinthians to be unequally yoked with unbelievers,
or to have any communion or fellowship with idolaters, and requireth them
so to come out from among them, that they touch none of their unclean
things, why may we not understand his meaning to be, that not only they
should not partake with pagans in their idolatries, but that they should
not marry with them, nor frequent their feasts, nor go to the theatre to
behold their plays, nor go to law before their judges, nor use any of
their rites? For with such idolaters we ought not to have any fellowship,
as Zanchius resolves,(576) but only in so far as necessity compelleth, and
charity requireth. 2. All the rites and customs of idolaters, which have
neither institution from God nor nature, are to be reckoned among those
sins wherein we may not partake with them, for they are the unprofitable
works of darkness, all which Calvin judgeth to be in that place generally
forbidden,(577) before the Apostle descend particularly to forbid
partaking with them in their idolatry. As for the prohibition of diverse
mixtures, Paybody saith,(578) the Jews were taught thereby to make no
mixture of true and false worship. _Ans._ 1. According to his tenets, it
followeth upon this answer, that no mixture is to be made betwixt holy and
idolatrous ceremonies, for he calleth kneeling a _bodily worship_, and a
_worship gesture_, more than once or twice. And we have seen before, how
Dr Burges calleth the ceremonies _worship of God_. 2. If mixture of true
and false worship be not lawful, then forasmuch as the ceremonies of God’s
ordinance, namely, the sacraments of the New Testament are true worship;
and the ceremonies of Popery, namely, cross, kneeling, holidays, &c., are
false worship; therefore, there ought to be no mixture of them together.
3. If the Jews were taught to make no mixture of true and false worship,
then by the self-same instruction, if there had been no more, they were
taught also to shun all such occasions as might any ways produce such a
mixture, and by consequence all symbolising with idolaters in their rites
and ceremonies.

_Sect._ 5. As touching those laws which forbade the Israelites to make
round the corners of their heads, or to mar the corners of their beards,
or to make any cuttings in their flesh, or to make any baldness between
their eyes, Hooker answereth,(579) that the cutting round of the corners
of the head, and the tearing off the tufts of the beard, howbeit they were
in themselves indifferent, yet they are not indifferent being used as
signs of immoderate and hopeless lamentation for the dead; in which sense
it is, that the law forbiddeth them. To the same purpose saith
Paybody,(580) that the Lord did not forbid his people to mar and abuse
their heads and beards for the dead, because the heathen did so, but
because the practice doth not agree to the faith and hope of a Christian,
if the heathen had never used it. _Ans._ 1. How much surer and sounder is
Calvin’s judgment,(581) _non aliud fuisse Dei consilium, quam ut
interposito obstaculo populum suum a prophanis Gentibus dirimiret_? For
albeit the cutting the hair be a thing in itself indifferent, yet because
the Gentiles did use it superstitiously, therefore, saith Calvin, albeit
it was _per se medium, Deus tamen noluit populo suo liberum esse, ut
tanquam pueri discerent ex parvis rudimentis, se non aliter Deo fore
gratos, nisi exteris et proeputiatis essent prorsus dissimiles, ac
longissime abessent ab eorum exemplis, praesertim vero ritus omnes
fugerent, quibus testata fuerit religio_. So that from this law it doth
most manifestly appear, that we may not be like idolaters, no not in
things which are in themselves indifferent, when we know they do use them
superstitiously. 2. What warrant is there for this gloss, that the law
forbiddeth the cutting round of the corners of the head, and the matting
of the corners of the beard, to be used as signs of immoderate and
hopeless lamentation for the dead, and that in no other sense they are
forbidden? Albeit the cutting of the flesh may be expounded to proceed
from immoderate grief, and to be a sign of hopeless lamentation; yet this
cannot be said of rounding the hair, marring the beard, and making of
baldness, which might have been used in moderate and hopeful lamentation,
as well as our putting on of mourning apparel for the dead. The law saith
nothing of the immoderate use of these things, but simply forbiddeth to
round the head, or mar the beard for the dead; and that because this was
one of the rites which the idolatrous and superstitious Gentiles did use,
concerning whom the Lord commanded his people, that they should not do
like them, because he had chosen them to be a holy and peculiar people,
above all people upon the earth. So that the thing which was forbidden, if
the Gentiles had not used it, should have been otherwise lawful enough to
God’s people, as we have seen out of Calvin’s commentary.

_Sect._ 6. Secondly, We have reason for that which we say; for by
partaking with idolaters in their rites and ceremonies, we are made to
partake with them in their religion too. For, _ceremonioe omnes sun
quoedam protestationes fidei_, saith Aquinas.(582) Therefore _communio
rituum est quasi symbolum communionis in religione_, saith Balduine.(583)
They who did eat of the Jewish sacrifices were partakers of the altar, 1
Cor. x. 18, that is, saith Pareus,(584) _socios Judaicae religionis et
cultus se profitebantur_. For the Jews by their sacrifices _mutuam in una
eademque religione copulationem sanciunt_, saith Beza.(585) Whereupon Dr
Fulk noteth,(586) that the Apostle in that place doth compare our
sacraments with the altars, hosts, sacrifices or immolations of the Jews
and Gentiles, “in that point which is common to all ceremonies, to declare
them that use them to be partakers of that religion whereof they be
ceremonies.” If then Isidore thought it unlawful for Christians to take
pleasure in the fables of heathen poets,(587) because _non solum thura
offerendo daemonibus immolatur, sed etiam eorum dicta libentius capiendo_;
much more have we reason to think that, by taking part in the ceremonies
of idolaters, we do but offer to devils, and join ourselves to the service
of idols.

_Sect._ 7. Thirdly, As by Scripture and reason, so by antiquity, we
strengthen our argument. Of old, Christians did so shun to be like the
pagans, that in the days of Tertullian it was thought they might not wear
garlands, because thereby they had been made conform to the pagans. Hence
Tertullian justifieth the soldier who refused to wear a garland as the
pagans did.(588) Dr Mortoune himself allegeth another case out of
Tertullian,(589) which maketh to this purpose, namely, that Christian
proselytes did distinguish themselves from Roman pagans, by casting away
their gowns and wearing of cloaks. But these things we are not to urge,
because we plead not for dissimilitude with the Papists in civil fashions,
but in sacred and religious ceremonies. For this point then at which we
hold us, we allege that which is marked in the third century out of
Origen,(590) namely, that it was held unlawful for Christians to observe
the feasts and solemnities, either of the Jews or of the Gentiles. Now we
find a whole council determining thus,(591) _Non oportet a Judoeis vel
hoereticis, feriatica quoe mittuntur accipere, nec cum cis dies agere
feriatos._ The council of Nice also condemned those who kept Easter upon
the fourteenth day of the month. That which made them pronounce so (as is
clear from Constantine’s epistle to the churches(592)) was, because they
held it unbeseeming for Christians to have anything common with the Jews
in their rites and observances. Augustine condemneth fasting upon the
Sabbath day as scandalous, because the Manichees used so, and fasting upon
that day had been a conformity with them;(593) and wherefore did Gregory
advise Leander to abolish the ceremony of trim-immersion? His words are
plain:(594) _Quia nunc huc usque ab hoereticis infans in baptismate tertio
mergebatur, fiendum apud vos esse non censeo._ Why doth Epiphanius,(595)
in the end of his books _contra haereses_, rehearse all the ceremonies of
the church, as marks whereby the church is discerned from all other sects?
If the church did symbolise in ceremonies with other sects, he could not
have done so. And, moreover, find we not in the canons of the ancient
councils,(596) that Christians were forbidden to deck their houses with
green boughs and bay leaves, to observe the calends of January, to keep
the first day of every month, &c., because the pagans used to do so? Last
of all, read we not in the fourth century of the ecclesiastical
history,(597) that the frame of Christians in that age was such, that _nec
cum haereticis commune quicquam habere voluerunt_?

_Sect._ 8. One would think that nothing could be answered to any of these
things, by such as pretend no less than that they have devoted themselves
to bend all their wishes and labours for procuring the imitation of
venerable antiquity. Yet Hooker can coin a conjecture to frustrate all
which we allege.(598) “In things (saith he) of their own nature
indifferent, if either councils or particular men have at any time with
sound judgment misliked conformity between the church of God and infidels,
the cause thereof hath not been affectation of dissimilitude, but some
special accident which the church, not being always subject unto, hath not
still cause to do the like. For example (saith he), in the dangerous days
of trial, wherein there was no way for the truth of Jesus Christ to
triumph over infidelity but through the constancy of his saints, whom yet
a natural desire to save themselves from the flame might, peradventure,
cause to join with the pagans in external customs, too far using the same
as a cloak to conceal themselves in, and a mist to darken the eyes of
infidels withal; for remedy hereof, it might be, those laws were
provided.” _Ans._ 1. This answer is altogether doubtful and conjectural,
made up of _if_, and _peradventure_, and _it might be_. Neither is
anything found which can make such a conjecture probable. 2. The true
reason why Christians were forbidden to use the rites and customs of
pagans, was neither a bare affectation of dissimilitude, nor yet any
special accident which the church is not always subject unto, but because
it was held unlawful to symbolise with idolaters in the use of such rites
as they placed any religion in. For in the fathers and councils which we
have cited to this purpose, there is no other reason mentioned why it
behoved Christians to abstain from those forbidden customs, but only
because the pagans and infidels used so. 3. And what if Hooker’s
divination shall have place? Doth it not agree to us, so as it should make
us mislike the Papists? Yes, sure, and more properly. For put the case,
that those ancient Christians had not avoided conformity with pagans in
those rites and customs which we read to have been forbidden them, yet for
all that, there had been remaining betwixt them and the pagans a great
deal more difference than will remain betwixt us and the Papists, if we
avoid not conformity with them in the controverted ceremonies; for the
pagans had not the word, sacraments, &c., which the Papists do retain, so
that we may far more easily use the ceremonies as a mist to darken the
eyes of the Papists, than they could have used those forbidden rites as a
mist to darken the eyes of pagans. Much more, then, Protestants should not
be permitted to conform themselves unto Papists in rites and ceremonies,
lest, in the dangerous days of trial (which some reformed churches in
Europe do presently feel, and which seem to be faster approaching to
ourselves than the most part are aware of), they join themselves to
Papists in these external things, too far using the same as a cloak to
conceal themselves in, &c. 4. We find that the reason why the fourth
council of Toledo forbade the ceremony of thrice dipping in water to be
used in baptism, was,(599) lest Christians should seem to assent to
heretics who divide the Trinity. And the reason why the same council
forbade the clergymen to conform themselves unto the custom of
heretics,(600) in the shaving off the hair of their head, is mentioned to
have been the removing of conformity with the custom of heretics from the
churches of Spain, as being a great dishonour unto the same. And we have
heard before, that Augustine condemneth conformity with the Manichees, in
fasting upon the Lord’s day, as scandalous. And whereas afterwards the
council of Cæsar-Augusta forbade fasting upon the Lord’s day, a grave
writer layeth out the reason of this prohibition thus:(601) “It would
appear that this council had a desire to abolish the rites and customs of
the Manichean heretics, who were accustomed to fast upon the Lord’s day.”
Lastly, we have seen from Constantine’s epistle to the churches, that
dissimilitude with the Jews was one (though not the only one) reason why
it was not thought beseeming to keep Easter upon the fourteenth day of the
month. Who then can think that any special accident, as Hooker imagineth,
was the reason why the rites and customs of pagans were forbidden to
Christians? Were not the customs of the pagans to be held unbeseeming for
Christians, as well as the customs of the Jews? Nay, if conformity with
heretics (whom Hooker acknowledgeth to be a part of the visible
church(602)), in their customs and ceremonies, was condemned as a scandal,
a dishonour to the church, and an assenting unto their heresies, might he
not have much more thought that conformity with the customs of pagans was
forbidden as a greater scandal and dishonour to the church, and as an
assenting to the paganism and idolatry of those that were without?

_Sect._ 9. But to proceed. In the fourth place, the canon law itself
speaketh for the argument which we have in hand: _Non licet iniquas
observationes agere calendarum, et otiis vacare Gentilibus, neque lauro,
aut viriditate arborum, cingere domos: omnis enim haec observatio
paganismi est._(603) And again: _Anathema sit qui ritum paganorum et
calendarum observat._(604) And after: _Dies Aegyptiaci et Januarii
calendae non sunt observandae._(605)

Fifthly, Our assertion will find place in the school too, which holdeth
that Jews are forbidden to wear a garment of diverse sorts,(606) as of
linen and woollen together, and that their women were forbidden to wear
men’s clothes, or their men women’s clothes, because the Gentiles used so
in the worshipping of their gods. In like manner, that the priests were
forbidden to round their heads,(607) or mar their beards, or make incision
in their flesh, because the idolatrous priests did so.(608) And that the
prohibition which forbade the commixtion of beasts of diverse kinds among
the Jews hath a figurative sense,(609) in that we are forbidden to make
people of one kind of religion, to have any conjunction with those of
another kind.

Sixthly, Papists themselves teach,(610) that it is generally forbidden to
communicate with infidels and heretics, but especially in any act of
religion. Yea, they think,(611) that Christian men are bound to abhor the
very phrases and words of heretics, which they use. Yea, they condemn the
very heathenish names of the days of the week imposed after the names of
the planets,(612) Sunday, Monday, &c. They hold it altogether a great and
damnable sin to deal with heretics in matter of religion,(613) or any way
to communicate with them in spiritual things. Bellarmine is plain,(614)
who will have catholics to be discerned from heretics, and other sects of
all sorts, even by ceremonies, because as heretics have hated the
ceremonies of the church, so the church hath ever abstained from the
observances of heretics.

_Sect._ 10. Seventhly, Our own writers do sufficiently confirm us in this
argument. The bringing of heathenish or Jewish rites into the church is
altogether condemned by them,(615) yea, though the customs and rites of
the heathen(616) be received into the church for gaining them, and drawing
them to the true religion, yet is it condemned as proceeding _ex κακαζηλίᾳ
seu prava Ethnicorum imitatione_. J. Rainolds(617) rejecteth the popish
ceremonies, partly because they are Jewish, and partly because they are
heathenish. The same argument Beza(618) useth against them. In the second
command, as Zanchius(619) expoundeth it, we are forbidden to borrow
anything, _ex ritibus idololatrarum Gentium_. _Fidelibus_ (saith
Calvin(620)) _fas non est ullo symbolo ostendere, sibi cum superstitiosis
esse consensum_. To conclude, then, since not only idolatry is forbidden,
but also, as Pareus noteth,(621) every sort of communicating with the
occasion, appearances, or instruments of the same; and since, as our
divines have declared,(622) the Papists are in many respects gross
idolaters, let us choose to have the commendation which was given to the
ancient Britons for being enemies to the Roman customs,(623) rather than,
as Pope Pius V. was forced to say of Rome,(624) that it did more
_Gentilizare, quam Christianizare_; so they who would gladly wish they
could give a better commendation to our church, be forced to say, that it
doth not only more _Anglizare, quam Scotizare_, but also more _Romanizare,
quam Evangelizare_.

_Sect._ 11. But our argument is made by a great deal more strong, if yet
further we consider, that by the controverted ceremonies, we are not only
made like the idolatrous Papists, in such rites of man’s devising as they
place some religion in, but we are made likewise to take upon us those
signs and symbols which Papists account to be special badges of Popery,
and which also, in the account of many of our own reverend divines, are to
be so thought of. In the oath ordained by Pius IV., to be taken of bishops
at their creation (as Onuphrius writeth(625)), they are appointed to
swear, _Apostolicas et ecclesiasticas traditiones, reliquasque ejusdem
ecclesiæ observationes et constitutiones firmissime admitto et amplector_;
and after, _Receptos quoque ac approbatos ecclesiæ Catholicæ ritus, in
supra dictorum sacramentorum solemni administratione, recipio, et
admitto_. We see bishops are not created by this ordinance, except they
not only believe with the church of Rome, but also receive her ceremonies,
by which, as by the badges of her faith and religion, cognizance may be
had that they are indeed her children. And farther, Papists give it forth
plainly,(626) that as the church hath ever abstained from the observances
of heretics, so now also catholics (they mean Romanists) are very well
distinguished from heretics (they mean those of the reformed religion) by
the sign of the cross, abstinence from flesh on Friday, &c. And how do our
divines understand the mark of the beast, spoken of Rev. xiii. 16, 17?
Junius(627) comprehendeth confirmation under this mark. Cartwright(628)
also referreth the sign of the cross to the mark of the beast. Pareus(629)
approveth the Bishop of Salisbury’s exposition, and placeth the common
mark of the beast the observation of antichrist’s festival days, and the
rest of his ceremonies, which are not commanded by God. It seems this much
has been plain to Joseph Hall, so that he could not deny it; for whereas
the Brownists allege, that not only after their separation, but before
they separated also, they were, and are verily persuaded that the
ceremonies are but the badges and liveries of that man of sin whereof the
Pope is the head and the prelates the shoulders,—he, in this
_Apology_(630) against them, saith nothing to this point.

_Sect._ 12. As for any other of our opposites, who have made such answers
as they could to the argument in hand, I hope the strength and force of
the same hath been demonstrated to be such that their poor shifts are too
weak for gain-standing it. Some of them (as I touched before) are not
ashamed to profess that we should come as near to the Papists as we can,
and therefore should conform ourselves to them in their ceremonies (only
purging away the superstition), because if we do otherwise, we exasperate
the Papists, and alienate them the more from our religion and reformation.
_Ans._ 1. Bastwick,(631) propounding the same objection, _Si quis objiciat
nos ipsos pertinaci ceremoniarum papalium contemptu, Papistis offendiculum
posuisse, quo minus se nostris ecclesiis associent_, he answereth out of
the Apostle, Rom. xv. 2, that we are to please every one his neighbour
only in good things to edification, and that we may not wink at absurd or
wicked things, nor at anything in God’s worship which is not found in
Scripture. 2. I have showed(632) that Papists are but more and more
hardened in evil by this our conformity with them in ceremonies. 3. I have
showed also,(633) the superstition of the ceremonies, even as they are
retained by us, and that it is as impossible to purge the ceremonies from
superstition, as to purge superstition from itself.

There are others, who go about to sew a cloak of fig leaves, to hide their
conformity with Papists, and to find out some difference betwixt the
English ceremonies and those of the Papists; so say some, that by the sign
of the cross they are not ranked with Papists, because they use not the
material cross, which is the popish one, but the aerial only. But it is
known well enough that Papists do idolatrise the very aerial cross; for
Bellarmine holds,(634) _venerabile esse signum crucis, quod effingitur in
fronte, aere, &c._ And though they did not make an idol of it, yet
forasmuch as Papists put it to a religious use, and make it one of the
marks of Roman Catholics (as we have seen before), we may not be conformed
to them in the use of the same. The fathers of such a difference between
the popish cross and the English have not succeeded in this their way, yet
their posterity approve their sayings, and follow their footsteps. Bishop
Lindsey(635) by name will trade in the same way, and will have us to think
that kneeling in the act of receiving the communion, and keeping of
holidays, do not sort us with Papists; for that, as touching the former,
there is a disconformity in the object, because they kneel to the sign, we
to the thing signified. And as for the latter, the difference is in the
employing of the time, and in the exercise and worship for which the
cessation is commanded. What is his verdict, then, wherewith he sends us
away? Verily, that people should be taught that the disconformity between
the Papists and us is not so much in any external use of ceremonies, as in
the substance of the service and object whereunto they are applied. But,
good man, he seeks a knot in the bulrush; for, 1, There is no such
difference betwixt our ceremonies and those of the Papists, in respect of
the object and worship whereunto the same is applied, as he pretendeth;
for, as touching the exercise and worship whereunto holidays are applied,
Papists tell us,(636) that they keep Pasche and Pentecost yearly for
memory of Christ’s resurrection, and the sending down of the Holy Ghost;
and, I pray, to what other employment do Formalists profess that they
apply these feasts, but to the commemoration of the same benefits? And as
touching kneeling in the sacrament, it shall be proved in the next
chapter, that they do kneel to the sign, even as the Papists do. In the
meanwhile, it may be questioned whether the Bishop meant some such matter,
even here where professedly he maketh a difference betwixt the Papists’
kneeling and ours. His words, wherein I apprehend this much, are these:
“The Papists in prayer kneel to an idol, and in the sacrament they kneel
to the sign: we kneel in our prayer to God, and by the sacrament to the
thing signified.” The analogy of the antithesis required him to say, that
we kneel “in the sacrament” to the thing signified; but changing his
phrase, he saith, that we kneel “by the sacrament” to the thing signified.
Now, if we kneel “by the sacrament to Christ,” then we adore the sacrament
as _objectum materiale_, and Christ as _objectum formale_. Just so the
Papists adore their images; because _per imaginem_, they adore
_prototypon_. 2. What if we should yield to the Bishop that kneeling and
holidays are with us applied to another service, and used with another
meaning than they are with the Papists? Doth that excuse our conformity
with Papists in the external use of these ceremonies? If so, J. Hart(637)
did rightly argument out of Pope Innocentius, that the church doth not
Judaise by the sacrament of unction or anointing, because it doth figure
and work another thing in the New Testament than it did in the Old.
Rainold answereth, that though it were so, yet is the ceremony Jewish; and
mark his reason (which carrieth a fit proportion to our present purpose),
“I trust (saith he) you will not maintain but it were Judaism for your
church to sacrifice a lamb in burnt-offering, though you did it to
signify, not Christ that was to come, as the Jews did, but that Christ is
come,” &c. “St. Peter did constrain the Gentiles to Judaise, when they
were induced by his example and authority to follow the Jewish rite in
choice of meats; yet neither he nor they allowed it in that meaning which
it was given to the Jews in; for it was given them to betoken that
holiness, and train them up into it, which Christ by his grace should
bring to the faithful. And Peter knew that Christ had done this in truth,
and taken away that figure, yea the whole yoke of the law of Moses; which
point he taught the Gentiles also. Wherefore, although your church do keep
the Jewish rites with another meaning than God ordained them for the Jews,
&c., yet this of Peter showeth that the thing is Jewish, and you to
Judaise who keep them.” By the very same reasons prove we that Formalists
do Romanise by keeping the popish ceremonies, though with another meaning,
and to another use, than the Romanists do. The very external use,
therefore, of any sacred ceremony of human institution, is not to be
suffered in the matter of worship, when in respect of this external use we
are sorted with idolaters. 3. If conformity with idolaters in the external
use of their ceremonies be lawful, if so be there be a difference in the
substance of the worship and object whereunto they are applied, then why
were Christians forbidden of old (as we have heard before) to keep the
calends of January, and the first day of every month, forasmuch as the
pagans used so? Why was trin-immersion in baptism, and fasting upon the
Lord’s day forbidden, for that the heretics did so? Why did the Nicene
fathers inhibit the keeping of Easter upon the fourteenth day of the
month,(638) so much the rather because the Jews kept it on that day? The
Bishop must say there was no need of shunning conformity with pagans,
Jews, heretics, in the external use of their rites and customs, and that a
difference ought to have been made only in the object and use whereunto
the same was applied. Nay, why did God forbid Israel to cut their hair as
the Gentiles did? Had it not been enough not to apply this rite to a
superstitious use, as Aquinas showeth(639) the Gentiles did? Why was the
very external use of it forbidden?

_Sect._ 14. There is yet another piece brought against us, but we will
abide the proof of it, as of the rest. Nobis saith,(640) _Saravia, satis
est, modestis et piis Christianis satisfacere, qui ita recesserunt a
superstitionibus et idololatriae Romanae ecclesiae, ut probatos ab
orthodoxis patribus mores, non rejiciant._ So have some thought to escape
by this postern, that they use the ceremonies, not for conformity with
Papists, but for conformity with the ancient fathers. _Ans._ 1. When
Rainold speaketh of the abolishing of popish ceremonies,(641) he answereth
this subtlety: “But if you say, therefore, that we be against the ancient
fathers in religion, because we pluck down that which they did set up,
take heed lest your speech do touch the Holy Ghost, who saith that
Hezekiah (in breaking down the brazen serpent) did keep God’s commandments
which he commanded Moses,” 2 Kings xviii. 6; and yet withal saith, “That
he brake in pieces the serpent of brass which Moses had made,” 2 Kings
xviii. 4. 2. There are some of the ceremonies which the fathers used not,
as the surplice (which we have seen before(642)) and kneeling in the act
of receiving the eucharist (as we shall see afterwards(643)). 3. Yielding
by concession, not by confession, that all the ceremonies about which
there is controversy now among us, were of old used by the fathers; yet
that which these Formalists say, is (as Parker showeth(644)) even as if a
servant should be covered before his master, not as covering is a late
sign of pre-eminence, but as it was of old, a sign of subjection; or as if
one should preach that the prelates are _tyranni_ to their brethren,
_fures_ to the church, _sophistae_ to the truth, and excuse himself thus:
I use these words, as of old they signified a ruler, a servant, a student
of wisdom. All men know that words and actions must be interpreted, used
and received, according to their modern use, and not as they have been of
old.

CHAPTER IV.

THAT THE CEREMONIES ARE IDOLS AMONG THE FORMALISTS THEMSELVES; AND THAT
KNEELING IN THE LORD’S SUPPER BEFORE THE BREAD AND WINE, IN THE ACT OF
RECEIVING THEM, IS FORMALLY IDOLATRY.

_Sect._ 1. My fourth argument against the lawfulness of the ceremonies
followeth, by which I am to evince that they are not only idolatrous
_reductive_, because monuments of by-past, and _participative_, because
badges of present idolatry, but that likewise they make Formalists
themselves to be formally, and in respect of their own using of them,
idolaters, consideration not had of the by-past or present abusing of them
by others. This I will make good: first, of all the ceremonies in general;
then, of kneeling in particular. And I wish our opposites here look to
themselves, for this argument proveth to them the box of Pandora, and
containeth that which undoeth them, though this much be not seen before
the opening.

First, then, the ceremonies are idols to Formalists. It had been good to
have remembered that which Ainsworth noteth,(645) that idolothites and
monuments of idolatry should be destroyed, lest themselves at length
become idols. The idolothious ceremonies, we see now, are become idols to
those who have retained them. The ground which the Bishop of Winchester
taketh for his sermon _of the worshipping of imaginations_,—to wit, that
the devil, seeing that idolatrous images would be put down, bent his whole
device, in place of them, to erect and set up divers imaginations, to be
adored and magnified instead of the former,—is, in some things, abused and
misapplied by him. But well may I apply it to the point in hand; for that
the ceremonies are the imaginations which are magnified, adored, and
idolised, instead of the idolatrous images which were put down, thus we
instruct and qualify:

_Sect._ 2. First, They are so erected and extolled, that they are more
looked to than the weighty matters of the law of God: all good discipline
must be neglected before they be not holden up. A covetous man is an
idolater, for this respect among others, as Davenant noteth,(646) because
he neglects the service which he oweth to God, and is wholly taken up with
the gathering of money. And I suppose every one will think that those
traditions, Mark vii. 8, 9, which the Pharisees kept and held, with the
laying aside of the commandments of God, might well be called idols. Shall
we not then call the ceremonies idols, which are observed with the
neglecting of God’s commandments, and which are advanced above many
substantial points of religion? Idolatry, blasphemy, profanation of the
Sabbath, perjury, adultery, &c., are overlooked, and not corrected nor
reproved, nay, not so much as discountenanced in those who favour and
follow the ceremonies; and if in the fellows and favourites, much more in
the fathers. What if order be taken with some of those abominations in
certain abject poor bodies? _Dat veniam corvis, vexat censura columbas._
What will not an episcopal conformist pass away with, if there be no more
had against him than the breaking of God’s commandments by open and gross
wickedness? But O what narrow notice is taken of non-conformity! How
mercilessly is it menaced! How cruelly corrected! Well, the ceremonies are
more made of than the substance. And this is so evident, that Dr Burges
himself lamenteth the pressure of conformity,(647) and denieth not that
which is objected to him, namely, that more grievous penalties are
inflicted upon the refusal of the ceremonies than upon adultery and
drunkenness.

_Sect._ 3. Secondly, Did not Eli make idols of his sons, 1 Sam. ii. 29,
when he spared them and bare with them, though with the prejudice of God’s
worship? And may not we call the ceremonies idols, which are not only
spared and borne with, to the prejudice of God’s worship, but are likewise
so erected, that the most faithful labourers in God’s house, for their
sake, are depressed, the teachers and maintainers of God’s true worship
cast out? For their sake, many learned and godly men are envied,
contemned, hated, and nothing set by, because they pass under the name (I
should say the nickname) of puritans. For their sake many dear Christians
have been imprisoned, fined, banished, &c. For their sake many qualified
and well-gifted men are holden out of the ministry, and a door of entrance
denied to those to whom God hath granted a door of utterance. For their
sake, those whose faithful and painful labours in the Lord’s harvest have
greatly benefited the church, have been thrust from their charges, so that
they could not fulfil the ministry which they have received of the Lord,
to testify of the gospel of the grace of God. The best builders, the wise
master-builders, have been over-turned by them. This is objected to Joseph
Hall by the Brownists; and what can he say to it? Forsooth, “that not so
much the ceremonies are stood upon as obedience. If God please to try Adam
but with an apple, it is enough. What do we quarrel at the value of the
fruit when we have a prohibition? Shemei is slain. What! merely for going
out of the city? The act was little, the bond was great. What _is_
commanded matters not so much as _by whom._” _Ans._ 1. If obedience be the
chief thing stood upon, why are not other laws and statutes urged as
strictly as those which concern the ceremonies? 2. But what means he? What
would he say of those Scottish Protestants imprisoned in the castle of
Scherisburgh in France,(648) who, being commanded by the captain to come
to the mass, answered, “That to do anything that was against their
conscience, they would not, neither for him nor yet for the king?” If he
approve this answer of theirs, he must allow us to say, that we will do
nothing which is against our consciences. We submit ourselves and all
which we have to the king, and to inferior governors we render all due
subjection which we owe to them, but no mortal man hath domination over
our consciences, which are subject to one only Lawgiver, and ruled by his
law. I have shown in the first part of this dispute how conscience is
sought to be bound by the law of the ceremonies, and here, by the way, no
less may be drawn from Hall’s words, which now I examine; for he implieth
in them that we are bound to obey the statutes about the ceremonies merely
for their authority’s sake who command us, though there be no other thing
in the ceremonies themselves which can commend them to us. But I have also
proved before that human laws do not bind to obedience, but only in this
case, when the things which they prescribe do agree and serve to those
things which God’s law prescribeth; so that, as human laws, they bind not,
neither have they any force to bind, but only by participation with God’s
law. This ground hath seemed to P. Bayne(649) so necessary to be known,
that he hath inserted it in his brief _Exposition of the Fundamental
Points of Religion_. And besides all that which I have said for it before,
I may not here pass over in silence this one thing, that Hall himself
calleth it superstition to make any more sins than the ten
commandments.(650) Either, then, let it be shown out of God’s word that
non-conformity, and the refusing of the English popish ceremonies, is a
fault, or else let us not be thought bound by men’s laws where God’s law
hath left us free. Yet we deal more liberally with our opposites, for if
we prove not the unlawfulness of the ceremonies, both by God’s word and
sound reason, let us then be bound to use them for ordinance’ sake.

3. His comparisons are far wide. They are so far from running upon four
feet, that they have indeed no feet at all, whether we consider the
commandments, or the breach of them, he is altogether extravagant. God
might have commanded Adam to eat the apple which he forbade him to eat,
and so the eating of it had been good, the not eating of it evil; whereas
the will and commandment of men is not _regula regulans_, but _regula
regulata_. Neither can they make good or evil, beseeming or not beseeming,
what they list, but their commandments are to be examined by a higher
rule. When Solomon commanded Shemei to dwell at Jerusalem, and not to go
over the brook Kidron, he had good reason for that which he required; for
as P. Martyr noteth,(651) he was a man of the family of the house of Saul,
2 Sam. xv. 5, and hated the kingdom and throne of David, so that _relictus
liber multa fuisset molitus, vel cum Israelitis, vel cum Palestinis_. But
what reason is there for charging us with the law of the ceremonies,
except the sole will of the lawmakers? Yet, say that Solomon had no reason
for this his commandment, except his own will and pleasure for trying the
obedience of Shemei, who will say that princes have as great liberty and
power of commanding at their pleasure in matters of religion as in civil
matters? If we consider the breach of the commandments, he is still at
random. Though God tried Adam but with an apple, yet divines mark in his
eating of that forbidden fruit many gross and horrible sins,(652) as
infidelity, idolatry, pride, ambition, self-love, theft, covetousness,
contempt of God, profanation of God’s name, ingratitude, impostacy,
murdering of his posterity, &c. But, I pray, what exorbitant evils are
found in our modest and Christian-like denial of obedience to the law of
the ceremonies? When Shemei transgressed king Solomon’s commandment,
besides the violation of this,(653) and the disobeying of the charge
wherewith Solomon (by the special direction and inspiration of God) had
charged him, that his former wickedness, and that which he hath done to
David, might be returned upon his head, the Divine Providence so fitly
furnishing another occasion and cause of his punishment. There was also a
great contempt and misregard showed to the king, in that Shemei, knowing
his own evil-deservings, acknowledged (as the truth was) he had received
no small favour, and therefore consented to the king’s word as good, and
promised obedience. Yet for all that, upon such a petty and small occasion
as the seeking of two runagate servants, he reckoned not to despise the
king’s mercy and lenity, and to set at nought his most just commandment.
What! Is nonconformity no less piacular? If any will dare to say so, he is
bound to show that it is so. And thus have we pulled down the untempered
mortar wherewith Hall would hide the idolising of the ceremonies.

_Sect._ 4. But Thirdly, Did not Rachel make Jacob an idol, when she
ascribed to him a power of giving children? “Am I in God’s stead?” saith
Jacob, Gen. xxx. 1, 3. How much more reason have we to say that the
ceremonies are idols, are set up in God’s stead, since an operative virtue
is placed in them, for giving stay and strength against sin and tentation,
and for working of other spiritual and supernatural effects? Thus is the
sign of the cross an idol to those who conform to Papists in the use of
it. M. Ant. de Dominis holdeth,(654) _Crucis signum contra daemones esse
praesidium_; and that even(655) _ex opere operato, effectus mirabiles
signi crucis, etiam apud infideles, aliquando enituerint_. “Shall I say
(saith Mr Hooker),(656) that the sign of the cross (as we use it) is a
mean in some sort to work our preservation from reproach? Surely the mind
which as yet hath not hardened itself in sin, is seldom provoked thereunto
in any gross and grievous manner, but nature’s secret suggestion objecteth
against it ignominy as a bar, which conceit being entered into that place
of man’s fancy (the forehead), the gates whereof have imprinted in them
that holy sign (the cross), which bringeth forthwith to mind whatsoever
Christ hath wrought and we vowed against sin; it cometh hereby to pass,
that Christian men never want a most effectual, though a silent teacher,
to avoid whatsoever may deservedly procure shame.” What more do Papists
ascribe to the sign of the cross, when they say, that by it Christ keeps
his own faithful ones(657) _contra omnes tentationes et hostes_. Now if
the covetous man be called an idolater, Eph. v. 5, because, though he
think not his money to be God, yet he trusteth to live and prosper by it
(which confidence and hope we should repose in God only, Jer. xvii. 7), as
Rainold marketh,(658) then do they make the sign of the cross an idol who
trust by it to be preserved from sin, shame, and reproach, and to have
their minds stayed in the instant of tentation. For who hath given such a
virtue to that dumb and idle sign as to work that which God only can work?
And how have these good fellows imagined, that not by knocking at their
brains, as Jupiter, but by only signing their foreheads, they can
procreate some menacing Minerva, or armed Pallas, to put to flight the
devil himself.

_Sect._ 5. The same kind of operative virtue is ascribed to the ceremony
of confirmation or bishopping; for the English service book teacheth, that
by it children receive strength against sin, and against tentation. And
Hooker hath told us,(659) that albeit the successors of the apostles had
but only for a time such power as by prayer and imposition of hands to
bestow the Holy Ghost, yet confirmation hath continued hitherto for very
special benefits; and that the fathers impute everywhere unto it “that
gift or grace of the Holy Ghost, not which maketh us first Christian men,
but when we are made such, assisteth us in all virtue, armeth us against
tentation and sin.” Moreover, whilst he is a-showing why this ceremony of
confirmation was separated from baptism, having been long joined with it,
one of his reasons which he giveth for the separation is, that sometimes
the parties who received baptism were infants, at which age they might
well be admitted to live in the family, but to fight in the army of God,
to bring forth the fruits, and to do the works of the Holy Ghost, their
time of hability was not yet come; which implieth, that by the
confirmation men receive this hability, else there is no sense in that
which he saith. What is idolatry, if this be not, to ascribe to rites of
man’s devising, the power and virtue of doing that which none but He to
whom all power in heaven and earth belongs can do; and howbeit Hooker
would strike us dead at once, with the high-sounding name of the fathers,
yet it is not unknown, that the first fathers from whom this idolatry hath
descended were those ancient heretics, the Montanists. For as Chemnitius
marketh out of Tertullian and Cyprian,(660) the Montanists were the first
who began to ascribe any spiritual efficacy or operation to rites and
ceremonies devised by men.

_Sect._ 6. Fourthly, That whereunto more respect and account is given than
God alloweth to be given to it, and wherein more excellency is placed than
God hath put into it, or will at all communicate to it, is an idol exalted
against God; which maketh Zanchius to say,(661) _Si Luthero vel Calvino
tribuas, quod non potuerant errare, idola tibi fingis._ Now, when
Hooker(662) accounteth festival days, for God’s extraordinary works
wrought upon them, to be holier than other days, what man of sound
judgment will not perceive that these days are idolised, since such an
eminence and excellency is put in them, whereas God hath made no
difference betwixt them and any other days? We have seen also that the
ceremonies are urged as necessary,(663) but did ever God allow that things
indifferent should be so highly advanced at the pleasure of men? And,
moreover, I have shown(664) that worship is placed in them; in which
respect they must needs be idols, being thus exalted against God’s word,
at which we are commanded to hold us in the matter of worship. Last of
all, they are idolatrously advanced and dignified, in so much as holy
mystical significations are given them, which are a great deal more than
God’s word alloweth in any rites of human institution, as shall be
shown(665) afterwards; and so it appeareth how the ceremonies, as now
urged and used, are idols.

Now to kneeling in the act of receiving the Lord’s supper, which I will
prove to be direct and formal idolatry; and from idolatry shall it never
be purged while the world standeth, though our opposites strive for it,
_tanquam pro aris et focis_.

_Sect._ 7. The question about the idolatry of kneeling betwixt them and us
standeth in this: Whether kneeling, at the instant of receiving the
sacrament, before the consecrated bread and wine,—purposely placed in our
sight in the act of kneeling as signs standing in Christ’s stead, before
which we, the receivers, are to exhibit outwardly religious adoration,—be
formally idolatry or not? No man can pick a quarrel at the stating of the
question thus; for, 1. We dispute only about kneeling at the instant of
receiving the sacramental elements, as all know. 2. No man denies inward
adoration in the act of receiving, for in our minds we then adore by the
inward graces of faith, love, thankfulness, &c., by the holy and heavenly
exercise whereof we glorify God; so that the controversy is about outward
adoration. 3. No man will deny that the consecrated elements are purposely
placed in our sight when we kneel, except he say, that they are in that
action only accidentally present before us no otherwise than the
table-cloth or the walls of the church are. 4. That the sacramental
elements are in our sight (when we kneel) as signs standing in Christ’s
stead, it is most undeniable; for if these signs stand not in Christ’s
stead to us, the bread bearing _vicem corporis Christi_, and the wine
_vicem sanguinis_, it followeth, that when we eat the bread and drink the
wine, we are no more eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ,
spiritually and sacramentally, than if we were receiving any other bread
and wine not consecrated. I stay not now upon this head, because our
opposites acknowledge it; for Dr Burges(666) calls the sacraments the
Lord’s images and deputies; and the Archbishop of Spalato saith,(667) that
when we take the sacrament of Christ’s body, we adore _Christum sub hac
figura figuratum_. 5. That kneelers, at the instant of receiving, have the
consecrated bread and wine in the eyes both of their bodies and minds, as
things so stated in that action, that before them they are to exhibit
outward religious adoration as well as inward, it is also most plain; for
otherwise they should fall down and kneel only out of incogitancy, having
no such purpose in their minds, or choice in their wills, as to kneel
before these sacramental signs.

_Sect._ 8. The question thus stated, Formalists deny, we affirm. Their
negative is destroyed, and our affirmative confirmed by these reasons:—

First, The kneelers worship Christ in or by the elements, as their own
confessions declare. “When we take the eucharist, we adore the body of
Christ, _per suum signum_,” saith the Archbishop of Spalato.(668) “We
kneel by the sacrament to the thing specified,” saith the Bishop of
Edinburgh.(669) The Archbishop of St Andrews(670) and Dr Burges(671)
profess the adoring of Christ in the sacrament. Dr Mortoune maintaineth
such an adoration in the sacrament as he calleth relative from the sign to
Christ; and Paybody(672) defendeth him herein. But the replier(673) to Dr
Mortoune’s _Particular Defence_ inferreth well, that if the adoration be
relative from the sign, it must first be carried to the sign as a means of
conveyance unto Christ. Dr Burges(674) alloweth adoration, or divine
worship (as he calleth it), to be given to the sacrament respectively; and
he allegeth a place of Theodoret,(675) to prove that such an adoration as
he there taketh for divine worship is done to the sacrament in relation to
Christ, and that this adoration performed to the mysteries as types, is to
be passed over to the archetype, which is the body and blood of Christ.
Since, then, that kneeling about which our question is, by the confession
of kneelers themselves, is divine worship given by the sign to the thing
signified, and done to the sacrament respectively or in relation to
Christ, he that will say that it is not idolatry must acquit the Papists
of idolatry also in worshipping before their images; for they do in like
manner profess that they adore _prototypon per imaginem, ad imaginem_ or
_in imagine_, and that they give no more to the image but relative or
respective worship. The Rhemists(676) tell us that they do no more but
kneel before the creatures, at, or by them, adoring God. It availeth not
here to excogitate some differences betwixt the sacramental elements and
the popish images, for what difference soever be betwixt them when they
are considered in their own natural being, yet as objects of adoration
they differ not, because when they are considered _in esse adorabili_, we
see the same kind of adoration is exhibited by Formalists before the
elements which is by Papists before their images. To come nearer the
point, Papists profess that they give to the outward signs in the
sacrament no other adoration than the same which Formalists give to them.
Franciscus à Sancta Clara saith,(677) that divine worship doth not agree
to the signs _per se_, but only _per accidens_, and he allegeth for
himself that the Council of Trent, can 6. _de euch_, saith not that the
sacrament, but that Christ in the sacrament, is to be adored with
_latria_. To the same purpose I observe that Bellarmine(678) will not take
upon him to maintain any adoration of the sacrament with _latria_, holding
only that Christ in the eucharist is to be thus adored, and that _symbola
externa per se et proprie non sunt adoranda_. Whereupon he determineth,
_status questionis non est, nisi an Christus in eucharistia sit adorandus,
cultu latriae_. Now, albeit Papists understand by the outward sign of
Christ’s body in the eucharist nothing else but the species or accidents
of the bread, yet since they attribute to the same _quod sub illis
accidentibus ut vocant sit substantialiter corpus Christi vivum, cum sua
Deitate conjunctum_,(679) and since they give adoration or _latria_(680)
to the species, though not _per se_, yet as _quid unum_ with the Body of
Christ which they contain,—hereby it is evident that they worship
idolatrously those very accidents. And I would understand, if any of our
opposites dare say that Papists commit no such idolatry as here I impute
to them? Or, if they acknowledge this idolatry of Papists, how make they
themselves clean? for we see that the worship which Papists give to the
species of the bread is only relative to Christ, and of the same kind with
that which Formalists give to the bread and wine.

_Sect._ 9. Secondly, Religious kneeling before the bread which is set
before us for a sign to stand in Christ’s stead, and before which we adore
whilst it is to us actually an image representing Christ,(681) is the very
bowing down and worshipping forbidden in the second commandment. The
eucharist is called by the fathers _imago, signum, figura, similitudo_, as
Hospinian(682) instanceth out of Origen, Nazianzen, Augustine, Hilary,
Tertullian, Ambrose. The Archbishop of Armagh hath also observed,(683)
that the fathers expressly call the sacrament an image of Christ’s body,
and well might they call it so, since the sacramental elements do not only
represent Christ to us, but also stand in Christ’s stead, in such sort
that by the worthy receiving of them we are assured that we receive Christ
himself; and in eating of this bread, and drinking of this wine, we eat
the flesh, and drink the blood of Christ spiritually, and by faith.
Neither could the consecrated elements make a sacrament if they were not
such images standing in Christ’s stead. But what needeth any more? Dr
Burges(684) himself calleth the sacraments the Lord’s images. Now, that a
man who adoreth before the painted or graven image of Christ, though he
profess that he intendeth his whole adoration to Christ, and that he
placeth the image before him only to represent Christ, and to stir up his
mind to worship Christ, doth nevertheless commit idolatry, I trust none of
our opposites will deny. Nay, Bishop Lindsey teacheth plainly,(685) that
it is idolatry to set before the eyes of our minds or bodies any image as
a mean or motive of adoration, even though the worship should be
abstracted from the image, and not given unto it. Well, then, will it
please him to let us see that kneeling before the actual images of
Christ’s body and blood in the sacrament, even though these images should
be no otherwise considered in the act of adoration, but as active objects,
motives and occasions which stir up the mind of the kneeler to worship
Christ (for this is the best face which himself puts upon kneeling, though
falsely, as we shall see afterward), is not so great idolatry as the
other. All the difference which he maketh is,(686) “that no true worship
can be properly occasioned by an image, which is a doctor of lies,
teaching nothing of God, but falsehood and vanities; but the blessed
sacrament being instituted by Christ, to call to our remembrance his
death, &c., gives us, so oft as we receive it, a most powerful and
pregnant occasion of thanksgiving and praise.” Dr Burges,(687)
intermeddling with the same difference-making, will not have the
sacraments, which are images of God’s making and institution, to be
compared with images made by the lust of men. Two differences, then, are
given us. 1. That the sacramental elements have their institution from
God; images not so. 2. That the sacrament is an occasion of worship; an
image not so. The first difference makes them no help; for though the
ordinance and institution of God makes the use of sacramental images to be
no will-worship, yet doth it not any whit avail to show that adoration
before them is no idolatry. May I not commit idolatry with images of God’s
institution no less than with those invented by men, when (_coeteris
paribus_) there is no other difference betwixt them, considered as objects
of adoration, but that of the ordinance and institution which they have?
What if I fall down at the hearing of a sermon, and religiously adore
before the pastor, as the vicarious sign of Christ himself, who stands
there, in Christ’s stead, 2 Cor. v. 20, referring my adoration to Christ
only, yet in or by that ambassador who stands in Christ’s stead? If this
my adoration should be called so great idolatry as if I should fall down
before a graven image, to worship God in or by it (for it is, indeed, as
great every way), our kneelers, I perceive, would permit me to answer for
myself, that my worshipping of God by the minister cannot be called
idolatrous, by this reason, (because the worshipping of God by a graven
image is such, therefore also the worshipping of him by a living image is
no other,) since images of God’s institution must not be paralleled with
those of men’s invention. As to the second difference, I answer, 1. Though
the Bishop muttereth here that no true worship can be occasioned by an
image, yet belike he and his fellows will not stand to it, for many of
them allow the historical use of images; and the Bishop hath not denied,
though his antagonist objecteth it. Dr Mortoune(688) plainly alloweth of
images for historical commemoration; and herein he is followed by Dr
Burges.(689) 2. Whereas he saith that the blessed sacrament is instituted
by Christ to call to our remembrance his death, this inferreth not that it
is an occasion of thanksgiving and praise in the very act of receiving, as
we shall see afterward. Our question is only about kneeling in the act of
receiving. 3. We confess that the sacrament is an occasion of inward
worship in the receiving of it; for in _eucharistia exercetur summa fides,
spes, charitas, religio, caeteraeque virtutes, quibus Deum colimus et
glorificamus_.(690) But the outward adoration of kneeling down upon our
knees can be no more occasioned by the blessed sacrament, in the act of
receiving it, than by a graven image in the act of beholding it. The point
which the Bishop had to prove is, that whereas an image cannot be the
occasion of outward adoration and kneeling to God before it in the act of
looking upon it, the sacrament may be, and is, an occasion of kneeling,
when it is set before us in the act of receiving. This neither he, nor any
for him, shall ever make good.

_Sect._ 10. Thirdly, Kneeling in the act of receiving the sacrament before
the vicarious signs which stand in Christ’s stead, and are purposely set
before us in the act of adoration, that before them we may adore, wanteth
nothing to make up idolatrous co-adoration or relative worship. Our
opposites here tell us of two things necessary to the making up of
idolatry, neither of which is found in their kneeling. First, they say,
except there be an intention in the worshipper to adore the creature which
is before his eyes, his kneeling before it is no idolatry. “What shall I
say? saith Paybody.(691) What need I say in this place, but to profess,
and likewise avouch, that we intend only to worship the Lord our God, when
we kneel in the act of receiving? We worship not the bread and wine; we
intend not our adoring and kneeling unto them. Give us leave to avouch our
sincerity in this matter, and it will take away the respect of idolatry in
God’s worship.” _Ans._ I showed before, that Paybody defendeth Dr
Mortoune’s adoration, which he calleth relative from the sign to Chris;
yet let it be so, as here he pretendeth, that no adoration is intended to
the sign; will this save their kneeling from idolatry? Nay, then, the
three children should not have been idolaters, if they had kneeled before
Nebuchadnezzar’s image, intending their worship to God only, and not to
the image. Our opposites here take the Nicodemites by the hand. But what
saith Calvin?(692) _Si isti boni sapientesque sophistae ibi tum fuissent,
simplicitatem illorum trium servorum Dei irrisissent. Nam hujusmodi credo
eos verbis objurgassent: miseri homines, istud quidem_(_693_)_ non est
adorare, quum vos in rebus nullam fidem adhibetis: nulla est idololatria
nisi ubi est __ devotio, hoc est quaedam animi ad idola colenda
venerandaque adjunctio atque applicatio_, &c. If Paybody had been in
Calvin’s place, he could not have called the Nicodemites idolaters,
forasmuch as they have no intention to worship the popish images when they
kneel and worship before them. Nay, the grossest idolaters that ever were,
shall by this doctrine be no idolaters, and Paul shall be censured for
teaching that the Gentiles did worship devils, 1 Cor. x. 10, since they
did not intend to worship devils. _Idolatrae nec olim in paganismo
intendebant, nec hodie in papatu intendant, daemonibus offere quid tum?
Apostolus contrarium pronuntiat, quicquid illi intendant_, saith
Pareus.(694)

_Sect._ 11. The other thing which our kneelers require to the making up of
idolatry is, that the creature before which we adore be a passive object
of the adoration; whereas, say they,(695) the sacramental elements are “no
manner of way the passive object of our adoration, but the active only of
that adoration which, at the sacrament, is given to Christ; that is, such
an object and sign as moves us upon the sight, or by the signification
thereof, to lift up our hearts and adore the only object of our faith, the
Lord Jesus; such as the holy word of God, his works, and benefits are, by
meditation and consideration whereof we are moved and stirred up to adore
him.” _Ans._ 1. That which he affirmeth is false, and out of one page of
his own book I draw an argument which destroyeth it, thus: If the
sacramental elements were only the active object of their adoration who
kneel before them in the receiving, then their real presence should be but
accidental to the kneelers. But the real presence of the elements, in the
act of receiving, is not accidental to the kneelers; therefore, the
proposition I draw from his own words: “We can neither (saith he(696))
pray to God, nor thank him, nor praise him, but ever there must be, before
the eyes of our minds, at least something of his works, word, or
sacraments, if not before our external senses.” He confesseth it will be
enough, that these active objects of worship be before the eyes of our
minds, and that their real presence, before our external senses, is not
necessary but accidental to us, whose minds are by their means stirred up
to worship. And so it is indeed. For _esse scibile_, or _rememoratiuum_ of
an active object of adoration, is that which stirreth up the mind to
worship, so that the real presence of such an object is but accidental to
the worshipper. The assumption I likewise draw out of the Bishop’s own
words. For he saith(697) that we kneel before the elements, “having them
in our sight, or object to our senses, as ordinary signs, means, and
memorials, to stir us up to worship,” &c. Now if we have them in our sight
and before our senses for this purpose, that they may be means, signs, and
memorials to stir us up to worship, then, sure, their being really before
our senses, is not accidental to us when we kneel. Since Dr Burges(698)
hath been so dull and sottish as to write that “signs are but accidentally
before the communicants when they receive,” he is to be ignominiously
exsibilat for making the sacred sacramental signs to be no otherwise
present than the walls of the church, the nails and timber of the material
table whereupon the elements are set, or anything else accidentally before
the communicants. But, 2. Put the case, they did make the elements only
active objects of worship when they kneel in the act of receiving them.
What! Do some Papists make more of their images when they worship before
them? They hold, as the Archbishop of Spalato noteth,(699) that _Imago est
medium duntaxat seu instrumentum quo exemplar occurrit suo honoratori,
cultori, adoratori: imago excitat tantummodo memoriam, ut in exemplar
feratur_. Will we have them to speak for themselves? Suarez will have
_Imagines esse occasiones vel signa excitantia hominem ad adorandum
prototype_.(700) Friar Pedro de Cabrera,(701) a Spaniard, taketh the
opinion of Durand and his followers to be this: That images are adored
only improperly, because they put men in mind of the persons represented
by them; and he reasoneth against them thus: “If images were only to be
worshipped by way of rememoration and recordation, because they make us
remember the samplers which we do so worship as if they had been then
present, it would follow that all creatures should be adored with the same
adoration wherewith we worship God, seeing all of them do lead us unto the
knowledge and remembrance of God.” Whereby it is evident, that in the
opinion of Durand,(702) and those who are of his mind, images are but
active objects of adoration. Lastly, what saith Becane the Jesuit?(703)
_Imago autem Christi non est occasio idololatriæ apud nos catholicos, quia
non alium ob finem eam retinemus, quam ut nobis Christum salvatorem, et
beneficia ejus representet._ More particularly he will have the image of
Christ honoured for two reasons. 1. _Quia honor qui exhibetur imagini,
redundat in eum cujus est imago._ 2. _Quia illud in pretio haberi potest,
quod per se revocat nobis in memoriam beneficia Dei, et est occasio ut pro
eis acceptis grati existamus. At imago Christi per se revocat nobis in
memoriam beneficium nostræ redemptionis_, &c. That for this respect the
image of Christ is honoured, he confirmed by this simile: _Quia ob eandem
causam apud nos in pretio ac honore sunt sacra Biblia, itemque festa
paschatis, pentecostes, nativitatis, et passionis Christi_. What higher
account is here made of images than to be active objects of worship? For
even whilst it is said that the honour done to the image resulteth to him
whose image it is, there is no honour ascribed to the image as a passive
object; but they who honour an image for this respect, and with this
meaning, have it only for an active object which represents and calls to
their mind the first sampler, as the Archbishop of Spalato also
observeth.(704) Neither the Papists only, but some also of the very
heathen idolaters, _norunt in imaginibus nihil deitatis inesse, meras
autem esse rerum absentium repræsentationes_,(705) &c. And what if neither
heathens nor Papists had been of this opinion, that images are but active
objects of worship? Yet I have before observed, that the Bishop himself
acknowledgeth it were idolatry to set before us an image as the active
object of our adoration, though the worship should be abstracted from the
image.

_Sect._ 12. Finally, To shut up this point, it is to be noted that the
using of the sacramental elements, as active objects of worship only,
cannot make kneeling before them in the receiving to be idolatry; for then
might we lawfully, and without idolatry, kneel before every active object
which stirreth up our minds to worship God. All the works of God are such
active objects, as the Bishop also resolveth in the words before cited.
Yet may we not, at the sight of every one of God’s works, kneel down and
adore, whilst the eyes, both of body and mind, are fixed upon it, as the
means and occasion which stirreth us up to worship God. The Bishop,
indeed, holdeth, we may, only he saith this is not necessary,(706) because
when, by the sight of the creatures of God we are moved privately to
worship, our external gesture of adoration is arbitrary, and sometimes no
gesture at all is required. But in the ordinary ministry, when the works
of God or his benefits are propounded, or applied publicly, to stir us up
to worship in the assemblies of the church, then our gesture ceaseth to be
arbitrary; for it must be such as is prescribed and received in the church
where we worship. _Ans._ 1. He shuffleth the point decently, for when he
speaks of being moved to worship at the sight of any creature, he means of
inward worship, as is evident by these words, “Sometime no gesture at all
is required;” but when he speaks of being moved to worship in the
assemblies of the church, by the benefits of God propounded publicly (for
example, by the blessed sacrament), then he means of outward worship, as
is evident by his requiring necessarily a gesture. He should have spoken
of one kind of worship in both cases, namely, of that which is outward;
for of no other do we dispute. When we are moved by the sacrament to adore
God in the act of receiving, thus 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 (whereof
himself could not be ignorant) is, that the sacramental elements may be to
us, in the receiving, active objects of outward adoration; or because they
move us to worship inwardly, that therefore we should adore outwardly. 2.
Whereas he teacheth that kneeling before any creature, when thereby we are
moved to worship privately, is lawful; but kneeling before the sacramental
elements, when thereby we are moved to worship in the assemblies of the
church, is necessary; that we may kneel there, but we must kneel here, he
knew, or else he made himself ignorant that both these should be denied by
us. Why, then, did he not make them good? Kneeling before those active
objects which stir up our hearts to worship, if it be necessary in the
church, it must first be proved lawful both in the church and out of it.
Now, if a man meeting his lord riding up the street upon his black horse,
have his heart stirred up to worship God, by something which he seeth
either in himself or his horse, should fall down and kneel before him or
his horse, as the active object of his worship, I marvel whether the
Bishop would give the man leave to kneel, and stand still as the active
object before the man’s senses? As for us, we hold that we may not kneel
before every creature which stirreth up our hearts to worship God; kneel,
I say, whilst the eyes both of body and mind are fastened upon it as the
active object of our adoration.

_Sect._ 13. The fourth reason whereby I prove the kneeling in question to
be idolatry, proceedeth thus. Kneeling in the act of receiving, for
reverence to the sacrament, is idolatry. But the kneeling in question is
such, therefore, &c. The proposition is necessary. For if they exhibit
divine adoration (such as then kneeling is confessed to be) for reverence
of the sacrament, they do not only give, but also intend to give, divine
adoration to the same. This is so undeniable that it dasheth Bishop
Lindsey,(707) and makes him give a broad confession, that it is idolatry
to kneel at the sacrament for reverence to the elements. The assumption I
prove from the confession of Formalists. King Edward’s book of Common
Prayer teacheth, that kneeling at the communion is enjoined for this
purpose, that the sacrament might not be profaned, but held in a reverent
and holy estimation. So doth Dr Mortoune tell us,(708) that the reason
wherefore the church of England hath institute kneeling in the act of
receiving the sacrament, is, that thereby we might testify our due
estimation of such holy rites. Paybody(709) makes one of the respects of
kneeling to be the reverent handling and using of the sacrament. The
Bishop of Winchester exclaimeth against such as do not kneel, for not
regarding the table of the Lord, which hath ever been thought of all
holies the most holy, and for denying reverence to the holy symbols and
precious memorials of our greatest delivery, even the reverence which is
given to prayer. Where, by the way, I observe, that when we kneel at
prayer it is not to give reverence to prayer, but to God, whom then most
immediately we adore, so that kneeling for reverence of the sacrament
receiveth no commendation from kneeling at prayer. The Act of Perth about
kneeling, when Bishop Lindsey had polished and refined it as well as he
could, ordained us to kneel at the sacrament in due regard of so divine a
mystery. And what think we is understood by this mystery, for reverence
whereof we are commanded to kneel? The Bishop(710) expoundeth this mystery
to be the receiving of the body and blood of Christ. But here he either
means the spiritual receiving of the body and blood of Christ, or the
sacramental. If the spiritual, why did not the Synod ordain us to kneel in
hearing the gospel? for therein we receive spiritually the body and blood
of Christ, and that as truly and really as in the sacrament. Whereupon the
Archbishop of Armagh showeth,(711) that the spiritual and inward feeding
upon the body and blood of Christ is to be found out of the sacrament, and
that divers of the fathers do apply the sixth of John to the hearing of
the word also, Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, Eusebius, as Cæsiriensis, and
others. Basilius Magnus likewise teacheth plainly, that we eat the flesh
of Christ in his word and doctrine. This, I am sure, no man dare deny. The
Bishop, then, must mean by this mystery the sacramental receiving of the
body and blood of Christ. Now, the sacramental receiving of the body and
blood of Christ, is the receiving of the sacramental signs of his body and
blood. And as the Archbishop of Armagh also observeth,(712) the substance
which is outwardly delivered in the sacrament, is not really the body and
blood of Christ. Again he saith,(713) that the bread and wine are not
really the body and blood of Christ, but figuratively and sacramentally.
Thus he opposeth the sacramental presence of the body and blood of Christ
not only to bodily, but also to real presence; and by just analogy,
sacramental receiving of the body and blood of Christ is not only to be
opposed to a receiving of his body and blood into the hands and mouths of
our bodies, but likewise to the real receiving of the same spiritually
into our souls. It remaineth, therefore, that kneeling in due regard of
the sacramental receiving of the body and blood of Christ, must be
expounded to be kneeling in reverence of the sacramental signs of Christ’s
body and blood; and so Perth’s canon, and the Bishop’s commentary upon it,
fall in with the rest of those Formalists cited before, avouching and
defending kneeling for reverence to the sacrament.

_Sect._ 14. Those who speak out more plainly than Bishop Lindsey, do here
object to us, that reverence is due to the sacrament, and that we
ourselves do reverence it when we sit uncovered at the receiving of it.
But Didoclavius(714) doth well distinguish betwixt veneration and
adoration, because in civility we use to be uncovered, even to inferiors
and equals, for the regard which we bear to them, yet do we not worship
them as we worship the king, on our knees.(715) As, then, in civility,
there is a respect and reverence different from adoration, so it is in
religion also. Yea, Bellarmine(716) himself distinguisheth the reverence
which is due to holy things from adoration. Paybody(717) and Dr
Burges(718) will by no means admit this distinction betwixt veneration and
adoration. But since neither of them hath alleged any reason against it, I
hope they will be weighed down by the authority of the Archbishop of
Spalato,(719) and the Bishop of Edinburgh,(720) both of whom agree to this
distinction. So, then, we give no adoration at all to the sacrament,
because neither by any outward or inward action do we perform any worship
for the honour of the same. Burges himself hath noted to us,(721) that the
first Nicene council exhorteth that men should not be _humiliter intenti_
to the things before them. We neither submit our minds nor humble our
bodies to the sacrament, yet do we render to it veneration,(722) forasmuch
as we esteem highly of it, as a most holy thing, and meddle reverently
with it, without all contempt or unworthy usage. _Res profecto
inanimatae_, saith the Archbishop of Spalato,(723) _sint sacrae quantum
placet, alium honorem à nobis non merentur, nisi in sensu negativo_, as
that they be not contemned, nor unworthily handled. If it be said that we
ought not to contemn the word, yet hath it not that respect given to it
which the sacrament hath, at which we are uncovered, so that this
veneration given to the sacrament must be somewhat more than
_profanatio_,—I answer, as honour both in the positive and negative sense,
has various degrees, and according to the more or less immediate
manifestation of divine ordinances to us, so ought the degrees of our
veneration to be intended or remitted; which is not so to be understood as
if one part of God’s sacred worship were to be less contemned than another
(for none of God’s most holy ordinances may be in any sort contemned), but
that for the greater regard of those things which are more immediately
divine, we are not in the usage of them, to take to ourselves so much
scope and liberty as otherwise we may lawfully allow to ourselves in
meddling with such things as are not merely but mixedly divine, and which
are not from God so immediately as the other, but more by the intervention
of means; and thus a higher degree of veneration is due to the sacrament
than to the word preached, not by taking aught from the word, but by
adding more respect to the sacrament than the word hath. The reason hereof
is given to be this,(724) because when we come to the sacrament, _nihil
hic humanum, sed divina omnia_; for Christ’s own words are, or at least
should be spoken to us when we receive the sacrament, and the elements
also are, by Christ’s own institution, holy symbols of his blessed body
and blood; whereas the word preached to us is but fixedly and mediately
divine; and because of this intervention of the ministry of men, and
mixture of their conceptions with the holy Scriptures of God, we are
bidden try the spirits, and are required, after the example of the
Bereans, to search the Scriptures daily, whether these things which we
hear preached be so or not. Now we are not in the like sort to try the
elements, and the words of the institution, whether they be of God or not,
because this is sure to all who know out of Scripture the first principles
of the oracles of God. The consideration hereof warneth us, that the
sacrament given, according to Christ’s institution, is more merely and
immediately divine than is the word preached; but others (I hear) object,
that if a man should uncover his head at the sight of a graven image, we
would account this to be an adoring of the image; and why then shall not
we call our uncovering at the sacrament adoration also? _Ans._ Though
veneration and adoration be distinguished in holy things to show that
adoration given to them is idolatry, but veneration given to them is not
idolatry, yet in profane things, such as images are, veneration given to
them is idolatry, as well as adoration; and we are idolaters for doing so
much as to respect and reverence them as things sacred or holy; for, as I
touched before, and as Zanchius evidenceth by sundry instances,(725)
idolatry is committed when more estimation is had of anything, more
dignity and excellency placed in it, and more regard had to it than God
alloweth, or than can stand with God’s revealed will; for a thing thus
regarded, though it be not exalted _ut Deus simpliciter_, yet it is set up
_tanquam Deus ex parte_.

_Sect._ 15. Now Fifthly, If the kneeling in question be not idolatrously
referred to the sacrament, I demand whereunto is it specially intended? We
have heard the confession of some of our opposites (and those not of the
smallest note) avouching kneeling for reverence of the sacrament. Neither
can the mystery spoken of in the Act of Perth (in due regard whereof we
are ordained to kneel), be any other than the sacrament. Yet because
Bishop Lindsey, and some of his kind who desire to hide the foul shape of
their idolatry with the trimmest fairding they can, will not take with the
kneeling in reverence of the sacrament, let them show us which is the
object which they do specially adore, when they kneel in receiving of the
same; for this their kneeling at this time ariseth from another respect
than that which they consider in other parts of God’s worship, let two of
our prelates tell it out: Archbishop of St. Andrews would teach out of
Mouline that we ought to adore the flesh of Jesus Christ in the
eucharist;(726) the Bishop of Edinburgh also will have us to worship the
flesh and blood of Christ in the sacrament,(727) because the humanity of
Christ is there present, being ever and everywhere joined with the
divinity. But a twofold idolatry may be here deprehended. 1. In that they
worship the flesh and blood of Christ. 2. In that they worship the same in
the sacrament. As touching the first, albeit we may and should adore the
man Christ with divine worship, yet we may not adore his manhood, or his
flesh and blood. 1. Because though the man Christ be God, yet his manhood
is not God, and by consequence cannot be honoured with divine worship. 2.
If adorability agree to the humanity of Christ, then may his humanity help
and save us: idolaters are mocked by the Spirit of God for worshipping
things which cannot help nor save them. But the humanity of Christ cannot
save us nor help us, because _omnis actio est suppositi_, whereas the
human nature of Christ is not _suppositum_. 3. None of those who defend
the adoring of the humanity of Christ with divine worship, do well and
warrantably express their opinion. First, some of the schoolmen have found
no other respect wherefore the manhood of Christ can be said to be
adored,(728) except this, that the flesh of Christ is adored by him who
adores the word incarnate, even as the king’s clothes are adored by him
who adores the king. And thus they make the flesh of Christ to be adored
only _per accidens. Ego vero_, saith the Archbishop of Spalato,(729) _non
puta a quoquam regis vestimenta quibus est indutus, adorari_. And, I pray,
why doth he that worships the king worship his clothes more than any other
thing which is about him, or beside him, perhaps a hawk upon his hand, or
a little dog upon his knee? There is no more but the king’s own person set
by the worshipper to have any state in the worship, and therefore no more
worshipped by him. Others devise another respect wherefore the manhood of
Christ may be said to be worshipped,(730) namely, that as divine worship
agrees only to the Godhead, and not _personis divinis praecise sumptis_,
_i.e._, _sub ratione formali constitutiva personarum quae est __ relatio_:
but only as these relations _identificantur_ with the essence of the
Godhead; so the manhood of Christ is to be adored _non per se proecise,
sed prout suppositatur à Deo_. I answer, if by _suppositatur_ they mean
(as they must mean) that the manhood is assumed into the unity of the
person of the Son of God (for otherwise if they mean that the manhood is
made a person, they are Nestorians), that which they say cannot warrant
the worshipping of the manhood with divine worship, because the manhood,
even after this assumption and hypostatical union, and being considered by
us as now assumed into this personal union, is still for all that a
creature, and a distinct nature from the Godhead (except we will be
Eutychians), so that it cannot yet be said to be worshipped with divine
worship. Dr Field layeth out a third way;(731) for whilst he admitteth the
phrase of the Lutherans, who say not only concretively that the man Christ
is omnipresent, but the humanity also, he forgeth a strange distinction.
“When we speak (saith he) of the humanity of Christ, sometimes we
understand only that human created essence of a man that was in him,
sometimes all that is implied in the being of a man, as well subsistence
as essence.” By the same distinction would Field defend the attributing of
the other divine properties (and adorability among the rest) to the human
nature. But this distinction is no better than if a man should say, by
blackness sometimes we understand blackness, and sometimes whiteness. Who
ever confounded _abstractum_ and _concretum_, before that in Field’s field
they were made to stand for one? It is the tenet of the school, that
though in God _concretum_ and _abstractum_ differ not, because _Deus_ and
_Deitas_ are the same, yet in creatures (whereof the manhood of Christ is
one) they are really differenced. For _concretum_ signifieth _aliquid
completum subsistens_, and _abstractum_ (such as humanity) signifieth(732)
something, _non ut subsistens, sed in quo aliquid est_, as whiteness doth
not signify that thing which is white, but that whereby it is white. How
comes it then that Field makes humanity, in the abstract, to have a
subsistence? Antonius Sadeel censures Turrianus(733) for saying that
_albedo cum pariete, idem est atque paries albus_: his reason is, because
_albedo dicitur __ esse, non cum pariete sed in pariete._ An abstract is
no more an abstract if it have a subsistence.

There is yet a fourth sense remaining, which is Augustine’s, and theirs
who speak with him. His sentence which our opposites cite for them is,
that it is sin not to adore the flesh of Christ, howbeit very erroneously
he groundeth that which he saith upon those words of the psalm, “Worship
at his footstool,” taking this footstool to be the flesh of Christ. Yet
that his meaning was better than his expression, and that he meant not
that adoration should be given to the flesh of Christ, but to the Godhead,
whose footstool the flesh is, it is plain from those words which Burges
himself citeth out of him:(734) “To whatsoever earth, _i.e._, flesh of
Christ, thou bowest and prostrate thyself, look not on it as earth,
_i.e._, as flesh; but look at that Holy One whose footstool is that thou
dost adore, _i.e._, look to the Godhead of Christ, whose flesh thou dost
adore in the mysteries.” Wherefore if we would give any sound sense to
their words who say that the flesh of Christ is to be adored, we must note
with A. Polanus,(735) that _cum dicitur carnem Christi adorari, non est
propria sed figurata enunciatio; quia non adoratur proprie caro secundum
se, quia creatura est, sed Deus in carne manifestatis, seu Deus carne
vestitus_. But two things I will here advertise my reader of.

1. That though this form of speaking, which saith that the flesh of Christ
is to be adored, being thus expounded, receiveth a sound sense, yet the
expression is very bad, and violence is done to the phrase when such a
meaning is drawn out of it. For how can we, by the flesh of Christ,
understand his Godhead? The communion of properties admitteth us to put
the man Christ for God, but not his manhood. And Hooker teacheth
rightly,(736) “that by force of union, the properties of both natures (and
by consequence, adorability, which is a property of the divine nature) are
imputed to the person only in whom they are, and not what belongeth to the
one nature really conveyed or translated into the other.”

2. Yet our kneelers who say they adore the flesh of Christ in the
sacrament, have no such orthodox (though forced) meaning whereby to
expound themselves. For Bishop Lindsey will have us,(737) in receiving the
sacrament, to bow our knees and adore the humanity of Christ, by reason of
the personal union that it hath with the Godhead; therefore he means that
we should, and may adore with divine worship, that which is personally
united with the Godhead. And what is that? Not the Godhead sure, but the
created nature of the manhood (which not being God but a creature only,
cannot without idolatry be worshipped with divine worship). I conclude,
therefore, that by the flesh of Christ, which he will have to be adored in
the sacrament, he understands not the Godhead, as Augustine doth, but that
created nature which is united with the Godhead.

_Sect._ 16. But, Secondly, As we have seen what is to be thought of
worshipping the flesh of Christ, so let us next consider what may be
thought of worshipping his flesh in the sacrament; for this was the other
head which I proposed. Now, they who worship the flesh of Christ in the
sacrament, must either consider it as present in the sacrament, and in
that respect to be adored, because of the personal union of it with the
word, or else because of the sacramental union of it with the outward
sign, which is a respect supervenient to that of the ubiquity of it in the
person of the word. First, then, touching the former of those respects,
the personal union of the flesh with the word can neither infer the
presence of the flesh in the sacrament to those who worthily receive, nor
yet can it make anything for the adoration of the flesh. Not the former;
for in respect of the ubiquity of the flesh in the person of the word, it
is ever and alike present with the communicants, whether they receive
worthily or not, and with the bread and wine, whether they be consecrated
to be the signs of his body and blood or not. Therefore divines rightly
hold _praesentiam corporis Christi in caena, non ab ubiquitate, sed à
verbis Christi pendere_.(738) Not the latter neither; for (as I have
showed already) notwithstanding of the personal union, yet the flesh of
Christ remaineth a creature, and is not God, and so cannot at all be
worshipped with divine worship. And if his flesh, could be at all so
worshipped,(739) yet were there no reason for worshipping it in the
sacrament (in respect of its personal union with the word) more than in
all other actions, and at all other times, for ever and always is the
flesh of Christ personally united with the word, and in that respect
present to us. There remaineth therefore nothing but that other respect of
the sacramental union of the flesh of Christ with the sacramental sign,
which they can have for worshipping his flesh in the sacrament. Whereas
Bishop Lindsey saith,(740) “that it is no error to believe the spiritual,
powerful, and personal presence of Christ’s body at the sacrament, and in
that respect to worship his flesh and blood there,”—he means, sure, some
special respect, for which it may be said that Christ’s body is present at
the sacrament (so as it is not present out of the sacrament), and in that
respect to be there adored. Now Christ’s body is spiritually and
powerfully present to us in the word (as I showed before), yea, as often
as looking by faith upon his body broken and blood shed for us, we receive
the sense and assurance of the remission of our sins through his merits,
and as for this personal presence of Christ’s body which he speaketh of, I
have showed also that the adoring of the flesh of Christ in the sacrament
cannot be inferred upon it, wherefore he can tell us nothing which may be
thought to infer the presence of Christ’s flesh in the sacrament, and the
adoration of it in that respect, save only the sacramental union of it
with the outward sign. Now adoration in this respect, and for this reason,
must suppose the bodily presence of Christ’s flesh in the sacrament.
Whereupon the Archbishop of Spalato saith, “that the Papists adore the
body of Christ in the sacrament, only because of the supposition of the
bodily presence of it, and if they knew that the true body of Christ is
not under the species of the bread and wine, they would exhibit no
adoration.” And elsewhere he showeth,(741) that the mystery of the
eucharist cannot make the manhood of Christ to be adored, _quia in pane
corporalis Christi praesentia non est_ implying, that if the flesh of
Christ be adored in respect of the mystery of the eucharist, then must it
be bodily present in the sign, which is false, and hereupon he gathereth
truly, that it cannot be adored in respect of the mystery of the
eucharist.

Further, It is to be remembered (which I have also before noted out of Dr
Usher(742)) that the sacramental presence of the body of Christ, or that
presence of it which is inferred upon that sacramental union which is
betwixt it and the outward sign, is not the real or spiritual presence of
it (for in this manner it is present to us out of the sacrament, even as
oft as by faith we apprehend it and the virtue thereof); but it is
figuratively only so called, the sense being this, that the body of Christ
is present and given to us in the sacrament, meaning by his body, the sign
of his body. These things being so, whosoever worshippeth Christ’s body in
the eucharist, and that in respect of the sacramental presence of it in
the same, cannot choose but hold that Christ’s body is bodily and really
under the species of the bread, and so fall into the idolatry of
bread-worship; or else our divines(743) have not rightly convinced the
Papists, as idolatrous worshippers of the bread in the eucharist,
forasmuch as they attribute to it that which it is not, nor hath not, to
wit, that under the accidents thereof is contained substantially the true
and living body of Christ, joined and united to his Godhead. What can
Bishop Lindsey now answer for himself, except he say with one of his
brethren,(744) that we should adore the flesh of Christ in the sacrament,
because _corporalis praesentia Christi, sed non modo corporalis, comitatur
sacramentum eucharistiae_. And Christ is there present _corporaliter, modo
spirituali_? But this man contradicts himself miserably; for we had him a
little before acknowledging that _in pane corporalis Christi praesentia
non est_. How shall we then reconcile him with himself? He would say that
Christ is not bodily present in the sacrament after a bodily manner, but
he is bodily present after a spiritual manner. Why should I blot paper
with such a vanity, which implieth a contradiction, bodily and not bodily,
spiritually and not spiritually.

_Sect._ 17. The sixth and last argument whereby I prove the kneeling in
question to be idolatry, is taken from the nature and kind of the worship
wherein it is used. For the receiving of the sacrament being a mediate
worship of God, wherein the elements come between God and us, in such sort
that they belong to the substance of the worship (for without the
elements, the sacrament is not a sacrament), and withal are susceptive of
co-adoration, forasmuch as in the act of receiving, both our minds and our
external senses are, and should be, fastened upon them, hereby we evince
the idolatry of kneeling in the receiving. For in every mediate worship,
wherein some creature is purposely set between God and us to have state in
the same, it is idolatry to kneel before such a creature, whilst both our
minds and senses are fastened upon it. Our opposites have talked many
things together to infringe this argument. First, They allege the bowing
of God’s people before the ark,(745) the temple, the holy mountain, the
altar, the bush, the cloud, the fire which came from heaven. _Ans._ 1.
Where they have read that the people bowed before the altar of God, I know
not. Bishop Lindsey indeed would prove(746) from 2 Chron vi. 12, 13, and
Mich. vi. 6, that the people bowed before the altar and the offering. But
the first of those places speaks nothing of kneeling before the altar, but
only of kneeling before the congregation, that is, in the sight of the
congregation. And if Solomon had then kneeled before the altar, yet the
altar had been but occasionally and accidentally before him in his
adoration, for to what end and use could he have purposely set the altar
before him, whilst he was kneeling and praying? The place of Micah cannot
prove that God’s people did kneel before the offerings at all (for it
speaks only of bowing before God), far less, that they kneeled before them
in the very act of offering, and that with their minds and senses fixed
upon them, as we kneel in the very act of receiving the sacrament, and
that at that instant when our minds and senses are fastened upon the
signs, that we may discern the things signified by them, for the
exercising of our hearts in a thankful meditation upon the Lord’s death.
2. As for the other examples here alleged, God was immediately present, in
and with the ark, the temple, the holy mountain, the bush, the cloud, and
the fire which came from heaven, speaking and manifesting himself to his
people by his own immediate voice, and miraculous extraordinary presence,
so that worshipping before these things had the same reason which makes
the twenty-four elders in heaven worship before the throne, Rev. iv. 10;
for in these things God did immediately manifest his presence as well as
in heaven. Though there be a difference in the degrees of the immediate
manifestation of his presence in earth and in heaven, yet _magis et minus
non variant speciem_. Now God is present in the sacrament, not
extraordinarily, but in the way of an ordinary dispensation, not
immediately, but mediately. They must therefore allege some commendable
examples of such a kneeling as we dispute about, in a mediate and ordinary
worship, else they say nothing to the point.

_Sect._ 18. Yet to no better purpose they tell us,(747) that when God
spoke, Abraham fell on his face, and when the fire came down at Elijah’s
prayer, the people fell on their faces. What is this to the purpose? And
how shall kneeling in a mediate and ordinary worship be warranted by
kneeling in the hearing of God’s own immediate voice, or in seeing the
miraculous signs of his extraordinary presence? Howbeit it cannot be
proved, neither, that the people fell on their faces in the very act of
seeing the fire fall (when their eyes and their minds were fastened upon
it), but that after they had seen the miracle wrought, they so considered
of it as to fall down and worship God.

But further, it is objected,(748) “that a penitentiary kneels to God
purposely before the congregation, and with a respect to the congregation,
&c. When we come to our common tables before we eat, either sitting with
our heads discovered, or standing, or kneeling, we give thanks and bless,
with a respect to the meat, which is purposely set on table, &c. The
pastor, when he begins the holy action, hath the bread and the cup set
before him purposely upon the table, and with respect to them he gives
thanks,” &c.

_Ans._ Though a penitentiary kneel to God purposely in the presence and
sight of the congregation, that he may make known to them his repentance
for the sin whereby he hath scandalised them, yet is the confessing of his
sin to God, kneeling there upon his knees, an immediate worship, neither
doth the congregation come betwixt him and God, as belonging to the
substance of this worship, for he kneeleth to God as well, and maketh
confession of his sin, when the congregation is not before him. But I
suppose our kneelers themselves will confess, that the elements come so
betwixt God and them when they kneel, that they belong to the essence of
the worship in hand, and that they would not, nor could not, worship the
flesh and blood of Christ in the sacrament, if the elements were not
before them.

To be short, the case of a penitentiary standeth thus, that not in his
kneeling _simpliciter_, but in his kneeling publicly and in sight of the
congregation, he setteth them before him purposely, and with a respect to
them, whereas our kneelers do kneel in such sort that their kneeling
_simpliciter_, and without an adjection or adjunct, hath a respect to the
elements purposely set before them, neither would they at all kneel for
that end and purpose for which they do kneel, namely, for worshipping the
flesh and blood of Christ in the sacrament,(749) except the elements were
before the eyes both of their minds and bodies, as the penitentiary doth
kneel for making confession of his sin to God, when the congregation is
not before him.

And if one would say, that in kneeling at the sacrament he worshippeth not
the flesh and blood of Christ, but the Lord his God only, yet is the same
difference to be put betwixt his kneeling before the elements, and the
kneeling of a penitentiary before the congregation, for the very kneeling
itself (simply considered) before the elements, respecteth them as then
purposely set in our sight that we may kneel before them, whereas, in the
case of the penitentiary, it is not his kneeling to confess his sin to God
which hath a respect to the congregation as set in his sight for that
purpose, but some circumstances of his kneeling only, to wit, _when_? At
that time when the congregation is assembled. And _where_? Publicly in
sight of the congregation! In regard of these circumstances, he hath the
congregation purposely in his sight, and so respecteth them, but in regard
of the kneeling itself simply, the presence of the congregation is but
accidental to him who kneeleth and confesseth his sin before God. As
touching giving thanks before the meat set on our common tables, though a
man should do it kneeling, yet this speaketh not home to the point now in
controversy, except a man so kneel before his meat, that he have a
religious respect to it as a thing separated from a common use and made
holy, and likewise have both his mind, and his external senses of seeing,
touching, and tasting, fastened upon it in the act of his kneeling. And if
a man should thus kneel before his meat, he were an idolater.

Lastly, Giving thanks before the elements of bread and wine, in the
beginning of the holy action, is as far from the purpose; for this giving
of thanks is an immediate worship of God, wherein we have our minds and
senses, not upon the bread and wine as upon things which have a state in
that worship of the Lord’s supper, and belong to the substance of the same
(for the very consecration of them to this use is but then _in fieri_),
but we worship God immediately by prayer and giving of thanks, which is
all otherwise in the act of receiving.

_Sect._ 19. Moreover it is objected(750) out of Lev. ix. 24; 2 Chron. vii.
3; Mich. vi. 6; 2 Chron. xxix. 28-30, that all the people fell on their
faces before the legal sacrifices, when the fire consumed the
burnt-offering.

Whereunto it may be answered, that the fire which came from God and
consumed the burnt-offerings, was one of the miraculous signs of God’s
extraordinary and immediate presence (as I have said before), and
therefore kneeling before the same hath nothing to do with the present
purpose.

But if we will particularly consider all these places, we find in the
first two, that beside the fire, the glory of the Lord did also appear in
a more miraculous and extraordinary manner, Lev. ix. 23, “The glory of the
Lord appeared to all the people;” 2 Chron. vii. 1, 12, “The glory of the
Lord filled the house.” They are therefore running at random who take hold
of those places to draw out of them the lawfulness of kneeling in a
mediate and ordinary worship.

The place of Micah I have answered before; and here I add, that though it
could be proved from that place (as it cannot), that the people have bowed
before the offerings, and that in the very act of offering, yet how shall
it be proved, that in the act of their kneeling they had the offerings
purposely before them, and their minds and senses fixed upon them in the
very instant of their worshipping.

This I make clear by the last place, 2 Chron. xxix., out of which no more
can be drawn but that the people worshipped whilst the priests were yet
offering the burnt-offering. Now the burnt-offering was but accidentally
before the people in their worshipping, and only because it was offered at
the same time when the song of the Lord was sung, ver. 27. Such was the
forwardness of zeal in restoring religion and purging the temple, that it
admitted no stay, but eagerly prosecuted the work till it was perfected;
therefore the thing was done suddenly, ver. 36. Since, then, the song and
the sacrifice were performed at the same time, we must note that the
people worshipped at that time, not because of the sacrifice, which was a
mediate worship, but because of the song of the Lord, which was an
immediate worship. Now we all commend kneeling in an immediate worship.
But this cannot content our opposites; they will needs have it lawful to
kneel, in the hearing of the word, purposely, and with a respect to the
word preached (though this be a mediate worship only). Their warrants(751)
are taken out, Exod. iv. 30, 31; Exod. xii. 27; 2 Chron. xx. 18; Matt.
xvii. 6. From the first three places no more can be inferred but that
these hearers bowed their heads and worshipped, after that they heard the
word of the Lord; neither shall they ever warrant bowing and worshipping
in the act of hearing.

In the fourth place, we read that the disciples fell on their faces when
they heard God’s own immediate voice out of the cloud. What maketh this
for falling down to worship at the hearing of the word preached by men?
How long shall our opposites not distinguish betwixt mediate and immediate
worship?

Lastly, It is alleged(752) that God, in his word, allows not only kneeling
at prayer, out also at circumcision, passover, and baptism. The reason of
this assertion is given to be this, that a bodily gesture being necessary,
God not determining man upon any one, leaves him at plain liberty. _Ans._
Whether we be left at plain liberty in all things which being in the
general necessary, are not particularly determined in God’s word, it shall
be treated of elsewhere in this dispute. In the meantime, whatsoever
liberty God leaves man in bodily gestures, he leaves him no liberty of an
unlawful and idolatrous gesture, such as kneeling in the instant of
receiving a sacrament, when not only we have the outward sign purposely
before us, and our minds and senses fastened upon it, for discerning the
signification thereof, and the analogy betwixt it and the thing signified,
but also to look upon it as an image of Christ, or as a vicarious sign
standing there in Christ’s stead. The indifferency of such a gesture in
such a mediate worship should have been proved before such a rule (as this
here given us for a reason) had been applied to it.

_Sect._ 20. But the kneelers would yet make more ado to us, and be still
stirring if they can do no more. Wherefore one of our doctors
objecteth,(753) that we lift up our eyes and our hands to heaven, and
worship God, yet we do not worship the heaven; that a man going to bed,
prayeth before his bed; that David offered the sacrifices of thanksgiving,
in the presence of all the people, Psal. cxvi; that Paul, having taken
bread, gave thanks before all them who were in the ship, Acts xxvii. 36;
that the Israelites worshipped before Moses and Aaron, Exod. iv. 31.
Hereupon another doctor, harping upon the same string, tells us,(754) that
when we kneel in the act of receiving the sacrament, “we kneel no more to
bread than to the pulpit when we join our prayers with the minister’s.”
Oh, unworthy instances, and reproachful to doctors! All these things were
and are accidentally present to the worshippers, and not purposely before
them, nor respected as having a religious state in the worship. What? Do
we worship before the bread in the sacrament, even as before a pulpit, a
bed, &c.? Nay, graduate men should understand better what they speak of.

Another objection is,(755) that a man who is admitted to the office of a
pastor, and receiveth imposition of hands, kneeleth still on his knees
till the ordination be ended, the rest about him being standing or
sitting.

_Ans._ Kneeling in receiving imposition of hands, which is joined with
prayer and invocation, hath nothing ado with kneeling in a mediate
worship; for in this case a man kneels because of the immediate worship of
invocation; but when there is no prayer, I suppose no man will kneel
religiously, and with a religious respect to those persons or things which
are before him, as there purposely in his sight, that before them he may
adore (which is the kind of kneeling now in question), or if any did so,
there were more need to give him instruction than ordination.

It is further told us, that he who is baptized,(756) or he who offers him
that is to be baptized, humbleth himself, and prayeth that the baptism may
be saving unto life eternal, yet worshippeth not the bason nor the water.
But how long shall simple ones love simplicity, or rather, scorners hate
knowledge? Why is kneeling in the immediate worship of prayer, wherein our
minds do purposely respect no earthly thing (but the soul, Psal. xxv. 1,
the heart, the hands, Lam. iii. 41, the eyes, Psal. cxxiii. 1, the voice,
Psal. v. 3, all directed immediately to heaven) paralleled with kneeling
in the mediate worship of receiving the sacrament, wherein we respect
purposely the outward sign, which is then in our sight, that both our
minds and our external senses may be fastened upon it? Our minds, by
meditation, and attentive consideration of that which is signified, and of
the representation thereof by the sign. Our senses, by seeing, handling,
breaking, tasting, eating, drinking.

_Sect._ 21. Thus we see that in all these examples alleged by our
opposites, there is nothing to prove the lawfulness of kneeling in such a
mediate worship, wherein something belonging to the substance of the
worship comes between God and us, and is not accidentally, but purposely
before us, upon which also our minds and senses in the action of worship
are fast fixed. Howbeit there is another respect, wherefore none of these
examples can make ought for kneeling in the act of receiving the sacrament
(which I have showed before), namely, that in the instant of receiving the
sacrament, the elements are actually images and vicarious signs standing
in Christ’s stead. But belike our kneelers have not satisfied themselves
with the roving rabble of these impertinent allegations which they have
produced to prove the lawfulness of kneeling in a mediate worship, they
have prepared another refuge for themselves, which had been needless, if
they had not feared that the former ground should fail them.

What then will they say next to us? Forsooth, that when they kneel in the
act of receiving, they are praying and praising, and so worshipping God
immediately. And if we would know what a man doth then pray for, it is
told us, that he is praying and earnestly crying to God,(757) _ut eum
faciat dignum convivam_. To us it seems very strange how a man, when he is
actually a banqueter, and at the instant of his communicating can be made
in any other sort a banqueter than he is; for _quicquid est, dum est, non
potest non esse_. Wherefore if a man in the instant of his receiving be an
unworthy banqueter, he cannot at that instant be made any other than he
is.

_Sect._ 22. The truth is, we cannot lawfully be either praying or praising
in the very act of receiving, because our hearts and minds should then be
exercised in meditating upon Christ’s death, and the inestimable benefits
which comes to us thereby. 1 Cor. xi. 23, “Do this in remembrance of me.”

This remembrance is described, ver. 26, “Ye do show the Lord’s death.” Now
one of the special ways whereby we remember Christ, and so do show forth
his death, is by private meditation upon his death, as Pareus
resolveth.(758)

This meditation is a speech of the soul to itself; and though it may stand
with short ejaculations, which may and should have place in all our
actions, yet can it not stand with an ordinary and continued prayer
purposely conceived, as Bishop Lindsey would maintain.(759) For how can we
orderly both speak to God by prayer, and to ourselves by meditation, at
one instant of time? If therefore prayer be purposely and orderly
conceived, it banisheth away meditation, which should be the soul’s
exercise in the receiving of the sacrament. And by the contrary, if
meditation be entertained as it should be, it admitteth not prayer to have
place at that time. For it is well said,(760) that _Dum auribus, oculis,
manibus, dentibus exterius, auribus, oculis, manibus, dentibus fidei
interius occupamur, orationem continuam et durabilem, absque mentis
divagatione __ ab opere praecepto et imperato, instruere non possumus._

_Sect._ 23. But let us hear how the Bishop proveth that we should be
praying and praising in the act of receiving the sacrament. “Whatsoever
spiritual benefit (saith he)(761) we should receive with a spiritual
hunger and thirst, and with a spiritual appetite and desire after the
grace and virtue that is therein to salvation, the same we should receive
with prayer, which is nothing else but such an appetite and desire; but
the body and blood of Christ is such a benefit,” &c.

_Ans._ 1. Why did not he prove his proposition? Thought he his bare
assertion should suffice? God’s word is a spiritual benefit, which we
should receive with spiritual hunger and thirst; yet the Bishop will not
say that we should be praying all the while we are hearing and receiving
it, for then could not our minds be attentive. His proposition therefore
is false; for though prayer should go before the receiving of such a
spiritual benefit as the word or the sacrament, yet we should not pray in
the act of receiving. For how can the heart attend, by serious
consideration, to what we hear in the word, or what is signified and given
to us in the sacrament, if in the actions of hearing the word and
receiving the sacrament, it should be elevated out of the world by prayer?

2. Why saith he that prayer is nothing else but a spiritual appetite or
desire? He thought hereby to strengthen his proposition, but we deny all.
He said before,(762) that every prayer is a meditation, and here he saith,
that prayer is nothing else but a spiritual desire. These are uncouth
descriptions of prayer. Prayer is not meditation, because meditation is a
communing with our own souls, prayer a communing with God. Nor yet can it
be said that prayer is nothing else but a spiritual desire; for prayer is
the sending up of our desires to God, being put in order.

_Sect._ 24. He speeds no better in proving that we should receive the
sacrament with thanksgiving. “Whatsoever benefit (saith he) we should
receive by extolling, and preaching, and magnifying, and praising the
inestimable worth and excellency thereof, the same we ought to receive
with thanksgiving. But in the sacrament we should receive the blood of
Christ with extolling and preaching,” &c. The assumption he confirms by
the words of our Saviour, “Do this in remembrance of me,” and by the words
of St. Paul, “So oft as ye shall eat this bread and drink this cup, ye
shall declare, that is, extol, magnify, and praise the Lord’s death, till
he come again.”

_Ans._ His assumption is false, neither can his proofs make it true.

1. We remember Christ in the act of receiving by meditation, and not by
praise.

2. We show forth the Lord’s death in the act of receiving, by using the
signs and symbols of his body broken, and his blood shed for us, and by
meditating upon his death thereby represented.

3. We deny not that by praise we show forth the Lord’s death also, but
this is not in the act of receiving. It is to be marked with Pareus,(763)
that the showing forth of the Lord’s death, must not be restricted to the
act of receiving the sacrament, because we do also show forth his death by
the preaching of the gospel, and by private and public celebration of it,
yea, by a perpetual study of sanctification and thankfulness. So that the
showing forth of the Lord’s death, by extolling, preaching, magnifying,
and praising the same, according to the twenty-third section of the
Confession of Faith, to which his argument hath reference, may not be
expounded of the very act of receiving the sacrament. Neither do the words
of the institution refuse, but easily admit, another showing forth of the
Lord’s death than that which is in the very act of receiving, for the word
is not _quando_, but _quoties_. It is only said, “As often as ye eat this
bread, and drink this cup, ye do show,” &c. Which words cannot be taken
only of the instant of eating and drinking.

_Sect._ 25. Now having so strongly proved the unlawfulness and idolatry of
kneeling in the act of receiving the holy communion, let me add,
_corolarii loco_, that the reader needs not to be moved with that which
Bishop Lindsey, in the tail of his dispute about the head of kneeling,
offers at a dead lift, namely, the testimonies of some modern doctors.

For, 1, What can human testimony avail against such a clear truth? 2. We
have more testimonies of divines against kneeling than he hath for it. And
here I perceive Dr Mortoune, fearing we should come to good speed this
way,(764) would hold in our travel: “We are not ignorant (saith he) that
many Protestant authors are most frequent in condemning the gesture of
kneeling at the receiving of the holy communion.”

3. Testimonies against kneeling are gathered out of those very same
divines whom the Bishop allegeth for it; for Didoclavius(765) hath clear
testimonies against it out of Calvin, Beza, and Martyr, whom yet the
Bishop taketh to be for it.

_Sect._ 26. Neither yet need we here to be moved with Dr Burges’s(766)
adventurous untaking to prove that, in the most ancient times, before
corruption of the sacrament began, the sacrament was received with an
adoring gesture.

He shoots short of his proofs, and hits not the mark. One place in
Tertullian, _de Oratione_, he hammers upon: _Similiter de stationum diebus
non putant plerique sacrificiorum orationibus interveniendum, quod statio
solvenda sit accepto corpore Domini. Ergo devotum Deo obsequium
eucharistiae resoluit, an magis Deo obligat? Nonne solennior, erit statio
tua, si et ad aram dei steteris? Accepto corpore Domini et reservato,
utrumque salvum est, et participatio sacrificii, et executio officii._

To these words the Doctor giveth this sense: That many withdrew themselves
when they came to the celebration of the supper, because the body of our
Lord, that is, the sacramental bread, being taken of the minister’s hand,
the station, _i.e._, standing, must be dissolved and left; and because
standing on those days might not be left (as they thought), therefore they
rather left the sacrament on those days than they would break the rule of
standing on those days; therefore they forbore:

Which can have no reason but this, that taking the holy things at the
table standing, yet they used not to partake them, _i.e._, eat the bread
or drink the wine, in any other gesture than what was on the station days
then forbidden, kneeling; and that Tertullian wishes them to come, though
they might not then kneel, and to take the bread in public, standing at
the table, and reserve it, and carry it away with them, and receive it at
their own houses as they desired, kneeling.

_Ans._ The Doctor by this puts a weapon in our hands against himself; for
if, when they had taken the bread of the minister’s hand, their standing
was to be left and dissolved, and Tertullian, by commending to them
another gesture in the eating of the bread, not standing, then whether
urgeth he that other gesture to be used in the public eating of the bread
or the private? Not in the private; for his advice of reserving and eating
it in private, cometh after, and is only put for a remedy or next best, in
case they would not condescend to this course in public, _quod statio
solvenda sit accepto corpore domini_. Needs, then, it must be understood
of the public. Now, if in the public eating of the bread standing was to
be left, which gesture was to come in place of it? Not kneeling.

For, 1. Tertullian saith(767) elsewhere: _Diebus dominicis jejunare nefas
ducimus, vel de geniculis adorare; cadem immunitate a die Paschae ad
Pentcostem usque gaudemus._

2. The doctor himself saith, that upon these station days kneeling was
restrained, not only in prayer, but in all divine service.

Wherefore, if, according to the Doctor’s gloss, the gesture of standing
was left or dissolved, that gesture which had come in place of it to be
used in the partaking of the sacrament, can hardly be imagined to have
been any other nor sitting.

Well, the doctor hath unhappily raised this spirit to disquiet himself:
let him bethink how to lay him again. If he cannot, I will assay to make
some help, and to lay him in this fashion. The station days were not the
Lord’s days, together with those fifty betwixt Easter and Pentecost (on
which both fasting and kneeling were forbidden), as the Doctor thinketh,
but they were certain set days of fasting; for they appointed the fourth
and sixth day of the week (that is, Wednesday and Friday) for their
stations, as Tertullian saith;(768) whose words we may understand by
another place of Epiphanus,(769) who writeth that the fast of the fourth
and the sixth day was kept throughout all churches, and held to be an
apostolical constitution. Howbeit herein they did err; for to appoint a
certain time of fasting to be kept by the whole church agreeth not with
Christian liberty, and wanteth the example of Christ and his apostles, as
Osiander noteth.(770) Always we see what was meant by station days, to
wit, their set days of fifty, fasting, which were called station days, by
a speech borrowed from a military custom, as Tertullian teacheth. For as
soldiers kept those times and places which were appointed for their
watches, and fasted all the while they continued in them, so did
Christians upon their station days resort and meet in the place appointed,
and there remained fasting till their station dissolved. The Doctor taketh
upon him to confute those who understand by the station days set days of
fasting; but all which he allegeth to the contrary is, that he findeth
somewhere in Tertullian _statio_ and _jejunia_ put for different things.
Now this helpeth him not, except he could find that _statio_ and _stata
jejunia_ are put for different things; for no man taketh the stations to
have been occasional, but only set fasts. Touching the meaning, then, of
the words alleged by the Doctor (to give him his own reading of them,
howbeit some read otherwise), thus we take it. There were many who came
not to the sacrament upon the station days, because (in their opinion) the
receiving thereof should break the station, _i.e._, the service of the
day, and that because it should break their fast, a principal duty of the
same. Tertullian showeth they were in error, because their partaking of
the sacrament should not break their station, but make it the more solemn
and remarkable. But if they could not be drawn from that false persuasion
of theirs, that the sacrament should break their fast, yet he wisheth them
at least to come and stand at the table, and receive the sacrament into
their hands, and take it away to eat after (for permitting whereof he had
no warrant), so should they both partake the sacrament and also (according
to their mind, and to their full contentment) keep their stations, which
were often prorogated till even,(771) but ever and at least till the ninth
hour.(772) Finally, from this place, which the Doctor perverteth for
kneeling, it appeareth that the gesture or posture in receiving the
sacrament used in that place where Tertullian lived, was standing;
because, speaking of the receiving of the sacrament, he saith, _Si et ad
aram Dei steteris_.

_Sect._ 27. As for the rest of the testimonies Dr Burges produceth out of
the fathers for kneeling,(773) I need not insist upon them, for either
they speak of the inward adoration of the heart, which we ought to direct
unto Christ when we receive the sacrament (and this none of us denieth),
or else they speak of adoring the sacrament, where, by the word
_adoration_, we may not understand any divine worship, inward or outward,
but a reverence of another nature called _veneration_. That this (which we
deny not neither), and no more, is meant by the fathers when they speak of
the adoration of the sacrament, Antonius de Dominis showeth more
copiously.(774) And thus we have suffered the impetuous current of the
Doctor’s audacious promises, backed with a verbal discourse to go softly
by us. _Quid dignum tanto tulit hic promissor hiatu?_

_Sect._ 28. Finally, If any be curious to know what gesture the ancient
church did use in the receiving of the eucharist, to such I say, first of
all, that Didoclavius maintaineth that which none of our opposites are
able to infringe, namely, that no testimony can be produced which may
evince that ever kneeling was used before the time of Honorius III.,
neither is it less truly observed by the author of the _History of the
Waldenses_,(775) that bowing of the knees before the host was then only
enjoined when the opinion of transubstantiation got place.

Next I say, the ancient gesture, whereof we read most frequently, was
standing. Chrysostom, complaining of few communicants, saith,(776)
_Frustra habetur quotidiana oblatio, frustra stamus ad altare, nemo est
qui simul participet_. The century writers(777) make out of Dionysius
Alexandrinus’s epistle to Xistus, bishop of Rome, that the custom of the
church of Alexandria in receiving the sacrament, was, _ut mensae
assisterent_. It is also noted by Hospiman,(778) that in the days of
Tertullian the Christians _stantes sacramenta percipiebant_.

Thirdly, I say, since we all know that the primitive Christians did take
the holy communion mixedly, and together with their love-feasts, in
imitation of Christ,(779) who, whilst he did eat his other supper, did
also institute the eucharist; and since (as it is observed from 1 Cor. xi.
21, 33(780)) there was a twofold abuse in the church of Corinth “one in
their love-feasts, whilst that which should have served for the knitting
of the knot of love was used to cut the cords thereof, in that every one
(as he best liked) made choice of such as he would have to sit at table
with him (the other either not tarried for, or shut out when they came,
especially the poor). The other abuse (pulled in by the former) was, for
that those which were companions at one table in the common feast
communicated also in the sacred with the same separation, and severally
from the rest of the church (and the poor especially) which was in their
former banquets.”

Since also we read that the same custom of joining the Lord’s supper
together with common feasts continued long after; for Socrates
reporteth,(781) that the Egyptians adjoining unto Alexandria, together
with the inhabitants of Thebes, used to celebrate the communion upon the
Sunday,(782) after this manner, “when they have banqueted, filled
themselves with sundry delicate dishes, in the evening, after service,
they use to communicate.” How, then, can any man think that the gesture
then used in the Lord’s supper was any other, than the same which was used
in the love-feast or common supper? And what was that but the ordinary
fashion of sitting at table? Since the Laodicean canon,(783) which did
discharge the love-feasts about the year 368, importeth no less than that
the gesture used in them was sitting _Non oportet in Basilicis seu
ecclesiis. Agapen facere et intus manducare, vel accubitus sternere._ Now,
if not only divines of our side, but Papists also, put it out of doubt
that Christ gave the eucharist to his apostles sitting, because being set
down to the preceding supper, it is said, “_while as they did eat, he took
bread_,” &c. (of which things I am to speak afterward), what doth hinder
us to gather, in like manner, that forasmuch as those primitive Christians
did take the Lord’s supper whilst they did eat their own love-feasts,
therefore they sat at the one as well as the other? And so I close with
this collection. Whatsoever gesture in process of time crept into the
Lord’s supper otherwise than sitting, of it we may truly say, “from the
beginning it was not so.”

CHAPTER V.

THE FIFTH ARGUMENT AGAINST THE LAWFULNESS OF THE CEREMONIES TAKEN FROM THE
MYSTICAL AND SIGNIFICANT NATURE OF THEM.

_Sect._ 1. That mystical significations are placed in the controverted
ceremonies, and that they are ordained to be sacred signs of spiritual
mysteries, to teach Christians their duties, and to express such holy and
heavenly affections, dispositions, motions and desires, as are and should
be in them,—it is confessed and avouched by our opposites. Saravia
holdeth,(784) that by the sign of the cross we profess ourselves to be
Christians; Bishop Mortoune calleth(785) the cross a sign of constant
profession of Christianity; Hooker calleth(786) it “Christ’s mark applied
unto that part where bashfulness appeareth, in token that they which are
Christians should be at no time ashamed of his ignominy;” Dr Burges(787)
maintaineth the using of the surplice to signify the pureness that ought
to be in the minister of God; Paybody(788) will have kneeling at the
Lord’s supper to be a signification of the humble and grateful
acknowledging of the benefits of Christ. The prayer which the English
service book appointeth bishops to use after the confirming of children by
the imposition of hands, avoucheth that ceremony of confirmation for a
sign whereby those children are certified of God’s favour and good-will
towards them. In the general, our opposites defend(789) that the church
hath power to ordain such ceremonies, as by admonishing men of their duty,
and by expressing such spiritual and heavenly affections, dispositions,
motions, or desires, as should be in men, do thereby stir them up to
greater fervour and devotion.

_Sect._ 2. But against the lawfulness of such mystical and significant
ceremonies, thus we dispute: First, A chief part of the nature of
sacraments is given unto those ceremonies when they are in this manner
appointed to teach by their signification. This reason being alleged by
the _Abridgement of the Lincoln ministers_, Paybody answereth,(790) that
it is not a bare signification that makes a thing participate of the
sacrament’s nature, but such a signification as is sacramental, both in
what is signified and how. _Ans._ 1. This is but to beg the question; for
what other thing is alleged by us, but that a sacramental signification is
placed in those ceremonies we speak of? 2. What calls he a sacramental
signification, if a mystical resemblance and representation of some
spiritual grace which God hath promised in his word be not it? and that
such a signification as this is placed in the ceremonies, I have already
made it plain, from the testimonies of our opposites. This, sure, makes
those ceremonies so to encroach upon the confines and precincts of the
nature and quality of sacraments, that they usurp something more than any
rites which are not appointed by God himself can rightly do. And if they
be not sacraments, yet, saith Hooker,(791) they are as sacraments. But in
Augustine’s dialect, they are not only as sacraments, but they themselves
are sacraments. _Signa_ (saith the father) _cum ad res divinas pertinent,
sacramenta appellantur_; which testimony doth so master Dr Burges, that he
breaketh out into this witless answer,(792) That the meaning of Augustine
was to show that the name of sacraments belongeth properly to divine
things, and not to all signs of holy things. I take he would have said,
“belongeth properly to the signs of divine things.”

And here, beside that which Ames hath said against him, I add these two
things: 1. That this distinction cannot be conceived which the Doctor
maketh betwixt the signs of divine things and the signs of holy things. 2.
That his other distinction can as little be conceived, which importeth
that the name of sacraments belongeth to divine things properly, and to
all signs of holy things improperly.

Lastly, If we call to mind that which hath been evinced before, namely,
that the ceremonies are not only thought to be mystically significant for
setting forth and expressing certain spiritual graces, but also operative
and available to the begetting of those graces in us, if not by the work
wrought, at least by the work of the worker; for example, that the sign of
the cross is not only thought by our opposites to signify that at no time
we should be ashamed of the ignominy of Christ, but is also esteemed(793)
to be a means to work our preservation from shame, and a most effectual
teacher to avoid that which may deservedly procure shame; and that
bishopping is not only thought to be a sign for certifying young children
of God’s favour and good-will towards them, but also an exhibitive
sign,(794) whereby they receive strength against sin and tentation, and
are assisted in all virtue.

If these things, I say, we call to mind, it will be more manifest that the
ceremonies are given out for sacred signs of the very same nature that
sacraments are of. For the sacraments are called by divines commemorative,
representative and exhibitive signs; and such signs are also the
ceremonies we have spoken of, in the opinion of Formalists.

_Sect._ 3. Mystical and significant ceremonies (to proceed to a second
reason), ordained by men, can be no other than mere delusions, and serve
only to feed men’s minds with vain conceits. For to what other purpose do
_signa instituta_ serve, if it be not in the power of him who gives them
institution to give or to work that which is signified by them?

Now, it is not in the power of prelates, nor of any man living, to give us
these graces, or to work them in us, which they will have to be signified
by their mystical and symbolical ceremonies. Wherefore Beza saith(795)
well of such human rites as are thought to be significant: _Quum nulla res
signis illis subsit, propterea quod unius Dei est promittere, et suis
promissionibus sigillum suum opponere; consequitur omnia illa commenta,
inanes esse larvas, __ et vana opinione miseros homines illis propositis
signis deludi._ Dr Fulk thinks(796) he hath alleged enough against the
significative and commemorative use of the sign of the cross, when he hath
said that it is not ordained of Christ, nor taught by his apostles; from
which sort of reasoning it followeth, that all significant signs which are
not ordained of Christ, nor taught by his apostles, must be vain, false,
and superstitious.

_Sect._ 4. Thirdly, To introduce significant sacred ceremonies into the
New Testament other than the holy sacraments of God’s own institution,
were to reduce Judaism, and to impose upon us again the yoke of a
ceremonial law, which Christ hath taken off.

Upon this ground doth Amandus Polanus reprehend the popish clergy,(797)
for that they would be distinguished from laics by their priestly apparel
in their holy actions, especially in the mass: _Illa vestium sacerdotalium
distinctio et varietas, erat in veteri Testamento typica; veritate autem
exhibita, quid amplius typos requirunt?_

Upon this ground also doth Perkins(798) condemn all human significant
ceremonies. “Ceremonies (saith he) are either of figure and signification,
or of order. The first are abrogated at the coming of Christ,” &c.

Upon the same ground doth Chemnitius condemn them,(799) _Quod vero
praetenditur_, &c. “But, whereas (saith he) it is pretended that by those
rites of men’s addition, many things are probably signified, admonished
and taught,—hereto it may be answered, that figures do properly belong to
the Old Testament, but those things which Christ would have to be taught
in the New Testament, he would have them delivered and propounded, not by
shadows, but by the light of the word; and we have a promise of the
efficacy of the word, but not of figures invented by men.”

Upon the same ground Junius(800) findeth fault with ceremonies used for
signification: _Istis elementis mundi (ut vocantur Col. ii.) Dominus et
servator noluit nec docuit, ecclesiam suam informari_.

Lastly, We will consider the purpose of Christ whilst he said to the
Pharisees,(801) “The law and the prophets were until John: from that time
the kingdom of God is preached.” He had in the parable of the unjust
steward, and in the application of the same, spoken somewhat contemptibly
of riches, which, when the Pharisees heard, they derided him, and that for
this pretended reason (as is evident from the answer which is returned
unto them), because the law promises the world’s goods as rewards and
blessings to the people of God, that by the temporal things which are set
forth for types and shadows of eternal things, they might be instructed,
helped, and led, as it were by the hand, to the contemplation, desire and
expectation, of those heavenly and eternal things which are not seen. Now
Christ did not only rip up the hypocrisy of their hearts, ver. 15, but
also gave a formal answer to their pretended reason, by showing how the
law is by him perfected, ver. 16, yet not destroyed, ver. 17. Then will we
observe how he teacheth that the law and the prophets are perfected, and
so our point shall be plain. “The law and the prophets were until John,”
_i.e._, they did typify and prophesy concerning the things of the kingdom
until John; for before that time the faithful only saw those things afar
off, and by types, shadows, and figures, and the rudiments of the world,
were taught to know them. “But from that time the kingdom of God is
preached,” _i.e._, the people of God are no longer to be instructed
concerning the things of the kingdom of God by outward signs, or visible
shadows and figures, but only by the plain word of the gospel; for now the
kingdom of God ἐυαγγελιζεται is not typified as before, but plainly
preached, as a thing exhibited to us, and present with us. Thus we see
that to us, in the days of the gospel, the word only is appointed to teach
the things belonging to the kingdom of God.

_Sect._ 5. If any man reply, that though after the coming of Christ we are
liberate from the Jewish and typical significant ceremonies, yet ought we
to embrace those ceremonies wherein the church of the New Testament
placeth some spiritual signification:

I answer, 1. That which hath been said in this argument holdeth good
against significant ceremonies in general. Otherwise, when we read of the
abrogation of the ceremonial law, we should only understand the abrogation
of those particular ordinances which Moses delivered to the Jews
concerning the ceremonies that were to endure to the coming of Christ, and
so, notwithstanding all this, the church should still have power to set up
new ceremonial laws instead of the old, even which and how many she
listeth.

2. What can be answered to that which the _Abridgement_ propoundeth(802)
touching this matter? “It is much less lawful (say those ministers) for
man to bring significant ceremonies into God’s worship now than it was
under the law. For God hath abrogated his own (not only such as prefigured
Christ, but such also as served by their signification to teach moral
duties), so as now (without great sin) none of them can be continued in
the church, no, not for signification.” Whereupon they infer: “If those
ceremonies which God himself ordained to teach his church by their
signification may not now be used, much less may those which man hath
devised.”

_Sect._ 6. Fourthly, Sacred significant ceremonies devised by man are to
be reckoned among those images forbidden in the second commandment.
Polanus saith,(803) that _omnis figura illicita_ is forbidden in the
second commandment. The Professors(804) of Leyden call it _imaginem
quamlibet, sive mente conceptam, sive manu effictam_.

I have showed elsewhere,(805) that both in the writings of the fathers,
and of Formalists themselves, sacraments get the name of images; and why,
then, are not all significant and holy ceremonies to be accounted images?
Now, the second commandment forbiddeth images made by the lust of man
(that I may use Dr Burges’s phrase(806)), therefore it forbiddeth also all
religious similitudes, which are homogeneal unto them. This is the
inference of the _Abridgement_, whereat Paybody starteth,(807) and
replieth, that the gestures which the people of God used in circumcision
and baptism, the rending of the garment used in humiliation and prayer,
Ezra ix. 5; 2 Kings xxii. 19, Jer. xxxvi. 24, lifting up the hands,
kneeling with the knees, uncovering the head in the sacrament, standing
and sitting at the sacrament, were, and are, significant in worshipping,
yet are not forbidden by the second commandment.

_Ans._ There are three sorts of signs here to be distinguished. 1. Natural
signs: so smoke is a sign of fire, and the dawning of the day a sign of
the rising of the sun. 2. Customable signs; and so the uncovering of the
head, which of old was a sign of preeminence, hath, through custom, become
a sign of subjection. 3. Voluntary signs, which are called _signa
instituta_; these are either sacred or civil. To appoint sacred signs of
heavenly mysteries or spiritual graces is God’s own peculiar, and of this
kind are the holy sacraments. Civil signs for civil and moral uses may be,
and are, commendably appointed by men, both in church and commonwealth;
and thus the tolling of a bell is a sign given for assembling, and hath
the same signification both in ecclesiastical and secular assemblings.
Now, besides the sacred signs of God’s own institution, we know that
natural signs have also place in divine worship; thus kneeling in time of
prayer signifieth the submission of our hearts and minds, the lifting up
of our eyes and hands signifieth the elevation of our affections; the
rending of the garments signified the rending of the heart by sorrow;
standing with a religious suspect to that which is before us signifieth
veneration or reverence; sitting at table signifieth familiarity and
fellowship. “For which of you (saith our Master), Luke xvii. 7, having a
servant ploughing, or feeding cattle, will say unto him by and by, when he
is come from the field, Go and sit down to meat?” All these signs have
their significations from nature. And if it be said that howbeit sitting
at our common tables be a sign natural to signify familiarity amongst us,
yet nature hath not given such a signification to sitting at the Lord’s
table,—I answer, that sitting is a natural sign of familiarity, at what
table soever it be used. At the heavenly table in the kingdom of glory,
familiarity is expressed and signified by sitting: “Many shall come from
the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham,” &c., Matt. xviii. 11.
Much more, then, at the spiritual table in the kingdom of grace.

The difference betwixt other common tables and the Lord’s table can infer
no more, but that with great humility we ought to address ourselves unto
it; yet still we are to make use of our familiarity with Christ _ut
tanquam in eodem toro accumbentes_, as saith Chrysostom.(808) Wherefore we
do not there so look to Christ in his princely throne and glorious
majesty, exalted far above all principalities and powers, as to forget
that he is our loving and kind banqueter, who hath admitted us to that
familiar fellowship with him which is signified by our sitting at his
table.

Secondly, Customable signs have likewise place in divine service; for so a
man coming into one of our churches in time of public worship, if he see
the hearers covered, he knows by this customable sign that sermon is
begun.

Thirdly, Civil or moral signs instituted by men for that common order and
decency which is respect both in civil and sacred actions, have also place
in the acts of God’s worship. Thus a bason and a laver set before a pulpit
are signs of baptism to be ministered; but common decency teacheth us to
make the same use of a bason and a laver in civility which a minister
maketh of them in the action of baptising. All our question is about
sacred mystical signs. Every sign of this kind which is not ordained of
God we refer to the imagery forbidden in the second commandment; so that
in the tossing of this argument Paybody is twice naught, neither hath he
said aught for evincing the lawfulness of sacred significant ceremonies
ordained of men, which we impugn.

_Sect._ 7. Fifthly, The significancy and teaching office of mystical
ceremonies invented by men, must be drawn under those doctrines of men
condemned in the gospel. Wherefore was it that the divers washings of the
Pharisees were rejected by Christ as a vain worship? Was it not because
they were appointed for doctrines? “In vain (saith he) do they worship me,
teaching for doctrines the commandments of men,” Mark vii. 7.

The divers washings commanded in the law were fore-signifying to the
people, and for teaching them what true and inward holiness God required
of them. Now, the Pharisees, when they multiplied their washings of hands,
of cups and pots, brazen vessels and tables, had the same respect of
significancy before their eyes. _Neque enim alio spectabant_ (that I may
use the words of a Formalist(809)) _quam ut se sanctitatis __ studiosos
hoc externu ritu probarent_. Neither have we any warrant to think that
they had another respect than this. But the error was in their addition to
the law, and in that they made their own ceremonial washings, which were
only the commandments of men, to serve for doctrines, instructions and
significations. For those washings, as they were significant, and taught
what holiness or cleanness should be among the people of God, they are
called by the name of worship; and as they were such significant
ceremonies as were only commanded by men, they are reckoned for vain
worship.

And further, I demand why are the Colossians, Col. ii. 20-22, rebuked for
subjecting themselves to those ordinances,—“Touch not, taste not, handle
not?” We see that those ordinances were not bare commandments, but
commandments under the colour of doctrines, to wit, as law commanded a
difference of meats, for signifying that holiness which God would have his
people formed unto; so these false teachers would have the same to be
signified and taught by that difference of meats and abstinence which they
of themselves, and without the commandment of God, had ordained.

Moreover, if we consider how that the word of God is given unto us “for
doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good
works,” 2 Tim. iii. 16, 17, it cannot but be evident how superfluously,
how superstitiously, the office of sacred teaching and mystical
signification is given to dumb and lifeless ceremonies ordained of men,
and, consequently, how justly they are taxed as vain worship. We hold,
therefore, with the worthiest of our divines,(810) _nullam doctrinam,
nullum sacram signum debere inter pios admitti, nisi a Deo profecta esse
constet_.

_Sect._ 8. To these reasons which I have put in order against men’s
significant ceremonies, I will add a pretty history before I go further.

When the Superior of the Abbey of St. Andrews(811) was disputing with John
Knox about the lawfulness of the ceremonies devised by the church, to
decore the sacraments and other service of God, Knox answered: “The church
ought to do nothing but in faith, and ought not to go before, but is bound
to follow the voice of the true Pastor.” The Superior replied, that “every
one of the ceremonies hath a godly signification, and therefore they both
proceed from faith, and are done in faith.” Knox replieth: “It is not
enough that man invent a ceremony, and then give it a signification
according to his pleasure; for so might the ceremonies of the Gentiles,
and this day the ceremonies of Mahomet be maintained. But if that anything
proceed from faith it must have the word of God for the assurance,” &c.
The Superior answereth: “Will ye bind us so strait that we may do nothing
without the express word of God? What, and I ask drink? think ye that I
sin? and yet I have not God’s word for me.”

Knox here telleth him, first, that if he should either eat or drink
without the assurance of God’s word, he sinned; “for saith not the
Apostle, speaking even of meat and drink, that the creatures are
sanctified unto men by the word and prayer? The word is this: all things
are clean to the clean: Now let me hear thus much of your ceremonies, and
I shall give you the argument?”

But secondly, He tells him that he compared indiscreetly together profane
things with holy; and that the question was not of meat and drink, wherein
the kingdom of God consisteth not, but of matters of religion, and that we
may not take the same freedom in the using of Christ’s sacraments that we
may do in eating and drinking, because Moses commanded, “All that the Lord
thy God commanded thee to do, that do thou to the Lord thy God; add
nothing to it, diminish nothing from it.” The Superior now saith that he
was dry, and thereupon desireth the grey friar Arbugkill to follow the
argument; but he was so pressed with the same that he was confounded in
himself, and the Superior ashamed of him:—

Dicite Io Pæan, et Io bis dicite Pæan.

_Sect._ 9. As for the examples alleged by our opposites out of Scripture
for justifying their significant ceremonies, they have been our propugners
of evangelical simplicity so often and so fully answered, that here I need
do no more but point at them. Of the days of Purim and feast of dedication
I am to speak afterward. In the meanwhile, our opposites cannot, by these
examples, strengthen themselves in this present argument, except they
could prove that the feast of dedication was lawfully instituted, and that
the days of Purim were appointed for a religious festivity, and that upon
no such extraordinary warrant as the church hath not ever and always. The
rite which Abraham commanded his servant to use when he sware to him,
namely, the putting of his hand under his thigh, Gen. xxiv. 2, maketh them
as little help; for it was but a moral sign of that civil subjection,
reverence and fidelity which inferiors owe unto superiors, according to
the judgment of Calvin, Junius, Pareus, and Tremellius, all upon that
place. That altar which was built by the Reubenites, Gadites, and half
tribe of Manasseh, Josh. xxii., had (as some think) not a religious, but a
moral use, and was not a sacred, but a civil sign, to witness that those
two tribes and the half were of the stock and lineage of Israel; which, if
it were once called in question, then their fear (deducing the connection
of causes and consequents) led them in the end to forecast this issue: “In
time to come your children might speak unto our children, saying, What
have you to do with the Lord God of Israel? for the Lord hath made Jordan
a border betwixt us and you,” &c. Therefore, to prevent all apparent
occasions of such doleful events, they erected the pattern of the Lord’s
altar, _ut vinculum sit fraternæ conjunctionis._(812)

And besides all this, there is nothing which can urge us to say that the
two tribes and the half did commendably in the erecting of this
altar.(813) Calvin finds two faults in their proceeding. 1. In that they
attempted such a notable and important innovation without advising with
their brethren of the other tribes, and especially without inquiring the
will of God by the high priest. 2. Whereas the law of God commanded only
to make one altar, forasmuch as God would be worshipped only in one place,
they did inordinately, scandalously, and with appearance of evil, erect
another altar; for every one who should look upon it could not but
presently think that they had forsaken the law, and were setting up a
strange and degenerate rite. Whether also that altar which they set up for
a pattern of the Lord’s altar, was one of the images forbidden in the
second commandment, I leave it to the judicious reader to ruminate upon.
But if one would gather from ver. 33, that the priest, and the princes,
and the children of Israel, did allow of that which the two tribes and the
half had done, because it is said, “The thing pleased the children of
Israel, and the children of Israel blessed God, and did not intend to go
up against them in battle:”

I answer, the Hebrew text hath it thus: “And the word was good in the eyes
of the children of Israel,” &c.; that is, the children of Israel blessed
God for the word which Phinehas and the ten princes brought to them,
because thereby they understood that the two tribes and the half 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
tribes and a half) desist from their purpose of going up to war against
their brethren, to shed their blood. Again, when Phinehas and the ten
princes say to the Reubenites, Gadites, and the half tribe of Manasseh,
This day we perceive that the Lord is among us, “because ye have not
committed this trespass against the Lord,” they do not exempt them from
all prevarication; only they say _signanter_, “this trespass,” to wit, of
turning away from the Lord, and building an altar for sacrifice, whereof
they were accused. Thus we see that no approbation of that which the two
tribes and the half did, in erecting the altar, can be drawn from the
text.

_Sect._ 10. But to proceed, our opposites allege for another example
against us, a new altar built by Solomon, 1 Kings viii. 64. In which place
there is no such thing to be found as a new altar built by Solomon; but
only that he sanctified the pavement of the inner court, that the whole
court might be as an altar, necessity so requiring, because the brazen
altar of the Lord was not able to contain so many sacrifices as then were
offered. The building of synagogues can make as little against us.

For, 1. After the tribes were settled in the land of promise, synagogues
were built, in the case of an urgent necessity, because all Israel could
not come every Sabbath day to the reading and expounding of the law in the
place which God had chosen that his name might dwell there. What hath that
case to do with the addition of our unnecessary ceremonies?

2. If Formalists will make any advantage of the building of synagogues,
they must prove that they were founded, not upon the extraordinary warrant
of prophets, but upon that ordinary power which the church retaineth
still. As for the love-feasts used in the primitive church, 1. They had no
religious state in divine worship, but were used only as moral signs of
mutual charity. The Rhemists(814) will have them to be called _caenas
dominicas_. But what saith Cartwright against them? “We grant that there
were such feasts used in times past, but they were called by the name of
ἀγάπαι or love-feasts, not by the name of the Lord’s supper; neither could
one without sacrilege give so holy a name to a common feast, which never
had ground out of the word, and which after, for just cause, was thrust
out by the word of God.” 2. If it be thought that they were used as sacred
signs of Christian charity because they were eaten in the church, I
answer, the eating of them in the church is forbidden by the Apostle.
“What! (saith he) have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye
the church of God?” _Aperte vetat_ (saith Pareus),(815) _commessationes in
ecclesia, quocunque fuco pingantur. Vocabant ἀγάπας charitates; sod nihil
winus erant. Erant schismatum fomenta. Singulae enim sectae suas
instituebant._ And a little after: _Aliquae ecclesiae obtemperasse
videntur. Nam Justini temporibus Romana ecclesia ἀγάπας non habuit._
Concerning the kiss of charity used in those times, 2 Cor. xiii. 22, we
say in like manner that it was but a moral sign of that reconciliation,
friendship and amity, which showed itself as well at holy assemblies as
other meetings in that kind and courtesy, but with all chaste salutation,
which was then in use.

_Sect._ 11. As for the veils wherewith the Apostle would have women
covered whilst they were praying (that is, in their hearts following the
public and common prayer), or prophesying (that is, singing, 1 Sam. x. 10;
1 Chron. xxv. 1), they are worthy to be covered with shame as with a
garment who allege this example for sacred significant ceremonies of human
institution. This covering was a moral sign for that comely and orderly
distinction of men and women which civil decency required in all their
meetings; wherefore that distinction of habits which they used for decency
and comeliness in their common behaviour and conversation, the Apostle
will have them, for the same decency and comeliness, still to retain in
their holy assemblies. And further, the Apostle showeth that it is also a
natural sign, and that nature itself teacheth it; therefore he urgeth it
both by the inferiority or subjection of the woman, ver. 3, 8, 9 (for
covering was then a sign of subjection), and by the long hair which nature
gives to a woman, ver. 25; where he would have the artificial covering to
be fashioned in imitation of the natural. What need we any more? Let us
see nature’s institution, or the Apostle’s recommendation, for the
controverted ceremonies (as we have seen them for women’s veils), and we
yield the argument.

Last of all, the sign of imposition of hands helpeth not the cause of our
opposites, because it has the example of Christ and the apostles, and
their disciples, which our ceremonies have not; yet we think not
imposition of hands to be any sacred or mystical sign, but only a moral,
for designation of a person: let them who think more highly or honourably
of it look to their warrants.

Thus have I thought it enough to take a passing view of these objected
instances, without marking narrowly all the impertinencies and falsehoods
which here we find in the reasoning of our opposites. One word more, and
so an end. Dr Burges would comprehend the significancy of sacred
ecclesiastical ceremonies, for stirring men up to the remembrance of some
mystery of piety or duty to God, under that edification which is required
in things that concern order and decency by all divines.

Alas! what a sorry conceit is this? Divines, indeed, do rightly require
that those alterable circumstances of divine worship which are left to the
determination of the church be so ordered and disposed as they may be
profitable to this edification. But this edification they speak of is no
other than that which is common to all our actions and speeches. Are we
not required to do all things unto edifying, yea, to speak as that our
speech may be profitable unto edifying? Now, such significations as we
have showed to be given to the ceremonies in question, as, namely, to
certify a child of God’s favour and goodwill towards him,—to betoken that
at no time Christians should be ashamed of the ignominy of Christ,—to
signify the pureness that ought to be in the minister of God,—to express
the humble and grateful acknowledgments of the benefits of Christ,
&c.,—belong not to that edification which divines require in things
prescribed by the church concerning order and decency, except of every
private and ordinary action, in the whole course of our conversation, we
either deny that it should be done unto edifying, or else affirm that it
is a sacred significant ceremony.

CHAPTER VI.

THAT THE LAWFULNESS OF THE CEREMONIES IS FALSELY GROUNDED UPON THE HOLY
SCRIPTURE; WHERE SUCH PLACES AS ARE ALLEGED BY OUR OPPOSITES, EITHER FOR
ALL THE CEREMONIES IN GENERAL, OR FOR ANY ONE OF THEM IN PARTICULAR, ARE
VINDICATED FROM THEM.

_Sect._ 1. It remaineth now to examine the warrants which our opposites
pretend for the lawfulness of the ceremonies. But I perceive they know not
well what ground to take hold on. For instance whereof, Hooker defendeth
the lawfulness of festival days by the law of nature.(816) Dr Downame
groundeth the lawfulness of them on the law of God,(817) making the
observation of the sabbaths of rest appointed by the church, such as the
feasts of Christ’s nativity, passion, &c., to be a duty commanded in the
law of God, and the not observing of them to be a thing forbidden by the
same law. But Bishop Lindsey proveth the lawfulness of those holidays(818)
from the power of the church to make laws in such matters. “As for the
Lord’s day (saith he) which has succeeded to the Jewish Sabbath, albeit
God hath commanded to sanctify it, yet neither is the whole public
worship, nor any part of it appropriated to that time; but lawfully the
same may be performed upon any other convenient day of the week, of the
month, or of the year, as the church shall think expedient. Upon this
ground Zanchius affirmed, _Ecclesiæ Christi liberum esse quos velit præter
dominicos dies sibi sanctificandos deligere_. And by this warrant did the
primitive church sanctify those five anniversary days of Christ’s
nativity,” &c.

Nay, let us observe how one of them wavereth from himself in seeking here
some ground to rest upon. Paybody groundeth the lawfulness of kneeling at
the sacrament on nature, part 2, cap. 4, sect. 1, on the act of
Parliament, part 3, cap. 1, sect. 31; on an ecclesiastical canon, part 3,
cap. 1, sect. 33, on the king’s sovereign authority, part 3, cap. 1, sect.
36. Yet again he saith, that this kneeling is grounded upon the
commandment of God, part 3, cap. 3, sect. 11.

Well, I see our opposites sometimes warrant the lawfulness of the
ceremonies from the law of God, sometimes from the law of man, and
sometimes from the law of nature, but I will prove that the lawfulness of
those ceremonies we speak of can neither be grounded upon the law of God,
nor the law of man, nor the law of nature, and by consequence that they
are not lawful at all, so that, besides the answering of what our
opposites allege for the lawfulness of them, we shall have a new argument
to prove them unlawful.

_Sect._ 2. I begin with the law of God. And, first, let us see what is
alleged from Scripture for the ceremonies in general; then, after, let us
look over particulars. There is one place which they will have in
mythology to stand for the head of Medusa, and if they still object to us
for all their ceremonies even that of the Apostle, “Let all things be done
decently and in order,” 1 Cor. xiv. 40. What they have drawn out of this
place, Dr Burges(819) hath refined in this manner. He distinguished
betwixt _præceptum_ and _probatum_, and will have the controverted
ceremonies to be allowed of God, though not commanded. And if we would
learn how these ceremonies are allowed of God, he gives us to
understand,(820) that it is by commanding the general kind to which these
particulars do belong. If we ask what is this general kind commanded of
God, to which these ceremonies do belong? he resolves us,(821) that it is
order and decency: And if further we demand, how such ceremonies as are
instituted and used to stir up men, in respect of their signification,
unto the devout remembrance of their duties to God, are in such an
institution and use, matters of mere order? as a magisterial dictator of
_quodlibets_, he tells us(822) that they are matters of mere order, _sensu
largo_, in a large sense. But lastly, if we doubt where he readeth of any
worship commanded in the general, and not commanded, but only allowed in
the particular, he informeth us,(823) that in the free-will offerings,
when a man was left at liberty to offer a bullock, goat, or sheep at his
pleasure, if he chose a bullock to offer, that sacrifice, in that
particular, was not commanded, but only allowed. What should I do, but be
_surdus contra absurdum_? Nevertheless, least this jolly fellow think
himself more jolly than he this, I answer, 1st, How absurd a tenet is
this, which holdeth that there is some particular worship of God allowed,
and not commanded? What new light is this which maketh all our divines to
have been in the mist, who have acknowledged no worship of God, but that
which God hath commanded? Who ever heard of commanded and allowed worship?
As for the instances of the free-will offerings, Ames hath answered
sufficiently,(824) “that though the particulars were not, nor could not
be, determined by a distinct rule in general, yet they were determined by
the circumstances, as our divines are wont to answer the Papists about
their vows, councils, supererogations _not by a general law, but by
concurrence of circumstances._ So Deut. xvi. 10, Moses showeth that the
freest offerings were to be according as God had blessed them, from whence
it followeth, it had been sin for any Israelite whom God had plentifully
blessed, to offer a pair of pigeons, instead of a bullock or two, upon his
own mere pleasure. Where that proportion was observed, the choice of a
goat before a sheep, or a sheep before a goat, was no formal worship.”

_Sect._ 3. How will Dr Burges make it appear that the English ceremonies
do belong to that order and decency which is commanded? Bellarmine(825)
would have all the ceremonies of the church of Rome comprehended under
order and decency, and therefore warranteth them by that precept of the
Apostle, “let all things be done decently and in order.” The one shall as
soon prove his point as the other, and that shall be never.

For, 1. The Apostle only commanded that each action and ceremony of God’s
worship be decently and orderly performed, but gives us no leave to
excogitate or devise new ceremonies, which have not been instituted
before. He hath spoken in that chapter of assembling in the church,
prophesying and preaching, praying and praising there.

Now let all these things, and every other action of God’s worship,
ceremonies and all, be done decently and in order. _Licit ergo Paulus_,
&c. “Albeit, therefore (saith John Bastwick),(826) Paul hath committed to
the church the judging both of decency and order, yet hath he not granted
any liberty of such mystical ceremonies as by their more inward
signification do teach the duty of piety; for since the whole liberty of
the church, in the matter of divine worship, is exercised only in order
and decency, it followeth that they do impudently scorn both God and the
Scriptures, who do extend this liberty to greater things, and such as are
placed above us. Most certain it is, that Christ, the doctor of the
church, hath, by his own written and sealed word, abundantly expounded
unto us the will of God. Neither is there further need of any ceremonies,
which by a secret virtue may instruct us: neither is it less evident that
order consisteth not in the institution or use of new things, but only in
the right placing of things which have been instituted before.” “Decency
(saith Balduine)(827) is opposed to levity, and order to confusion.”
_Spectat autem hic ordo potissimum ad ritus ecclesiae in officiis sacris
in quibus nullum debet esse scandalum, nulla confusio._

Then, in his judgment, order is not to the rites of the church a general
kind, but only a concomitant circumstance; neither are the rites of the
church comprehended under order as particulars under the general kind to
which they belong; but order belongeth to the rites of the church as an
adjunct to the subject. And, I pray, must not the rights of the church be
managed with decency and order? If so, then must our opposites either say
that order is managed with order, which is to speak nonsense, or else,
that the rights of the church are not comprehended under order. But if
not, then it followeth that the rites of the church are to be managed with
levity, confusion, and scandal; for every action that is not done in
decency and in order must needs be done scandalously and confusedly. 2.
Order and decency, whether taken _largo_ or _stricto sensu_, always
signify such a thing as ought to be in all human actions, as well civil as
sacred; for will any man say, that the civil actions of men are not to be
done decently and in order? The directions of order and decency(828) are
not (we see) _propria religionis_, but as Balduine showeth(829) out of
Gregory Nazianzen, order is in all other things as well as in the church.
Wherefore sacred significant ceremonies shall never be warranted by the
precept of order and decency, which have no less in civility than in
religion.

_Sect._ 4. Now to the particulars. And first, that which Christ did, Matt.
xix. 13, 15, cannot commend unto us the bishopping or confirmation of
children by prayer and imposition of hands; for as Maldonat saith
rightly,(830) _Hebreorum consuetudinem fuisse, ut qui majores erant et
aliqua polle bant divina gratia, manuum impositione inferioribus
benedicerent, constat ex_ Gen. xlviii. 14, 15, _hac ergo ratione adducti
parentes, infantes ad Christum afferebant, ut impositis manibus illis
benediceret_. And as touching this blessing of children and imposition of
hands upon them (saith Cartwright),(831) it is peculiar unto our Saviour
Christ, used neither by his disciples nor his apostles, either before or
after his ascension, whereunto maketh that the children being brought,
that he should pray over them, he did not pray for them, but blessed them,
that is to say, commended them to be blessed, thereby to show his divine
power. These being also yet infants, and in their swaddling clouts, as by
the word which the evangelist useth, and as by our Saviour Christ’s taking
them into his arms, doth appear, being also, in all likelihood,
unbaptised. Last of all, their confirmation is a notable derogation unto
the holy sacrament of baptism, not alone in that it presumeth the sealing
of that which was sealed sufficiently by it; but also in that, both by
asseveration of words, and by speciality of the minister that giveth it,
it is even preferred unto it.

_Sect._ 5. The act of Perth about kneeling would draw some commendation to
this ceremony from those words of the psalm, “O come let us worship and
bow down, let us kneel before the Lord our Maker,” Psal. xcv. 6. Which is
as if one should argue thus: We may worship before the Lord, therefore
before a creature; we may kneel in an immediate worship of God, therefore
in a mediate; for who seeth not that the kneeling there spoken of is a
kneeling in the action of solemn praise and joyful noise of singing unto
the Lord? I wish you, my masters, more sober spirits, that ye may fear to
take God’s name in vain, even his word which he hath magnified above all
his name. Dr Forbesse goeth about to warrant private baptism,(832) by
Philip’s baptising the eunuch, there being no greater company present, so
far as we can gather from the narration of Luke, Acts viii.; as likewise
by Paul and Silas’s baptising the jailer and all his in his own private
house, Acts xvi. Touching the first of those places, we answer, 1. How
thinks he that a man of so great authority and charge was alone in his
journey? We suppose a great man travelling in a chariot must have some
number of attendants, especially having come to a solemn worship at
Jerusalem. 2. What Philip then did, the extraordinary direction of the
Spirit guided him unto it, ver. 29, 39. As to the other place, there was,
in that time of persecution, no liberty for Christians to meet together in
temples and public places, as now there is. Wherefore the example of Paul
and Silas doth prove the lawfulness of the like deed in the like case.

_Sect._ 6. Hooker muttereth some such matter as a commendation of the sign
of the cross from these two places, Ezek. ix. 4; Rev. vii. 3; alleging,
that because in the forehead nothing is more plain to be seen than the
fear of contumely and disgrace, therefore the Scripture describeth them
marked of God in the forehead, whom his mercy hath undertaken to keep from
final confusion and shame.(833) Bellarmine allegeth for the cross the same
two places.(834) But for answer to the first, we say, that neither the
sign whereof we read in that place, nor yet the use of it can make aught
for them. As for the sign itself; albeit the ancients did interpret the
sign of the letter _Tau_, to have been the sign of the cross, yet saith
Junius, _Bona illorum venia; Tquidem Graecorum, Latinorumque majusculum,
crucis quodam modo signum videtur effingere, verum hoc ad literam
Haebreorum_ Tau _non potest pertinere. Deinde ne ipsum quidem Grcaecorum
Latinorumque T, formam crucis quae apud veteres in usu erat quum
sumebantur supplicia, representat._(835)

Whereupon dissenting from the ancients, he delivers his own judgment, that
_tau_ in this place is taken _technicos_, for that sign or mark of the
letter wherewith the Lord commanded to mark the elect for their safety and
preservation. And so there was no mystery to be sought in that letter more
than in any other. As for the use of that mark wherewith the elect in
Jerusalem were at that time sealed, it was only for distinction and
separation. It had the same use which that sprinkling of the posts of the
doors had, Exod. xii. 7, only the foreheads of men and women, and not the
posts of doors were here marked, because only the remnant according to
election, and not whole families promiscuously, were at this time to be
spared, as Junius noteth.

But the use of the sign of the cross pretended by Formalists, is not to
separate us in the time of judgment, but to teach that at no time we ought
to be ashamed of the ignominy of Christ.

Shortly, the sign wherewith they in Jerusalem were marked, was for
preservation from judgment; but the sign of the cross is used for
preservation from sin. Thus we see, that neither the sign nor the use of
it, had any affinity with the cross. Now, the surest interpretation of
that place, Ezek. ix. 4, is to take _Tau_ for an appellative noun,
signifying generally and indefinitely a mark or sign, so that there is no
mark determined by this word; only there was a commandment given to set a
certain mark, some sign or other, upon the foreheads of the elect. So have
our English translators taken the place.

This exposition is confessed by Gasper Sanctius,(836) to be followed
almost by all the Hebrew masters, and by the most ancient interpreters, to
wit, the Septuagint, Aquilla and Symmachus. The word beareth this gloss,
even according to the confession of those who expound it otherwise in this
place, to wit, for an image or representation of the cross. _Tau_ (saith
Sanctius) _commune nomen est, quod signum indefinite significat_.(837)
_Tau_ is expounded by Bellarmine(838) to signify _signum_ or _terminus_.
Well then: our adversaries themselves can say nothing against our
interpretation of the word _tau_. We have also Buxtorff for us, who in his
Hebrew Lexicon turneth _tau_ to _signum_, and for this signification he
citeth both this place, Ezek. ix. 4, and Job. xxxi. 35. _Taui signum
meum._

Lastly, If _tau_ be not put for a common appellative noun, signifying a
mark or sign, but for the figure or character of the letter _tau_ as an
image of the cross, by all likelihood this character only should have been
put in the Hebrew text, and not the noun fully written; _vehithvith a
tau_, and mark a mark. As to the other place,(839) Rev. vii. 3, Pareus
observeth, that there is no figure or form of any sign there expressed,
and he thinks that seal was not outward and visible, but the same whereof
we read, 2 Tim. ii. 19, and Rev. xiv. 1, which cannot be interpreted _de
signo transeunte; nam Christianum semper nomen filii, et patris in fronte
oportet gerere_, saith Junius.(840)

Dr Fulk, on Rev. vii. 3, saith, that the sign here spoken of is proper to
God’s elect, therefore not the sign of the cross, which many reprobates
have received.

_Sect._ 7. Bishop Andrews will have the feast of Easter drawn from that
place,(841) 1 Cor. v. 8, where he saith, there is not only a warrant, but
an order for the keeping of it; and he will have it out of doubt that this
feast is of apostolical institution, because after the times of the
apostles, when there was a contention about the manner of keeping Easter,
it was agreed upon by all, that it should be kept; and when the one side
alleged for them St. John, and the other St. Peter, it was acknowledged by
both that the feast was apostolical.

I answer, The testimony of Socrates deserveth more credit than the
Bishop’s naked conclusion.

“I am of opinion (saith Socrates(842)), that as many other things crept in
of custom in sundry places, so the feast of Easter to have prevailed among
all people, of a certain private custom and observation.”

But whereas Bishop Lindsey, in defence of Bishop Andrews, replieth, that
Socrates propoundeth this for his own opinion only:

I answer, that Socrates, in that chapter, proveth his opinion from the
very same ground which Bishop Andrews wresteth to prove that this feast is
apostolical. For while as in that hot controversy about the keeping of
Easter, they of the East alleged John the apostle for their author, and
they of the West alleged Peter and Paul for themselves, “Yet (saith
Socrates), there is none that can shew in writing any testimony of theirs
for confirmation and proof of their custom. And hereby I do gather, that
the celebration of the feast of Easter came up more of custom than by any
law or canon.”

_Sect._ 7. Downame (as I touched before) allegeth the fourth commandment
for holidays of the church’s institution. But Dr Bastwick allegeth more
truly the fourth commandment against them:(843) “Six days shalt thou
labour.” This argument I have made good elsewhere; so that now I need not
insist upon it. There are further two examples alleged against us for
holidays, out of Esth. ix. 17, 18, 27, 28, and John x. 22.

Whereunto we answer, 1. That both those feasts were appointed to be kept
with the consent of the whole congregation of Israel and body of the
people, as is plain from Esth. ix. 32, and 1 Maccab. iv. 59. Therefore,
they have no show of making aught of such feasts as ours, which are
tyrannically urged upon such as in their consciences do condemn them.

2. It appears, that the days of Purim were only appointed to be days of
civil mirth and gladness, such as are in use with us, when we set out
bonfires, and other tokens of civil joy, for some memorable benefit which
the kingdom or commonwealth hath received. For they are not called the
holidays of Purim, but simply the days of Purim,—“A day of feasting and of
sending portions one to another,” Esth. ix. 19, 22. No word of any worship
of God in those days. And whereas it seemeth to Bishop Lindsey,(844) that
those days were holy, because of that rest which was observed upon them;
he must know that the text interpreteth itself, and it is evident from
ver. 16 and 22, that this rest was not a rest from labour, for waiting
upon the worshipping of God, but only a rest from their enemies.

_Sect._ 9. But Bishop Andrews goeth about to prove by six reasons, that
the days of Purim were holidays, and not days of civil joy and solemnity
only.(845)

First, saith he, it is plain by verse 31, they took it in _animas_, upon
their souls,—a _soul matter_ they made of it: there needs no soul for
_feria_ or _festum_, play or feasting. They bound themselves _super animas
suas_, which is more than _upon themselves_, and would not have been put
in the margin, but stood in the text: thus he reprehendeth the English
translators, as you may perceive.

_Ans._ The Bishop could not be ignorant that _nephesch_ signifieth _corpus
animatum_, as well as _anima_, and that the Hebrews do not always put this
word for our souls, but very often for ourselves. So Psal. vii. 2. and
Psal. lix. 3, we read _naphschi_,—_my soul_ for _me_; and Psal. xliv.
25,—_naphschenu, our soul_ for _we_; and Gen. xlvi. 26,
_col-nephesch_—_omnis animae_, for _omnes homines_.

What have we any further need of testimonies? Six hundred such are in the
holy text. And in this place, Esth. ix. 31, what can be more plain, than
that _nighal-naphscham, upon their soul_, is put for _nghalehem, upon
themselves_, especially since _nghalehem_ is found to the same purpose,
both in ver. 27 and 31.

If we will make the text agree well with itself, how can we but take both
these for one? But proceed we with the Bishop. Secondly, saith he, the
bond of it reacheth to all that _religioni eorum voluerunt copulari_, ver.
27, then, a matter of religion it was, had reference to that: what need
any joining in religion for a matter of good fellowship?

_Ans._ There is no word in the text of religion. Our English translation
reads it, “all such as joined themselves unto them.” Montanus, _omnes
adjunctos_; Tremellius, _omnes qui essent se adjuncturi eis._ The old
Latin version reads it indeed as the Bishop doth.

But no such thing can be drawn out of the word _hannilvim_, which is taken
from the radix _lava_, signifying simply, and without any adjection,
_adhaesit_, or _adjunxit se_. But let it be so, that the text meaneth only
such as were to adjoin themselves to the religion of the Jews, yet why
might not the Jews have taken upon them a matter of civility, not only for
themselves, but for such also as were to be joined with them in religion.
Could there be nothing promised for proselytes, but only a matter of
religion?

Alas! Is this our antagonist’s great Achilles, who is thus falling down
and succumbing to me, a silly stripling? Yet let us see if there be any
more force in the remnant of his reasons.

For a third, he tells us that it is expressly termed a _rite_ and a
_ceremony_, at verses 23 and 28, as the fathers read them.

In the 23rd verse we have no more but _susceperunt_, as Pagnini, or
_receperunt_, as Tremellius reads it: but to read, _susceperunt in
solemnem ritum_, is to make an addition to the text.

The 28th verse calls not this feast a rite, but only _dies memorati_, or
_celebres_. And what if we grant that this feast was a rite? might it not,
for all that, be merely civil? No, saith the Bishop, “rites, I trust, and
ceremonies, pertain to the church, and to the service of God.”

_Ans._ The version which the Bishop followed, hath a rite, not a ceremony.
Now, of rites, it is certain that they belong to the commonwealth as well
as to the church. For _in jure politico, sui sunt imperati et solemnes
ritus_, saith Junius.(846)

Fourthly, saith the Bishop, they fast and pray here in this verse (meaning
the 31st), fast the eve, the fourteenth, and so then the day following to
be holiday of course.

_Ans._ The Latin version, which the Bishop followeth, and whereupon he
buildeth this reason, readeth the 31st verse very corruptly, and no ways
according to the original, as will easily appear to any who can compare
them together. Wherefore the best interpreters take the fasting and prayer
spoken of verse 31, to be meant of the time before their delivery. Now,
after they were delivered, they decreed that the matters of their fasting
and crying should be remembered upon the days of Purim, which were to
solemnise that preservation, _quam jejunio et precibus fuerant a Deo
consequenti_, as saith Tremellius.

But Fifthly, saith he, with fasting and prayer (here), alms also is
enjoined (at ver. 22), these three will make it past a day of revels or
mirth.

I have answered already, that their fasting and praying are not to be
referred to the days of Purim, which were memorials of their delivery, but
to the time past, when, by the means of fasting and prayer, they did
impetrate their delivery, before ever the days of Purim were heard of, and
as touching alms, it can make no holiday, because much alms may be, and
hath been given upon days of civil joy and solemnity.

If the Bishop help not himself with his sixth reason, he is like to come
off with no great credit. May we then know what that is?

Lastly, saith he, as a holiday the Jews ever kept it,—have a peculiar set
service for it in their _Seders_, set psalms to sing, set lessons to read,
set prayers to say, good and godly all,—none but as they have used from
all antiquity.

_Ans._ 1. The Bishop could not have made this word good, that the Jews did
ever and from all antiquity keep the days of Purim in this fashion.

2. This manner of holding that feast, whensoever it began, had no warrant
from the first institution, but was (as many other things) taken up by the
Jews in after ages, and so the Bishop proveth not the point which he
taketh in hand, namely, that the days spoken of in this text were enacted
or appointed to be kept as holidays.

3. The service which the Jews in latter times use upon the days of Purim
is not much to be regarded. For as Godwin noteth out of Hospinian,(847)
they read the history of Esther in their synagogues, and so often as they
hear mention of Haman, they do with their fists and hammers beat upon the
benches and boards, as if they did knock upon Haman’s head. When thus they
have behaved themselves, in the very time of their liturgy, like furious
and drunken people, the rest of the day they pass over in outrageous
revelling. And here I take leave of the Bishop.

_Sect._ 10. Thirdly, We say, whether the days of Purim were instituted to
be holidays or not, yet there was some more than ordinary warrant for
them, because Mordecai, by whose advice and direction they were appointed
to be kept, was a prophet by the instinct and revelation of the Spirit,
Esth. iv. 13. _Non multum fortasse aberraverimus_, saith Hospinian,(848)
_si dicamus hoc à Mordochcæo et Hesthera, ex peculiari Spiritus Sancti
instinctu factum_.

Bishop Lindsey believeth(849) that they had only a general warrant, such
as the church hath still, to put order to the circumstances belonging to
God’s worship, and all his reason is, because if the Jews had received any
other particular warrant, the sacred story should not have passed it over
in silence.

_Ans._ Thus much we understand from the sacred story, that the Jews had
the direction of a prophet for the days of Purim; and that was a warrant
more than ordinary, because prophets were the extraordinary ministers of
God.

_Sect._ 11. Fourthly, As touching the feast of the dedication of the altar
by Judas Maccabeus, 1. Let us hear what Cartwright very gravely and
judiciously propoundeth:(850) “That this feast was unduly instituted and
ungroundly, it may appear by conference of the dedication of the first
temple under Solomon, and of the second after the captivity returned from
Babylon. In which dedication, seeing there was no yearly remembrance by
solemnity of feasts, not so much as one day, it is evident that the yearly
celebration of this feast for eight days, was not compassed by that Spirit
that Solomon and the captivity were directed by; which Spirit, when it
dwelt more plentifully in Solomon, and in the prophets that stood at the
stern of the captivity’s dedication, than it did in Judas, it was in him
so much the more presumptuous, as having a shorter leg than they, he durst
in that matter overstride them, and his rashness is so much the more
aggravated, as each of them, for the building of the whole temple, with
all the implements and furniture thereof, made no feast to renew the
annual memory, where Judas only for renewment of the altar, and of certain
other decayed places of the temple, instituted this great solemnity.”

2. The feast of the dedication was not free of Pharisaical invention. For
as Tremellius observeth out of the Talmud,(851) _statuerunt sapientes
illius seculi, ut recurrentibus annis, octo illi dies, &c._ Yet albeit the
Pharisees were called _sapientes Israelis_, Bishop Lindsey will not grant
that they were the wise men of whom the Talmud speaketh; for, saith he, it
behoved those who appointed festivities, not only to be wise men, but men
of authority also.(852)

But what do we hear? Were not the Pharisees men of authority? Why, saith
not Christ they sat in Moses’ chair? Matt. xxiii. 2. Saith not
Calvin,(853) _In ecclesiæ regimene et scriptura interpretatione, hæc secta
primatum tenebat_? Saith not Camero,(854) _cum Pharisæorum præcipua esset
authoritas_ (_ut ubique docet Josephus_)? &c.

Doth not Josephus speak so much of their authority, that in one place he
saith,(855) _Nomen igitur regni, erat penes reginam (Alexandram) penes
Pharisæos vero administratio_? And in another place,(856) _Erat enim
quædam Judæorum secta exactiorem patriæ legis cognitionem sibi vendicans_?
&c. _Hi Pharisæi vocantur, genus hominuum astutum, arrogans, et interdum
regibus quoque infestum, ut eos etiam aperte impugnare non vereatur?_

There is nothing alleged which can prove the lawfulness of this feast of
the dedication.

It is but barely and boldly affirmed by Bishop Lindsey,(857) that the
Pharisees were not rebuked by Christ for this feast, because we read not
so much in Scripture; for there were many things which Jesus did and said
that are not written in Scripture, John xxi. 25; and whereas it seemeth to
some, that Christ did countenance and approve this feast, because he gave
his presence unto the same, John x. 22, 23, we must remember, that the
circumstances only of time and place are noted by the evangelist, for
evidence to the story, and not for any mystery, Christ had come up to the
feast of tabernacles, John vii., and tarried still all that while, because
then there was a great confluence of people in Jerusalem. Whereupon he
took occasion to spread the net of the gospel for catching of many souls.
And whilst John saith, “It was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication,”
he gives a reason only of the confluence of many people at Jerusalem, and
showeth how it came to pass that Christ had occasion to preach to such a
great multitude; and whilst he addeth “And it was winter,” he giveth a
reason of Christ’s walking in Solomon’s porch, whither the Jews’ resort
was. It was not thought beseeming to walk in the temple itself, but in the
porch men used to convene either for talking or walking, because in the
summer the porch shadowed them from the heat of the sun, and in winter it
lay open to the sunshine and to heat. Others think, that whilst he saith,
it was winter, importeth that therefore Christ was the more frequently in
the temple, knowing that his time was short which he had then for his
preaching; for in the entry of the next spring he was to suffer.
Howsoever, it is not certain of what feast of dedication John speaketh.
Bullinger leaves it doubtful;(858) and Maldonat saith(859) that this
opinion which taketh the dedication of the altar by Judas Maccabeus to be
meant by John, hath fewest authors. But to let this pass, whereas the
Rhemists allege,(860) that Christ approved this feast, because he was
present at it. Cartwright and Fulk answer them, that Christ’s being
present at it proveth not his approving of it. _Non festum proprie
honoravit Christus_, saith Junius,(861) _sed cætum piorum convenientem
festo; nam omnes ejusmodi occasiones seminandi evangelii sui observabat et
capiebat Christus_.

_Quasi vero_ (saith Hospinian(862)) _Christus Encænoirum casua
Hierosloymam abierit_. Nay, but he saw he had a convenient occasion, _ad
instituendam hominum multitudenem, ad illud festum confluentiam_.

Even as Paul chose to be present at certain Jewish feasts,(863) not for
any respect to the feasts themselves, nor for any honour which he meant to
give them, but for the multitudes’ cause who resorted to the same, among
whom he had a more plentiful occasion to spread the gospel at those
festivities than at other times in the year.

I had thought here to close this chapter; but finding that, as the parrot,
which other while useth the form of a man’s voice, yet being beaten and
chaffed, returneth to his own natural voice, so some of our opposites, who
have been but erst prating somewhat of the language of Canaan against us,
finding themselves pressed and perplexed in such a way of reasoning, have
quickly changed their tune, and begin to talk to us of warrants of another
nature nor of the word of God. I am therefore to digress with them. And I
perceive, ere we know well where they are, they are passed from Scripture
to custom. For if we will listen, thus saith one of the greatest note
among them, Bishop Andrews(864) I trow they call him: “We do but make
ourselves to be pitied other while (well said) when we stand wringing the
Scriptures (well said) to strain that out of them which is not in them
(well said), and so can never come liquid from them (well said), when yet
we have for the same point the church’s custom clear enough. And that is
enough by virtue of this text” (meaning 1 Cor. xi. 16). And after he
saith, that we are taught by the Apostle’s example in “points of this
nature, of ceremony or circumstance, ever to pitch upon _habemus_, or _non
habemus talem consuetudinem_.”

_Ans._ 1. The text gives him no ground for this doctrine, that in matters
of ceremony we are to pitch upon _habemus_ or _non habemus talem
consuetudinem_, so that he is wide away, whilst he spendeth the greatest
part of his sermon in the pressing of this point, that the custom of the
church should be enough to us in matters of ceremony, and particularly in
the keeping of Easter; for the custom of the church there spoken of, is
not concerning a point of circumstance, but concerning a very substantial
and necessary point, namely, not to be contentious: neither doth the
Apostle urge those orders of the men’s praying uncovered, and the women’s
praying veiled, from this ground, because so was the church’s custom (as
the Bishop would have it), but only he is warning the Corinthians not to
be contentious about those matters, because the churches have no such
custom as to be contentious. So is the place expounded by Chrysostom,
Ambrose, Calvin, Martyr, Bullinger, Marlorat, Beza, Fulk, Cartwright,
Pareus, and our own Archbishop of St. Andrews, in his sermon upon that
text. And for this exposition, it maketh that the Apostle, in the
preceding part of the chapter, hath given sufficient reasons for that
order of covering or veiling the women; wherefore, if any would contend
about the matter, he tells them they must contend with themselves; for
they nor the churches of God would not contend with them,—they had no such
custom. But if we admit Bishop Andrews’ gloss, then why doth the Apostle,
after he hath given good “reason for the veiling of women, subjoin, if any
man seem to be contentious,” &c. The Bishop resolveth us, that the
apostles saw that a wrangling wit would elude these reasons which he had
given, and he had no other reasons to give, therefore he resolves all into
the church’s practice,—enough of itself to suffice any that will be wise
to sobriety. _Ans._ If any seem to be blasphemous, we have no such custom,
neither the churches of God. What! shall a wrangling wit elude the reasons
given by the Spirit of God, in such sort, that he must give some other
more sufficient proof for that which he teacheth? Then the whole
Scriptures of God must yet be better proved, because the unstable do wrest
them, as Peter speaks, 2 Pet. iii. 16.

(Transcriber’s Note: There is no section 12 in the original book.)

_Sect._ 13. 2. The custom of the church is not enough to pitch on, and it
is found oftentimes expedient to change a custom of the church.

Basilius Magnus(865) doth flatly refuse to admit the authority of custom:
_Consuetudo sine veritate_ (saith Cyprian),(866) _vetustas erroris est.
Frustra enim qui ratione vincuntur_ (saith Augustine),(867) _consuetudinem
nobis objiciunt, quasi consuetudo major sit veritate, &c. Nullus pudor est
ad meliora transire_, saith Ambrose(868) to the Emperor Valentinian.
_Quaelibet consuetudo_ (saith Gratian),(869) _veritati est postponenda._

And again,(870) _Corrigendum est quod illicite admittitur, aut a
praedecessoribus admissum invenitur_. A politic writer admonisheth(871)
_retinere antiqua_, only with this caution, _Si proba._

Calvin(872) (speaking against human ceremonies) saith, _Si objiciatur,
&c._ “If (saith he) antiquity be objected (albeit they who are too much
addicted to custom and to received fashions, do boldly use this buckler to
defend all their corruptions), the refutation is easy; for the ancients
also themselves, with heavy complaints, have abundantly testified that
they did not approve of anything which was devised by the will of men.” In
the end of the epistle he allegeth this testimony of Cyprian: “If Christ
alone be to be heard, then we ought not to give heed what any man before
us hath thought fit to be done, but what Christ (who is before all) hath
done; for we must not follow the customs of man, but the truth of God.”

What can be more plain than that antiquity cannot be a confirmation to
error, nor custom a prejudice to truth?

Wherefore Dr Forbesse(873) also despiseth such arguments as are taken from
the custom of the church.

_Sect._ 14. 3. There was a custom in the churches of God to give the holy
communion to infants; and another custom to minister baptism only about
Easter and Pentecost. Sundry such abuses got place in the church.

If, then, it be enough to pitch upon custom, why ought not those customs
to have been commended and continued? But if they were commendably
changed, then ought we not to follow blindly the bare custom of the
church, but examine the equity of the same, and demand grounds of reason
for it.

St. Paul (saith Dr Fulk(874)) doth give reason for that order of covering
women’s heads: “By whose example the preachers are likewise to endeavour
to satisfy, by reason, both men and women, that humbly desire their
resolution for quiet of their conscience, and not to beat them down with
the club of custom only.”

4. Whereas the custom of some churches is alleged for the ceremonies, we
have objected the custom of other churches against them; neither shall
ever our opposites prove them to be the customs of the church universal.

5. A great part of that ecclesiastical custom which is alleged for the
ceremonies, resolveth into that idolatrous and superstitious use of them
which hath long continued in the kingdom of antichrist; but that such a
custom maketh against them, it hath been proved before.(875)

6. If it were so that we ought to pitch upon the church’s custom, yet
(that I may speak with Mr Hooker) the law of common indulgence permitteth
us to think of our own customs as half a thought better than the customs
of others.

But why was there such a change made in the discipline, policy, and orders
of the church of Scotland, which were agreeable to the word of God,
confirmed and ratified by general assemblies and parliaments, used and
enjoyed with so great peace and purity? Our custom should have holden the
ceremonies out of Scotland, hold them in elsewhere as it may.

CHAPTER VII.

THAT THE LAWFULNESS OF THE CEREMONIES CANNOT BE WARRANTED BY ANY
ECCLESIASTICAL LAW, NOR BY ANY POWER WHICH THE CHURCH HATH TO PUT ORDER TO
THINGS BELONGING TO DIVINE WORSHIP.

_Sect._ 1. We have proved that the ceremonies cannot be warranted by the
law of God. It followeth to examine whether any law of man, or power upon
earth, can make them lawful or warrantable unto us.

We will begin with laws ecclesiastical, where, first of all, it must be
considered well what power the church hath to make laws about things
pertaining to religion and the worship of God, and how far the same doth
extend itself. Dr Field’s resolution touching this question is as
followeth: “Thus (saith he(876)) we see our adversaries cannot prove that
the church hath power to annex unto such ceremonies and observations as
she deviseth, the remission of sins, and the working of other spiritual
and supernatural effects, which is the only thing questioned between them
and us about the power of the church. So that all the power the church
hath, more than by her power to publish the commandments of Christ the Son
of God, and by her censures to punish the offenders against the same, is
only in prescribing things that pertain to comeliness and order.
Comeliness requireth that not only that gravity and modesty do appear in
the performance of the works of God’s service that beseemeth actions of
that nature, but also that such rites and ceremonies be used as may cause
a due respect unto, and regard of, the things performed, and thereby stir
men up to greater fervour and devotion.”

And after: Order requireth that there be set hours for prayer, preaching,
and ministering the sacraments; that there be silence and attention when
the things are performed; that women be silent in the church; that all
things be administered according to the rules of discipline.

This his discourse is but a bundle of incongruities. For, 1. He saith,
that the church’s power to annex unto the ceremonies which she deviseth
the working of spiritual and supernatural effects, is the only thing
questioned between our adversaries and us about the power of the church.
Now, our adversaries contend with us also about the power of the church to
make new articles of faith, and her power to make laws binding the
conscience, both which controversies are touched by himself.(877)

2. He saith, that comeliness requireth the use of such ceremonies as may
cause a due respect unto, and regard of, the works of God’s service, and
thereby stir men up to greater fervour and devotion. But it hath been
already showed(878) that the comeliness which the Apostle requireth in the
church and service of God cannot comprehend such ceremonies under it, and
that it is no other than that very common external decency which is
beseeming for all the assemblies of men, as well civil as sacred.

3. Whilst he is discoursing of the church’s power to prescribe things
pertaining to order, contra-distinguished from her power which she hath to
publish the commandments of Christ, he reckons forth among his other
examples, women’s silence in the church, as if the church did prescribe
this as a matter of order left to her determination, and not publish it as
the commandment of Christ in his word.

4. Whereas he saith that the church hath power to prescribe such rites and
ceremonies as may cause a due respect unto, and regard of, the works of
God’s service, and thereby stir men up to greater fervour and devotion, by
his own words shall he be condemned: for a little before he reprehendeth
the Romanists for maintaining that the church hath power to annex unto the
ceremonies which she deviseth the working of spiritual and supernatural
effects. And a little after he saith, that the church hath no power to
ordain such ceremonies as serve to signify, assure, and convey unto men
such benefits of saving grace as God in Christ is pleased to bestow on
them. Now, to cause a regard of, and a respect unto the works of God’s
service, and thereby to stir up men to fervour and devotion, what is it
but the working of a spiritual and supernatural effect, and the conveying
unto men such a benefit of saving grace as God in Christ is pleased to
bestow on them? In like manner, whereas he holdeth that the church hath
power to ordain such ceremonies as serve to express those spiritual and
heavenly affections, dispositions, motions, or desires, which are or
should be in men, in the very same place he confuteth himself, whilst he
affirmeth that the church hath no power to ordain such ceremonies as serve
to signify unto men those benefits of saving grace which God in Christ is
pleased to bestow on them. Now, to express such heavenly and spiritual
affections, dispositions, motions, or desires, as should be in men, is (I
suppose) to signify unto men such benefits of saving grace, as God in
Christ is pleased to bestow on them. Who dare deny it?

_Sect._ 2. Bishop Lindsey’s opinion touching the power of the church,(879)
whereof we dispute, is, that power is given unto her to “determine the
circumstances which are in the general necessary to be used in divine
worship, but not defined particularly in the word.”

I know the church can determine nothing which is not of this kind and
quality. But the Prelate’s meaning (as may be seen in that same epistle of
his) is, that whatsoever the church determineth, if it be such a
circumstance as is in the general necessary, but not particularly defined
in the word, then we cannot say that the church had no power to determine
and enjoin the same, nor be led by the judgment of our own consciences,
judging it not expedient, but that in this case we must take the church’s
law to be the rule of our consciences. Now, by this ground which the
Prelate holdeth, the church may prescribe to the ministers of the gospel
the whole habit and apparel of the Levitical high-priest (which were to
Judaize). For apparel is a circumstance in the general necessary, yet it
is not particularly defined in the word. By this ground, the church may
determine that I should ever pray with my face to the east, preach
kneeling on my knees, sing the psalms lying on my back, and hear sermons
standing only upon one foot. For in all these actions a gesture is
necessary; but there is no gesture particularly defined in the word to
which we are adstricted in any of these exercises.

And further, because _uno absurdo dato, mille sequuntur_, by this ground
the Prelate must say, that the church hath power to ordain three or four
holidays every week (which ordinance, as he himself hath told us, could
not stand with charity, the inseparable companion of piety), for time is a
circumstance in the general necessary in divine worship, yet in his
judgment we are not bound by the word to any particular time for the
performance of the duties of God’s worship.

By this ground we were to say, that Pope Innocent III. held him within the
bounds of ecclesiastical power, when in the great _Lateran_ council, anno
1215, he made a decree, that all the faithful of both sexes should once in
the year at least, to wit, upon Easter-day, receive the sacrament of the
eucharist. From whence it hath come to pass, that the common people in the
church of Rome receive the sacrament only upon Easter. Now, the time of
receiving the sacrament is a circumstance in the general necessary, for a
time it must have, but it is not particularly defined in the word. It is
left indefinite, 1 Cor. xi. 26, yet the church hath no power to determine
Easter-day, either as the only time, or as the fittest time, for all the
faithful of both sexes to receive the eucharist. What if faithful men and
women cannot have time to prepare themselves as becometh, being avocated
and distracted by the no less necessary than honest adoes of their
particular callings?

What if they cannot have the sacrament upon that day administered
according to our Lord’s institution? What if they see Papists confirming
themselves in their Easter superstition by our unnecessary practice? Shall
they swallow these and such-like soul-destroying camels, and all for
straining out the gnat of communicating precisely upon Easter-day? But
since time is a necessary circumstance, and no time is particularly
defined, the Bishop must say more also, that the church may determine
Easter-day for the only day whereupon we may receive the Lord’s supper.

Last of all, if the church have power to determine all circumstances in
the general necessary, but not particularly defined in the word, what
could be said against that ancient order of solemn baptizing only at the
holidays of Easter and Pentecost (whereby it came to pass that very many
died unbaptized, as Socrates writeth(880))? Or, what shall be said against
Tertullian’s opinion,(881) which alloweth lay men, yea, women, to baptize.
May the church’s determination make all this good, forasmuch as these
circumstances of the time when, and the persons by whom, baptism should be
ministered, are in the general necessary, but not particularly defined in
the word? _Ite leves nugae._

_Sect._ 3. Camero,(882) as learned a Formalist as any of the former,
expresseth his judgment copiously touching our present question. He saith,
that there are two sorts of things which the church commandeth, to wit,
either such as belong to faith and manners, or such as conduce to faith
and manners; that both are in God’s word prescribed _exserte_, plainly,
but not one way, because such things that pertain unto faith and manners,
are in the word of God particularly commanded, whereas those things which
conduce to faith and manners are but generally commended unto us. Of
things that pertain to faith and manners, he saith, that they are most
constant and certain, and such as can admit no change; but as for things
conducing to faith and manners, he saith, that they depend upon the
circumstances of persons, place, and time, which being almost infinite,
there could not be particular precepts delivered unto us concerning such
things. Only this is from God commended unto the church, that whatsoever
is done publicly be done with order, and what privately be decent.

These things he so applieth to his purpose, that he determineth, in
neither of these kinds the church hath power to make laws, because in
things pertaining to faith and manners the law of our Lord Jesus Christ is
plainly expressed; and in those things, wherein neither faith nor manners
are placed, but which conduce to faith and manners, we have indeed a
general law, not having further any particular law, for that reason
alleged, namely, because this depends upon the circumstances.

Thereafter he addeth, _Quid sit fides, quid sit pietas, quid sit charitas,
verbo Dei demonstratur. Quid ad hæc conducat, seu reputando rem in
universum, seu reputando rem quatenus singulis competit, pendet ex
cognitione circumstantiarum. Jam id definire Deus voluit esse penes
ecclesiam, hae tamen lege, ut quod definit ecclesia, conveniat generali
definitioni Dei._

The matter he illustrates with this one example: God’s word doth define in
the general that we are to fast, and that publicly; but, in the
particular, we could not have the definition of the word, because there
are infinite occasions of a public fast, as it is said in the schools,
_individua esse infinita_; so that it is the church’s part to look to the
occasion, and this depends upon the consideration of the circumstances.
This discourse of his cannot satisfy the attentive reader, but deserveth
certain animadversions.

_Sect_. 4. First, then, it is to be observed how he is drawn into a
manifest contradiction; for whereas he saith, that God’s word doth
_exserte_ and _diserte_ commend unto us _generatim_, such things as
conduce to faith and manners, and that concerning things of this nature we
have a general law in Scripture, how can this stand with that which he
addeth, namely, that it is in the church’s power to define what things
conduce to faith, piety, and charity, even _reputando rem in universum_?

2. Whereas he saith that the church hath no power to make laws, neither in
things belonging to faith and manners, nor in things conducing to the
same; I would also see how this agreeth with that other position, namely,
that it is in the power of the church to define what things do conduce to
faith, piety and charity.

3. What means he by his application of order to public, and decency to
private actions, as if the Apostle did not require both these in the
public words of God’s service performed in the church?

4. Whereas he saith that such things as conduce to faith and manners do
depend upon the circumstances, and so could not be particularly defined in
the word, either he speaks of those things as they are defined in the
general, or as they are defined in the particular. Not the first; for as
they are defined in the general, they cannot depend upon changeable
circumstances, and that because, according to his own tenet, the word
defines them in the general, and this definition of the word is most
certain and constant, neither can any change happen unto it. Wherefore
(without doubt) he must pronounce this of the definition of such things in
the particular. Now, to say that things conducing to faith and manners, as
they are particularly defined, do depend upon circumstances, is as much as
to say that circumstances depend upon circumstances. For things conducing
to faith and manners, which the church hath power to determine
particularly, what are they other than circumstances? Surely he who taketh
not Camero’s judgment to be, that the church hath power to determine
somewhat more than the circumstances (and by consequence a part of the
substance) of God’s worship, shall give no sense to his words. Yet, if one
would take his meaning so, I see not how he can be saved from
contradicting himself; forasmuch as he holdeth that such things as pertain
to faith and manners are particularly defined in the word. To say no more,
I smell such things in Camero’s opinion as can neither stand with reason
nor with himself.

5. God’s word doth not only define things pertaining to faith and manners,
but also things conducing to the same, and that not only generally, but in
some respects, and sometimes, particularly. And we take for example his
own instance of fasting. For the Scripture defineth very many occasions of
fasting; Ezra viii. 21; 2 Chron. xx.; Jonah iii.; Joel ii.; Acts xiii. 3;
Josh. vii. 6; Judg. xx. 16; Esth. iv. 16; Ezra ix. x.; Zech. vii. From
which places we gather that the Scripture defineth fasting to be used,

1. For supplication, when we want some necessary or expedient good thing.

2. For deprecation, when we fear some evil.

3. For humiliation, when, by our sins, we have provoked God’s wrath.
Neither can there be any occasion of fasting whereof I may not say that
either it is particularly designed in Scripture, or else that it may be by
necessary consequence defined out of Scripture; or, lastly, that it is of
that sort of things which were not determinable by Scripture, because
circumstances are infinite, as Camero hath told us.

_Sect._ 5. Thus having failed by those rocks of offence, I direct my
course straight to the dissecting of the true limits, within which the
church’s power of enacting laws about things pertaining to the worship of
God is bounded and confined, and which it may not overleap nor transgress.

Three conditions I find necessarily requisite in such a thing as the
church hath power to prescribe by her laws:

1st. It must be only a circumstance of divine worship; no substantial part
of it; no sacred significant and efficacious ceremony. For the order and
decency left to the definition of the church, as concerning the
particulars of it, comprehendeth no more but mere circumstances. Bishop
Lindsey(883) doth but unskilfully confound things different when he
talketh of “the ceremonies and circumstances left to the determination of
the church.” Now, by his leave, though circumstances be left to the
determination of the church, yet ceremonies, if we speak properly, are
not.

Bishop Andrews avoucheth(884) that ceremonies pertain to the church only,
and to the service of God, not to civil solemnities. But so much, I trust,
he would not have said of circumstances which have place in all moral
actions, and that to the same end and purpose for which they serve in
religious actions, namely, for beautifying them with that decent demeanour
which the very light and law of natural reason requireth as a thing
beseeming all human actions. For the church of Christ being a society of
men and women, must either observe order and decency in all the
circumstances of their holy actions, time, place, person, form, &c., or
also be deformed with that disorder and confusion which common reason and
civility abhorreth. Ceremonies, therefore, which are sacred observances,
and serve only to a religious and holy use, and which may not, without
sacrilege, be applied to another use, must be sorted with things of
another nature than circumstances. _Ceremonioe_, “ceremonies (saith Dr
Field(885)) are so named, as Livy thinketh, from a town called Cære, in
the which the Romans did hide their sacred things when the Gauls invaded
Rome. Others think that ceremonies are so named _a carendo_, of abstaining
from certain things, as the Jews abstained from swine’s flesh, and sundry
other things forbidden by God as unclean. Ceremonies are outward acts of
religion,” &c. _Quapropter etiam_, saith Junius,(886) _ritus et ceremonias
inter se distincimus, quia in jure politico sunt imperati et solennes
ritus; ceremonioe vero non nisi sacroe observationes in cultu divino
appellantur. Ceremonia_, saith Bellarmine,(887) _proprie et simpliciter
sic vocata, est externa actio quoe non aliunde est bona et laudabilis,
nisi quia fit ad Deum colendum._ From which words Amesius(888) concludeth
against him, that he, and others with him, do absurdly confound order,
decency, and the like, which have the same use and praise in civil things
which they have in the worship of God, with religious and sacred
ceremonies. Yet Dr Burges(889) rejecteth this distinction betwixt
circumstances and ceremonies, as a mere nicety or fiction. And would you
know his reason? “For that (saith he) all circumstances (I mean
extrinsical) which incur not the substance of the action, when they are
once designed or observed purposely in reference to such a matter, of
whose substance they are not, they are then ceremonies.” If this be not a
nicety or fiction, I know not what is. For what means he here by a matter?
An action sure, or else a nicety. Well, then, we shall have now a world of
ceremonies. When I appoint to meet with another man at Berwick, upon the
10th day of May, because the place and the day are purposely designed in
reference to such a matter, of whose substance they are not, namely, to my
meeting with the other man, for talking of our business, therefore the
town of Berwick, and the 10th day of May, must be accounted ceremonies. To
me it is nice, that the Doctor made it not nice, to let such a nicety fall
from his pen.

When I put on my shoos in reference to walking, or wash my hands in
reference to eating, am I using ceremonies all the while? The Doctor could
not choose but say so, forasmuch as these circumstances are purposely
designed and observed in reference to such matters, of whose substance
they are not.

_Sect._ 6. 2d. That which the church may lawfully prescribe by her laws
and ordinances, as a thing left to her determination, must be one of such
things as were not determinable by Scripture, on that reason which Camero
hath given us, namely, because _individua_ are _infinita_. We mean not in
any wise to circumscribe the infinite power and wisdom of God, only we
speak upon supposition of the bounds and limits which God did set to his
written word, within which he would have it contained, and over which he
thought fit that it should not exceed. The case being thus put, as it is,
we say truly of those several and changeable circumstances which are left
to the determination of the church, that, being almost infinite, they were
not particularly determinable in Scripture; for the particular definition
of those occurring circumstances which were to be rightly ordered in the
works of God’s service to the end of the world, and that ever according to
the exigency of every present occasion and different case, should have
filled the whole world with books. But as for other things pertaining to
God’s worship, which are not to be reckoned among the circumstances of it,
they being in number neither many, nor in change various, were most easily
and conveniently determinable in Scripture. Now, since God would have his
word (which is our rule in the works of his service) not to be delivered
by tradition, but to be written and sealed unto us, that by this means,
for obviating Satanical subtility, and succouring human imbecility, we
might have a more certain way for conservation of true religion, and for
the instauration of it when it faileth among men,—how can we but assure
ourselves that every such acceptable thing pertaining any way to religion,
which was particularly and conveniently determinable in Scripture, is
indeed determined in it; and consequently, that no such thing as is not a
mere alterable circumstance is left to the determination of the church?

_Sect._ 7. 3d. If the church prescribe anything lawfully, so that she
prescribe no more than she hath power given her to prescribe, her
ordinance must be accompanied with some good reason and warrant given for
the satisfaction of tender consciences. This condition is, alas! too
seldom looked unto by law-makers, of whom one fitly complaineth thus:—

Lex quamvis ratio Ciceroni summa vocetur, Et bene laudetur lex que
ratione probatur, Invenies inter legistas raro logistas: Moris et
exempli leges sunt juraque templi.

But this fashion we leave to them who will have all their anomalies taken
for analogies. It becometh not the spouse of Christ, endued with the
spirit of meekness, to command anything imperiously, and without a reason
given.

_Ecclesioe enim est docere primum, tuin proescribere_, saith Camero.(890)
And again: _Non enim dominatur cleris, nec agit cum iis quos Christus
redemit, ac si non possent capere quod sit religiosum, quid minus._

Tertullian’s testimony(891) is known: _Nulla lex_, &c. “No law (saith he)
owes to itself alone the conscience of its equity, but to those from whom
it expects obedience. Moreover, it is a suspected law which will not have
itself to be proved, but a wicked law, which not being proved, yet beareth
rule.”

It is well said by our divines,(892) that in rites and ceremonies the
church hath no power “to destruction, but to edification;” and that the
observation of our ecclesiastical canons “must carry before them a
manifest utility.”(893) _Piis vero fratribus durum est, subjicere se rebus
illis quas nec rectas esse nec utiles animadvertunt_.(894) If here it be
objected, that some things are convenient to be done, therefore, because
they are prescribed by the church, and for no other reason. For example,
in two things which are alike lawful and convenient in themselves, I am
bound to do the one and not the other, because of the church’s
prescription. So that, in such cases, it seemeth there can be no other
reason given for the ordinance of the church but only her own power and
authority to put to order things of this nature.

I answer, that even in such a case as this, the conveniency of the thing
itself is anterior to the church’s determination; anterior, I say, _de
congruo_, though not _de facto_, that is to say, before ever the church
prescribe it, it is such a thing as (when it falleth out to be done at
all) may be done conveniently, though it be not (before the church’s
prescribing of it) such a thing as should and ought to be done as
convenient. Which being so, we do still hold that the conveniency of a
thing must always go before the church’s prescribing of it; go before, I
mean, at least _de congruo_. Neither can the church prescribe anything
lawfully which she showeth not to have been convenient, even before her
determination.

_Sect._ 8. These things being permitted, I come to extract my projection,
and to make it evident that the lawfulness of the controverted ceremonies
cannot be warranted by any ecclesiastical law; and this I prove by three
arguments:—

1st. Those conditions which I have showed to be required in that thing
which the church may lawfully prescribe by a law, are not quadrant nor
competent to the cross, kneeling, surplice, holidays, &c.

For, 1. They are not mere circumstances, such as have place in all moral
actions, but sacred, mystical, significant, efficacious ceremonies, as
hath been abundantly shown in this dispute already. For example, Dr
Burges(895) calleth the surplice a religious or sacred ceremony. And
again,(896) he placeth in it a mystical signification of the pureness of
the minister of God. Wherefore the replier(897) to Dr Mortoune’s
_Particular Defence_ saith well, that there is a great difference betwixt
a grave civil habit and a mystical garment.

2. It cannot be said that these ceremonies are of that kind of thing which
were not determinable by Scripture; neither will our opposites, for very
shame, adventure to say that things of this kind, to which cross,
kneeling, &c., do belong, viz., sacred significant ceremonies, left (in
their judgment) to the definition of the church, are almost infinite, and
therefore could not well and easily be determined in Scripture.

Since, then, such things as are not mere circumstances of worship can
neither be many nor various (as I said before), it is manifest that all
such things were easily determinable in Scripture.

3. Our ceremonial laws are not backed with such grounds and reasons as
might be for the satisfying and quieting of tender consciences, but we are
borne down with Will and authority; whereof I have said enough
elsewhere.(898)

_Sect._ 9. 2d. If the ceremonies be lawful to us because the law and
ordinance of the church prescribes them, then either the bare and naked
prescription of the church, having no other warrant than the church’s own
authority, makes them to be thus lawful; or else the law of the church, as
grounded upon and warranted by the law of God and nature. Not the first;
for divines hold,(899) _legem humanum ferri ab hominibus, cum ratione
procedunt ab illis aliis antegressis legibus. Nam legis humanae regula
proxima est duplex. Una innata quam legem naturalem dicimus, altera
inspirata, quam divinam_, &c. _Ex his ergo fontibus lex humana procedit:
hoec incunabila illius à quibus si aberrat, lex degener est, indigna legis
nomine._ We have also the testimony of an adversary; for saith not Paybody
himself,(900) “I grant it is unlawful to do in God’s worship anything upon
the mere pleasure of man?”

If they take them (as needs they must) to the latter part, then let them
either say that the ceremonies are lawful unto us, because the church
judgeth them to be agreeable to the law of God and nature, or because the
church proveth unto us, by evident reasons, that they are indeed agreeable
to these laws. If they yield us the latter, then it is not the church’s
law, but the church’s reasons given for her law, which can warrant the
lawfulness of them unto us, which doth elude and elide all that which they
allege for the lawfulness of them from the power and authority of the
church.

And further, if any such reasons be to be given forth for the ceremonies,
why are they so long kept up from us? But if they hold them at the former,
thereupon it will follow, that it shall be lawful for us to do every thing
which the church shall judge to be agreeable to the law of God and nature,
and consequently to all the Jewish, popish, and heathenish ceremonies,
yea, to worship images, if it happen that the church judge these things to
be agreeable to the law of God and nature.

It will be answered (I know), that if the church command anything
repugnant to God’s word we are not bound to do it, nor to receive it as
lawful, though the church judge so of it; but otherwise, if that which the
church judgeth to be agreeable to the law of God and nature (and in that
respect prescribeth) be not repugnant to the word of God, but in itself
indifferent, then are we to embrace it as convenient, and consonant to the
law of God and nature, neither ought we to call in question the lawfulness
of it.

But I reply, that either we must judge a thing to be repugnant or not
repugnant to the word, to be indifferent or not indifferent in itself,
because the church judgeth so of it, or else because the church proveth
unto us by an evident reason that it is so. If the latter, we have what we
would; if the former, we are just where we were: the argument is still set
afoot; then we must receive everything (be it ever so bad) as indifferent,
if only the church happen so to judge of it; for _quod competit alicui qua
tale_, &c. So that if we receive anything as indifferent, for this
respect, because the church judgeth it to be so, then shall we receive
everything for indifferent which the church shall so judge of.

_Sect._ 10. 3d. The church is forbidden to add anything to the
commandments of God which he hath given unto us, concerning his worship
and service, Deut. iv. 2; xii. 32; Prov. xxx. 6; therefore she may not
lawfully prescribe anything in the works of divine worship, if it be not a
mere circumstance belonging to that kind of things which were not
determinate by Scripture.

Our opposites have no other distinctions which they make any use of
against this argument, but the very same which Papists use in defence of
their unwritten dogmatical traditions, namely, that _additio corrumpens_
is forbidden, but not _additio perficiens_: that there is not alike reason
of the Christian church and of the Jewish; that the church may not add to
the essential parts of God’s worship, but to the accidentary she may add.

To the first of those distinctions, we answer, 1. That the distinction
itself is an addition to the word, and so doth but beg the question.

2. It is blasphemous; for it argueth that the commandments of God are
imperfect, and that by addition they are made perfect.

3. Since our opposites will speak in this dialect, let them resolve us
whether the washings of the Pharisees, condemned by Christ, were
corrupting or perfecting additions. They cannot say they were corrupting,
for there was no commandment of God which those washings did corrupt or
destroy, except that commandment which forbiddeth men’s additions. But for
this respect our opposites dare not call them corrupting additions, for so
they should condemn all additions whatsoever. Except, therefore, they can
show us that those washings were not added by the Pharisees for
perfecting, but for corrupting the law of God, let them consider how they
rank their own ceremonial additions with those of the Pharisees. We read
of no other reason wherefore Christ condemned them but because they were
doctrines which had no other warrant than the commandments of men, Matt.
xv. 9; for as the law ordained divers washings, for teaching and
signifying that true holiness and cleanness which ought to be among God’s
people, so the Pharisees would have perfected the law by adding other
washings (and more than God had commanded) for the same end and purpose.

_Sect._ 11. To the second distinction, we say that the Christian church
hath no more liberty to add to the commandments of God than the Jewish
church had; for the second commandment is moral and perpetual, and
forbiddeth to us as well as to them the additions and inventions of men in
the worship of God. Nay, as Calvin noteth,(901) much more are we forbidden
to add unto God’s word than they were. “Before the coming of his
well-beloved Son in the flesh (saith John Knox),(902) severely he punished
all such as durst enterprise to alter or change his ceremonies and
statutes,—as in Saul, (1 Kings xiii.; xv.) Uzziah, Nadab, Abihu, (Lev. x.)
is to be read. And will he now, after that he hath opened his counsel to
the world by his only Son, whom he commandeth to be heard, Matt, xvii.;
and alter that, by his holy Spirit speaking by his apostles, he hath
established the religion in which he will his true worshippers abide to
the end,—will he now, I say, admit men’s inventions in the matter of
religion? &c., 2 Cor. xi.; Col. i.; ii. For this sentence he pronounceth:
‘Not that which seemeth good in thy eyes shalt thou do to the Lord thy
God, but that which the Lord thy God commanded thee, that do thou: Add
nothing unto it, diminish nothing from it,’ Deut. iv. 12. Which, sealing
up his New Testament, he repeateth in these words: ‘That which ye have,
hold till I come,’ ” &c., Rev. ii.

Wherefore, whilst Hooker saith,(903) that Christ hath not, by positive
laws, so far descended into particularities with us as Moses with the
Jews; whilst Camero saith,(904) _Non esse disputandum ita, ut quoniam in
vetere Testamento, de rebus alioqui adiaphoris certa fuit lex, &c., id in
novo Testamento habere locum_; and whilst Bishop Lindsey saith,(905) that
in the particular circumstances of persons by whom, place where, time
when, and of the form and order how, the worship and work of the ministry
should be performed, the church hath power to define whatsoever is most
expedient, and that this is a prerogative wherein the Christian church
differeth from the Jewish synagogue, they do but speak their pleasure in
vain, and cannot make it appear that the Christian church hath any more
power to add to the commandments of God than the synagogue had of old.

It is well said by one:(906) “There were many points of service, as
sacrifices, washings, anniversary days, &c., which we have not; but the
determination of such as we have is as particular as theirs, except
wherein the national circumstances make impediment.” For one place not to
be appointed for the worship of God, nor one tribe for the work of the
ministry among us, as among them, not because more power was left to the
Christian church for determining things that pertain to the worship of God
than was to the Jewish, but because the Christian church was to spread
itself over the whole earth, and not to be confined within the bounds of
one nation as the synagogue was.

_Sect._ 12. Let us then here call to mind the distinction which hath been
showed betwixt religious ceremonies and moral circumstances; for as
touching moral circumstances, which serve for common order and decency in
the worship of God, they being so many and so alterable, that they could
not be particularly determined in Scripture, for all the different and
almost infinite cases which might occur, the Jewish synagogue had the same
power for determining things of this nature which the church of Christ now
hath. For the law did not define, but left to be defined by the synagogue,
the set hours for all public divine service,—when it should begin, how
long it should last, the order that should be kept in the reading and
expounding of the law, praying, singing, catechising, excommunicating,
censuring, absolving of delinquents, &c., the circumstances of the
celebration of marriage, of the education of youth in schools and
colleges, &c.

But as for ceremonies which are proper to God’s holy worship, shall we say
that the fidelity of Christ, the Son, hath been less than the fidelity of
Moses, the servant? Heb. iii. 2, which were to be said, if Christ had not,
by as plain, plentiful, and particular directions and ordinances, provided
for all the necessities of the Christian church in the matter of religion,
as Moses for the Jewish; or if the least pin, and the meanest appurtenance
of the tabernacle, and all the service thereof, behooved to be ordered
according to the express commandment of God by the hand of Moses, how
shall we think, that in the rearing, framing, ordering, and beautifying of
the church, the house of the living God, he would have less honour and
prerogative given than to his own well-beloved Son, by whom he hath spoken
to us in these last days, and whom he hath commanded us to hear in all
things? Or that he will accept, at our hands, any sacred ceremony which
men have presumed to bring into his holy and pure worship, without the
appointment of his own word and will revealed unto us? Albeit the worship
of God and religion, in the church of the New Testament, be accompanied
without ceremonies, _numero paucissimis, observatione facillimis,
significatione proestantissimis_ (as Augustine speaketh of our
sacraments,(907)) yet we have in Scripture, Eph. i. 18, no less particular
determination and distinct direction for our few, easy, and plain
ceremonies, than the Jews had for their many heavy and obscure ones.

_Sect._ 13. As for the third distinction, of adding to the accidentary
parts of it, I remember that I heard in the logics, of _pars essentialis_
or _physica,_ and _pars integralis_ or _mathematica_; of _pars similaris_
and _pars dissimilaris_; of _pars continua_ and _pars discreta_; but of
_para accidentaria_ heard I never till now. There is (I know) such a
distinction of _pars integralis_, that it is either _principalis_ and
_necessaria_, or _minus principalis_ and _non necessaria_; but we cannot
understand their _pars cultus accidentaria_ to be _pars integralis non
necessaria_, because, then, their distribution of worship into essential
and accidentary parts could not answer to the rules of a just
distribution, of which one is, that _distributio debet exhaurire totum
distributum_. Now, there are some parts of worship which cannot be
comprehended in the foresaid distribution, namely, _partes integrales
necessarioe_. What then? Shall we let this wild distinction pass, because
it cannot be well nor formally interpreted? Nay, but we will observe their
meaning who make use of it; for unto all such parts of worship as are not
essential (and which they are pleased to call accidentary), they hold the
church may make addition, whereunto I answer, 1. Let them make us
understand what they mean by those essential parts to which the church may
add nothing, and let them beware lest they give us an identical
description of the same.

2. That there are many parts of God’s worship which are not essential, yet
such as will not suffer any addition of the church: for proof whereof I
demand, Were all the ceremonies commanded to be used in the legal
sacraments and sacrifices essential parts of those worships? No man will
say so. Yet the synagogue was tied to observe those (and no other than
those) ceremonies which the word prescribed. When Israel was again to keep
the passover, it was said, Num. ix. 3, “In the fourteenth day of this
month at even, ye shall keep it in his appointed season, according to all
the rites of it, and according to all the ceremonies of it, shall ye keep
it.” And again, ver. 5, “According to all that the Lord commanded Moses,
so did the children of Israel.” _Ritibus et ceremoniis divinitus
institutis, non licuit homini suo arbitrio aliquid adjicere aut
detrahere_, saith P. Martyr.(908)

_Sect._ 14. 3. If those accidentary parts of worship, which are commanded
in the word, be both necessary to be used _necessitate praecepti_, and
likewise sufficient means fully adequate and proportioned to that end, for
which God hath destinated such parts of his worship as are not essential
(which must be granted by every one who will not accuse the Scripture of
some defect and imperfection), then it followeth that other accidentary
parts of worship, which the church addeth thereto, are but superfluous and
superstitious.

4. I call to mind another logical maxim: _Sublata una parte, tolitur
totum._ An essential part being taken away, _totum essentiale_ is taken
away also. In like manner, an integrant part being taken away, _totum
integrum_ cannot remain behind. When a man hath lost his hand or his foot,
though he be still a man physically, _totum essentiale_, yet he is not a
man mathematically, he is no longer _totum integrale_. Just so if we
reckon any additions (as the cross, kneeling, holidays, &c.) among the
parts of God’s worship, then put the case, that those additions were taken
away, it followeth that all the worship which remaineth still will not be
the whole and entire worship of God, but only a part of it, or at the
best, a defective, wanting, lame, and maimed worship.

5. I have made it evident that our opposites make the controverted
ceremonies to be worship,(909) in as proper and peculiar sense as anything
can be, and that they are equalled to the chief and principal parts of
worship, not ranked among the secondary or less principal parts of it.

6. Do not our divines condemn the addition of rites and ceremonies to that
worship which the word prescribeth, as well as the addition of other
things which are thought more essential? We have heard Martyr’s words to
this purpose.

Zanchius will have us to learn from the second commandment,(910) in
_externo cultu qui Deo debetur, seu in ceremonus nihil nobis esse ex
nostro capite comminiscendum_, whether in sacraments or sacrifices, or
other sacred things, such as temples, altars, clothes, and vessels,
necessary for the external worship; but that we ought to be contented with
those ceremonies which God hath prescribed.

And in another place,(911) he condemneth the addition of any other rite
whatsoever, to those rites of every sacrament which have been ordained of
Christ, _Si ceremoniis cujusvis sacramenti, alios addas ritus_, &c. Dr
Fulk pronounceth,(912) even of signs and rites, that “we must do in
religion and God’s service, not that which seemeth good to us, but that
only which he commandeth,” Deut. iv. 2; xii. 32.

And Calvin pronounceth generally,(913) _Caenam domini rem adeo
sacrosanctam esse, ut ullis hominum additamentis eam conspurcare sit
nefas._

_Sect._ 15. And thus have we made good our argument, that the lawfulness
of the ceremonies cannot be warranted by any ecclesiastical law. If we had
no more against them this were enough, that they are but human additions,
and want the warrant of the word. When Nadab and Abihu offered strange
fire before the Lord, and when the Jews burnt their sons and their
daughters in the valley of the son of Hinnon, howsoever manifold
wickedness might have been challenged in that which they did, yet if any
would dispute with God upon the matter, he stoppeth their mouths with this
one answer: “I commanded it not, neither came it into my heart,” Lev. x.
1; Jer. vii. 31. May we, last of all, hear what the canon law itself
decreeth:(914) _Is qui praeest, si praeter voluntatem Dei, vel praeter
quod in sanctis Scripturis evidenter praecipitur, vel dicit aliquid, vel
imperat, tanquam falsus testis Dei, aut sacrilegus habeatur._

CHAPTER VIII.

THAT THE LAWFULNESS OF THE CEREMONIES CANNOT BE WARRANTED BY ANY ORDINANCE
OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATE; WHOSE POWER IN THINGS SPIRITUAL OR ECCLESIASTICAL
IS EXPLAINED.

_Sect._ 1. Now are we fallen upon the stronghold of our opposites, which
is the king’s majesty’s supremacy in things ecclesiastical. If they did
mean, in good earnest, to qualify the lawfulness of the ceremonies from
holy Scripture, why have they not taken more pains and travail to debate
the matter from thence? And if they meant to justify them by the laws and
constitutions of the church, why did they not study to an orderly
peaceable proceeding, and to have things concluded in a lawful national
synod, after free reasoning and mature advisement? Why did they carry
matters so factiously and violently? The truth is, they would have us to
acquiesce, and to say no more against the ceremonies, when once we hear
that they are enjoined by his Majesty, our only supreme governor. What I
am here to say shall not derogate anything from his Highness’s supremacy,
because it includeth no such thing as a nomothetical power to prescribe
and appoint such sacred and significant ceremonies as he shall think good.

The Archbishop of Armagh, in his speech which he delivered concerning the
King’s supremacy (for which king James returned him, in a letter, his
princely and gracious thanks, for that he had defended his just and lawful
power with so much learning and reason), whilst he treateth of the
supremacy, and expoundeth that title of “the only supreme governor of all
his Highness’s dominions and countries, as well in all spiritual or
ecclesiastical things or causes, as temporal,” mentioneth no such thing as
any power to dispose, by his laws and ordinances, of things external in
the worship of God. Neither yet shall this following discourse tend to the
cooling and abating of that care and zeal which princes owe to the
oversight and promotion of religion. For alas! the corruptions which have
stept into religion, and the decays which it hath felt since princes began
to take small thought of it, and to leave the care of it to popes,
bishops, monks, &c., can never be enough bewailed. _Nihil enim_, &c. “For
there is nothing (saith Zanchius(915)) more pernicious, either to the
commonwealth or to the church, than if a prince do all things by the
judgment of others, and he himself understand not those things which are
propounded to be done.”

Nor, lastly, are we to sound an alarm of rebellion; for to say that
subjects are not bound to obey such laws and statutes of their prince, as
impose upon them a yoke of ceremonies which he hath no power to impose, is
one thing, and to say that they are not bound to subject themselves unto
him faithfully and loyally, is another thing. _Recte Gerson: Qui abusui
potestatis resistit, non resistit divinae ordinationi_, saith the Bishop
of Salisbury.(916) “Subjection (saith Dr Field(917)) is required generally
and absolutely, where obedience is not.” If we have leave to speak with
divines,(918) the bond and sign of subjection is only homage, or the oath
of fidelity, whereby subjects bind themselves to be faithful to their
prince; and we take the Judge of all flesh to witness, before whose
dreadful tribunal we must stand at that great day, how free we are of
thoughts of rebellion, and how uprightly we mean to be his Majesty’s most
true and loyal subjects to the end of our lives, and to devote ourselves,
our bodies, lives, goods, and estates, and all that we have in the world,
to his Highness’s service, and to the honour of his royal crown.

_Sect._ 2. Now, for the purpose in hand, we will first examine what the
Archbishop of Spalato saith; for he discourseth much of the jurisdiction
and office of princes, in things and causes ecclesiastical. The title of
the first chapter of his sixth book, _de Rep. Eccl._, holdeth, that it is
the duty of princes _super ecclesiastica invigilare_; but in the body of
the chapter he laboureth to prove that the power of governing
ecclesiastical things belongeth to princes (which is far more than to
watch carefully over them). This the reader will easily perceive. Nay, he
himself, num. 115 and 174, professeth he hath been proving, that divine
and ecclesiastical things are to be ruled and governed by the authority
and laws of princes. The title prefixed to the sixth chapter of that same
book is this, _Legibus et edictis principum laicorum, et ecclesiastica et
ecclesiasticos gubernari_. So that in both chapters he treateth of one and
the same office of princes about things ecclesiastical.

Now, if we would learn what he means by those _ecclesiastica_ which he
will have to be governed by princes, he resolves us(919) that he means not
things internal, such as the deciding of controversies in matters of
faith, feeding with the word of God, binding and loosing, and ministering
of the sacraments (for _in pure spiritualibus_, as he speaketh in _Summa_,
cap. 5,) he yieldeth them not the power of judging and defining, but only
things external, which pertain to the external worship of God, or concern
external ecclesiastical discipline; such things he acknowledged to be _res
spirituales_;(920) but _vera spiritualia_ he will have to comprehend only
things internal, which he removeth from the power of princes. Thus we have
his judgment as plain as himself hath delivered it unto us.

_Sect._ 3. But I demand, 1. Why yieldeth he the same power to princes in
governing _ecclesiastica_ which he yieldeth them in governing
_ecclesiasticos_? For ecclesiastical persons, being members of the
commonwealth no less than laics, have the same king and governor with
them, for which reason it is (as the Bishop himself showeth out of
Molina(921)) that they are bound to be subject to their prince’s laws,
which pertain to the whole commonwealth. But the like cannot be alleged,
for the power of princes to govern _ecclesiastica_, for the Bishop, I
trust, would not have said that things ecclesiastical and things civil do
equally and alike belong to their power and jurisdiction.

2. Why confoundeth he the governing of things and causes ecclesiastical
with watching over and taking care for the same? Let us only call to mind
the native signification of the word Κυβεριάω, _guberno_ signifieth
properly to rule or govern the course of a ship; and in a ship there may
be many watchful and careful eyes over her course, and yet but one
governor directing the same.

3. Why holdeth he that things external in the worship of God are not _vera
spiritualia_? For if they be ecclesiastical and sacred ceremonies (not
fleshly and worldly), why will he not also acknowledge them for true
spiritual things? And if they be not _vera spiritualia_, why calls he them
_res spirituales_? for are not _res_ and _verum_ reciprocal as well as
_ens_ and _verum_.

4. Even as a prince in his sea voyage is supreme governor of all which are
in the ship with him, and, by consequence, of the governor who directs her
course, yet doth he not govern the actions of governing or directing the
course of a ship, so, though a prince be the only supreme governor of all
his dominions, and, by consequence, of ecclesiastical persons in his
dominions, yet he cannot be said to govern all their ecclesiastical
actions and causes. And as the governor of a ship acknowledgeth his prince
for his only supreme governor even then whilst he is governing and
directing the course of the ship (otherwise whilst he is governing her
course he should not be his prince’s subject), yet he doth not thereby
acknowledge that his prince governeth his action of directing the course
of the ship (for then should the prince be the pilot); so when one hath
acknowledged the prince to be the only supreme governor upon earth of all
ecclesiastical persons in his dominions, even whilst they are ordering and
determining ecclesiastical causes, yet he hath not thereby acknowledged
that the prince governeth the ecclesiastical causes. Wherefore, whilst the
Bishop(922) taketh the English oath of supremacy to acknowledge the same
which he teacheth touching the prince’s power, he giveth it another sense
than the words of it can bear; for it saith not that the king’s majesty is
the only supreme governor of all his Highness’s dominions, and _of_ all
things and causes therein, as well ecclesiastical or spiritual as
temporal,—but it saith that he is the only supreme governor of all his
Highness’s dominions in all things or causes, &c. Now, the spiritual
guides of the church, substituted by Christ as deputies in his stead, who
is the most supreme Governor of his own church, and on whose shoulder the
government resteth, Isa. ix. 6, as his royal prerogative, even then,
whilst they are governing and putting order to ecclesiastical or spiritual
causes, they acknowledge their prince to be their only supreme governor
upon earth, yet hereby they imply not that he governeth their governing of
ecclesiastical causes, as hath been shown by that simile of governing a
ship.

_Sect._ 4. 5. Whereas the Bishop leaveth all things external, which
pertain to the worship of God, to be governed by princes, I object, that
the version of the holy Scripture out of Hebrew and Greek into the vulgar
tongue is an external thing, belonging to the worship of God, yet it
cannot be governed by a prince who is not learned in the original tongues.

6. Whereas he yieldeth to princes the power of governing _in
spiritualibus_, but not _in pure spiritualibus_, I cannot comprehend this
distinction. All sacred and ecclesiastical things belonging to the worship
of God are spiritual things.

What, then, understands he by things purely spiritual? If he mean things
which are in such sort spiritual, that they have nothing earthly nor
external in them,—in this sense the sacraments are not purely spiritual,
because they consist of two parts; one earthly, and another heavenly, as
Rheneus saith of the eucharist;—and so the sacraments, not being things
purely spiritual, shall be left to the power and government of princes. If
it be said that by things purely spiritual he means things which concern
our spirits only, and not the outward man, I still urge the same instance;
for the sacraments are not in this sense spiritual, because a part of the
sacraments, to wit, the sacramental signs or elements, concern our
external and bodily senses of seeing, touching, and tasting.

7. The Bishop also contradicteth himself unawares; for in one place(923)
he reserveth and excepteth from the power of princes the judging and
deciding of controversies and questions of faith. Yet in another
place(924) he exhorteth kings, and princes to compel the divines of both
sides (of the Roman and reformed churches) to come to a free conference,
and to debate the matters controverted betwixt them; in which conference
he requireth the princes themselves to be judges.

_Sect._ 5. It remaineth to try what force of reason the Bishop hath to
back his opinion. As for the ragged rabble of human testimonies which he
raketh together, I should but weary my reader, and spend paper and ink in
vain, if I should insist to answer them one by one. Only thus much I say
of all those sentences of the fathers and constitutions of princes and
emperors about things ecclesiastical, together with the histories of the
submission of some ecclesiastical causes to emperors,—let him who pleaseth
read them; and it shall appear,

1. That some of those things whereunto the power of princes was applied
were unlawful.

2. There were many of them things temporal or civil, not ecclesiastical or
spiritual, nor such as pertain to the worship of God.

3. There were some of them ecclesiastical or spiritual things, but then
princes did only ratify that which had been determined by councils, and
punish with the civil sword such as did stubbornly disobey the church’s
lawful constitutions. Neither were princes allowed to do any more.

4. Sometimes they interposed their authority, and meddled in causes
spiritual or ecclesiastical, even before the definition of councils; yet
did they not judge nor decide those matters, but did only convocate
councils, and urge the clergy to see to the mis-ordered and troubled state
of the church, and by their wholesome laws and ordinances, to provide the
best remedies for the same which they could.

5. At other times princes have done somewhat more in ecclesiastical
matters; but this was only in extraordinary cases, when the clergy were so
corrupted, that either through ignorance they were unable, or through
malice and perverseness unwilling, to do their duty in deciding of
controversies, making of canons, using the keys, and managing of other
ecclesiastical matters, in which case princes might and did, by their
coactive temporal jurisdiction, avoid disorder, error, and superstition,
and cause a reformation of the church.

6. Princes have likewise, in rightly constituted and well reformed
churches, by their own regal authority, straitly enjoined things
pertaining to the worship of God, but those things were the very same
which God’s own written word had expressly commanded.

7. When princes went beyond those limits and bounds, they took upon them
to judge and command more than God hath put within the compass of their
power.

_Sect._ 6. But as touching the passages of holy Scripture which the Bishop
allegeth, I will answer thereto particularly. And first, he produceth that
place, Deut. xvii. 19, where the king was appointed to have the book of
the law of God with him, that he might learn to fear the Lord his God, and
to keep all the words of this law and these statutes to do them. What
logic, I pray, can from this place infer that princes have the supreme
power of governing all ecclesiastical causes? Next, the Bishop tells us of
David’s appointing of the offices of the Levites, and dividing of their
courses, 1 Chron. xxiii and his commending of the same to Solomon, 1
Chron. xxviii.; but he might have observed that David did not this as a
king, but as a prophet, or man of God, 2 Chron. viii. 14, yea, those
orders and courses of the Levites were also commanded by other prophets of
the Lord, 2 Chron. xxix. 25. As touching Solomon’s appointing of the
courses and charges of the priests, Levites, and porters, he did not of
himself, nor by his own princely authority, but because David, the man of
God, had so commanded, 2 Chron. viii. 24. For Solomon received from David
a pattern for all that which he was to do in the work of the house of the
Lord, and also for the courses of the priests and Levites, 1 Chron.
xxviii. 11-13.

_Sect._ 7. The Bishop comes on and tells us that Hezekiah did apply his
regal power to the reformation of the Levites, and of the worship of God
in their hands, saying, “Hear me, ye Levites, sanctify now yourselves, and
sanctify the house of the Lord God of your fathers, and carry forth the
filthiness out of the holy place.”

_Ans._ He exhorted them to no more than God’s law required of them, for
the law ordained them to sanctify themselves, and to do the service of the
house of the Lord, Num. viii. 6, 11, 15; xviii. 32; so that Hezekiah did
here constitute nothing by his own arbitration and authority, but plainly
showeth his warrant, ver. 11, “The Lord hath chosen you to stand before
him, to serve him, and that you should minister unto him.”

But the Bishop further allegeth out of 2 Chron. xxxi. that Hezekiah
appointed the courses of the priests and Levites, every man according to
his service.

_Ans._ He might have read 2 Chron. xxix., 25, that Hezekiah did all this
according to the commandment of David, and of Gad, the king’s seer, and
Nathan the prophet, “For so was the commandment of the Lord by his
prophets.” And who doubteth but kings may command such things as God hath
commanded before them?

_Sect._ 8. The next example which the Bishop allegeth is out of 2 Chron.
xxxv. where we read that Josias did set the priests and Levites again in
their charges, which example cannot prove that kings have the supreme
power of governing ecclesiastical causes, unless it be evinced that Josias
changed those orders and courses of the Levites and priests which the Lord
had commanded by his prophets, 2 Chron. xxix. 25, and that he did
institute other orders by his own regal authority, whereas the contrary is
manifest from the text; for Josias did only set the priests and Levites
those charges and courses which had been assigned unto them after the
writing of David and Solomon, ver. 4, and by the commandment of David, and
Asaph, and Heman, and Jeduthun, the king’s seer, ver. 15. Neither did
Josias command the priests and Levites any other service than that which
was written in the book of Moses, ver. 12; so that, from his example, it
only followeth, that when princes see the state of ecclesiastical persons
corrupted, they ought to interpose their authority for reducing them to
those orders and functions which God’s word commandeth.

_Sect._ 9. Moreover, the Bishop objecteth the example of Joash, who, while
he yet did right in the days of Jehoiada the priest, 2 Chron. xxiv. sent
the priests and Levites to gather from all Israel money for repairing the
house of the Lord, and when they dealt negligently in this business, he
transferred the charge of the same unto others, and, making himself the
keeper of the holy money, did both prescribe how it was to be disbursed,
and likewise take from good Jehoiada the priest the administration of the
same. Now, where he hath read that Joash made himself the keeper of the
money, and prescribed how it should be disbursed, also that he took the
administration from Jehoiada, I cannot guess; for the text hath no such
thing in it, but the contrary, viz. that the king’s scribe, and the high
priest’s officer, kept the money, and disbursed the same, as the king and
Jehoiada prescribed unto them. As to that which he truly allegeth out of
the holy text, I answer, 1. The collection for repairing the house of the
Lord was no human ordinance, for Joash showeth the commandment of Moses
for it, ver. 6, having reference to Exod. xxx. 12-14. No other collections
did Joash impose but those _quae divino jure debebantur_.(925) 2. As for
the taking of the charge of this collection from the priests, he behooved
to do so, because they had still neglected the work, when the twenty-third
year of his reign was come. And so say we, that when the ministers of the
church fail to do their duty, in providing that which is necessary for the
service of God, princes ought by some other means to cause these things be
redressed. 3. Joash did nothing with these monies without Jehoiada, but
_Pontifex eas primum laborantibus tribuit, tum in aedis sacrae
restaurationem maxime convertit_.(926) 4. And what if he had done this by
himself? I suppose no man will reckon the hiring of masons and carpenters
with such as wrought iron and brass, or the gathering of money for this
purpose, among spiritual things or causes. 5. And if these employments
about Solomon’s temple were not to be called spiritual or ecclesiastical,
far less about our material churches, which are not holy nor consecrated
as Solomon’s was for a typical use. Wherefore, without all prejudice to
our cause, we may and do commend the building and repairing of churches by
Christian princes.

_Sect._ 10. But the Bishop returneth to another example in Solomon, which
is the putting of Abiathar, the chief priest, from his office, and
surrogating of another in his place. _Ans._ Abiathar was civilly dead, as
the lawyers used to speak, and it was only by accident or by consequent
that Solomon put him from his office: he sent him away to Anathoth,
because of his treasonable following and aiding of Adonijah, whereupon
necessarily followed his falling away from the honour, dignity, and office
of the high priest, whence it only followeth, that if a minister be found
guilty of _læse_ majesty, the king may punish him either with banishment
or proscription, or some such civil punishment, whereupon by consequence
will follow his falling from his ecclesiastical office and dignity. 2. As
for Solomon’s putting of Zadok in the room of Abiathar, it maketh as
little against us, for Zadok did fall to the place _jure divino_.

The honour and office of the high-priesthood was given to Eleazar, the
elder son of Aaron, and was to remain in his family. How it came to pass
that it was transferred to Eli, who was of the family of Ithmar, we read
not. Always after that Abiathar, who was of the family of Ithamar and
descended of Eli, had by a capital crime fallen from it, it did of very
right belong to Zadok, who was chief of the family of Eleazar. And so all
this flowed, not from Solomon’s, but from God’s own authority.

_Sect._ 11. The Bishop remembereth another example in Hezekiah too,
telling us that he removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut
down the groves, and brake in pieces the brazen serpent, when the children
of Israel did burn incense unto it. Now, we wish from our hearts that from
this example all Christian kings may learn to remove and destroy the
monuments of idolatry out of their dominions. And if it be said that in so
doing kings take upon them to govern by their princely authority an
ecclesiastical or spiritual cause, it is easily answered, that when they
destroy idolatrous monuments, they do nothing by their own authority, but
by the authority of God’s law, which commanded to abolish such monuments,
and to root out the very names of idols; which commandment is to be
executed by the action of temporal power.

_Sect._ 12. Finally, saith the Bishop, the kings of the Jews, 1 Kings
xxiii.; 2 Chron. xix.; have in the temple propounded the law of the Lord
to the people, renewed the covenant of religion, pulled down profane
altars, broken down idols, slain idolatrous priests, liberated their
kingdom from abomination, purged the temple, 2 Chron. xxxiv., xxxv.; 1
Maccab. iv. 59; proclaimed the keeping of the passover, and of the feast
of dedication, Esth. ix. 26 ; and have also instituted new feasts. For all
which things they are in the Scriptures much praised by the Holy Spirit, 2
Chron. xxix. 2; xxxiv. 2, &c.

_Ans._ True it is, Josias did read the law of the Lord to the people in
the temple, and made a covenant before the Lord; but, 1. he prescribed
nothing at his own pleasure; only he required of the people to walk after
the Lord, and to keep his commandments. 2. Neither did he this work by
himself, but did convocate a council of the prophets, priests and elders
of Israel, for the advancing of that reformation, 2 Kings xxiii. 1. 3. And
if he had done it by himself, yet we are to remember that the reformation
of a church generally and greatly corrupted, craveth the more immediate
intermeddling of princes, and a great deal more than can be ordinarily and
orderly done by them in a church already reformed. The slaying of the
idolatrous priests had also the warrant and authority of the law of God,
which appointed a capital punishment for blasphemers,(927) or such as, in
contempt of God and to rub some ignominy upon his name, did traduce his
doctrine and religion, and either detract from him, and attribute to idols
that which appertained properly unto him, or else attributed unto him
either by enunciation or imprecation, such things as could not stand with
the glory of the Godhead. Concerning the abolishing of idolatry and all
the relics thereof, we have answered that it was commanded by God. The
keeping of the passover was also commanded in the law; but publish God’s
own express ordinance.

Last of all, touching two remaining examples: 1. The feast of the
dedication was not ordained by the sole authority of Judas, but by his
brethren and by the whole congregation of Israel;(928) and the days of
Purim were established by Mordecai, a prophet. Esth. ix. 20, 21. 2. We
have elsewhere made it evident, that the days of Purim, by their first
institution, were only days of civil joy and solemnity, and that the feast
of the dedication was not lawfully instituted.

_Sect._ 13. Thus having dismissed the Bishop, we will make us for clearing
the purpose in hand. But before we come to show particularly what princes
may do, and what they may not do, in making laws about things
ecclesiastical, we will first of all lay down these propositions
following:—

1. Whatsoever the power of princes be in things and causes ecclesiastical,
it is not, sure, absolute nor unbounded. _Solius Dei est_ (saith
Stapleton),(929) _juxta suam sanctissimam voluntatem, uctiunes suas omnes
dirigere, et omniafacere quæcunquc voluit._ And again, _Vis tuam
voluntatem esse regulam rerum omnium, ut omnia fiant pro uuo beneplacito?_
Whether we respect the persons or the places of princes, their power is
confined within certain limits, so that they may not enjoin whatsoever
they list. As touching their poisons, Bishop Spotswood would do no less
than warrant the articles of Perth by king James’s personal qualities:
“His person (saith he(930)), were he not our sovereign, gives them
sufficient authority, being recommended by him; for he knows the nature of
things, and the consequences of them, what is fit for a church to have,
and what not, better than we do all.”

I mean not to derogate anything from king James’s duly-deserved praise,
nor to obscure his never-dying memory; only I say, that such a prince as
the Bishop speaketh of, who knoweth what is fit for a church to have, and
what not, better than many learned and godly pastors assembled in a synod,
is _rara avis in terris nigroque simillima Cygno_. For a prince being but
a man, and so subject to error, being but one man, and so in the greater
hazard of error; for _plus videns oculi, quam oculus_; and, “woe to him
that is alone when he falleth, for he hath not another to help him up,”
saith the wisest of mortal kings, Eccl. iv. 10; being also compassed or
assailed with so many tentations which other men are free of; and lastly,
being so taken up and distracted with secular affairs and cares, that very
seldom is he found well versed or singularly learned in the controversies
of religion; may not such a one, in the common sense of Christians, be
thought more like to fail and miscarry in his judgment about things
ecclesiastical, than a whole synod, wherein there are many of the learned,
judicious, and godly ministers of the church. Papists tell us, that they
will not defend the personal actions of the Pope, _quasi ipse solus
omnibus horis sapere potuerit, id quod recte nemini concessum
perhibetur_.(931) Their own records let the world know the abominable
vices and impieties of popes. Witness Platina, in the life of John X.,
Benedict IV., John XIII., Boniface VII., John XX., John XXII., Paul II.,
&c. And further, when our adversaries dispute of the Pope’s infallibility,
they grant, for his own person, he may be an heretic, only they hold that
he cannot err _è cathedra_.

And shall we now idolise the persons of princes more than Papists do the
persons of popes? Or shall Papists object to us, that we extol the
judgment of our princes to a higher degree of authority and infallibility
than they yield to the judgment of their popes? Alas, why would we put the
weapons in the hands of our adversaries!

_Sect._ 14. But what say we of princes in respect of their place and
calling? Is not their power absolute in that respect? _Recte quidam_
(saith Saravia),(932) _illiberalis et inverecundi censet esse ingenii, de
prencipum potestate et rebus gestis questionem movere, quando et imperator
sacrilegium este scribit, de eo quod à principe factum est disputare._
Camero holdeth,(933) that in things pertaining to external order in
religion, kings may command what they will _pro authoritate_, and forbid
to seek another reason beside the majesty of their authority; yea, that
when they command _frivola, dura, et iniqua respectu nostri_, our
consciences are bound by those their frivolous and unjust commandments,
not only in respect of the end, because scandal should possibly follow in
case we obey them not, but also _jubentis respectu_, because the Apostle
biddeth us obey the magistrate for conscience’ sake. At the reading of
these passages in Saravia and Camero, horror and amazement have taken hold
on me. O wisdom of God, by whom kings do reign and princes decree justice,
upon whose thigh and vesture is written, “King of kings and Lord of
lords,” make the kings of the earth to know that their laws are but
_regulae regulatae_, and _mensurae mensuratae_! Be wise now, therefore, O
ye kings, be instructed ye judges of the earth. Serve the Lord with fear,
and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, and lay down your crowns at the
feet of the Lamb that sits upon the throne,(934) _discite justitiam
moniti_, and remember that this is the beginning of wisdom, by casting
pride away, to addict yourselves to the dominion of Christ, who, albeit he
hath given the kingdoms of this world unto your hands, and non _auferet
mortalia, qui regna datio caelestia_, yet hath he kept the government of
his church upon his own shoulder, Psalm ix. 6, xxii. 21. So that _rex non
est propie rector ecclesiae sed reipublicae, ecclesiae vero defensor est_.
O all ye subjects of kings and princes, understand that in things
pertaining to the church and kingdom of Christ, ye are not the servants of
men, to do what they list, and that for their listing, 1 Cor. vii. 23. The
Apostle, Rom. xiii. urgeth, not obedience to magistrates for conscience’
sake, but only subjection for conscience’ sake, for he concludeth his
whole purpose,(935) ver. 7, “Render therefore to all their dues, tribute
to whom tribute is due, custom to whom custom, fear to whom fear, honour
to whom honour.”(936) There is not in all that chapter one word of
obedience to magistrates.

And as touching the binding power of their laws, be they never so just,
they cannot bind you any other way, nor in respect of the general end of
them. For, _per se_, they cannot bind more than the church’s laws can.
Which things Dr Forbesse(937) hath also told you out of Calvin.

And hence it followeth, that whensoever you may omit that which princes
enjoin, without violating the law of charity, you are not holden to obey
them for the majesty of princely authority. Be ashamed, O ye Formalists,
of your ascribing to princes a jurisdiction so absolute! Bury it in the
grave of eternal silence. Tell it not in Rome; publish it not among the
vassals of antichrist, lest the daughters of Babylon rejoice, lest the
worshippers of the Beast triumph! O how small confidence have the
cardinals, I say not now into the Pope’s person, but even into his chair,
when being entered in the conclave for the election of a new pope, they
spend the whole day following in the making of laws belonging to the
administration and handling of all things by him who shall be advanced to
the popedom; which laws every one of them subscribeth, and sweareth to
observe, if he be made pope, as Onephrius writeth. Though the Pope’s own
creatures, the Jesuits, in their schools and books, must dispute for his
infallibility _è cathedra_, yet we see what trust the wise cardinals, shut
up in the conclave, do put in him, with what bond they tie him, and within
what bounds they confine his power. Albeit the Pope, after he is created,
observeth not strictly this oath, as that wise writer of the _History of
the Council of Trent_ noteth,(938) yet let me say once again, Shall we set
up the power of princes higher, or make their power less limited than
Papists do the power of popes? or shall they set bounds to popes and we
set none to princes?

_Sect._ 15. But I find myself a little digressed after the roving
absurdities of some opposites. Now, therefore, to return,—the second
proposition which I am here to lay down, before I speak particularly of
the power of princes, is this: Whatsoever princes can commendably either
do by themselves, or command to be done by others, in such matters as any
way appertain to the external worship of God, must be both lawful in the
nature of it, and expedient in the use of it; which conditions, if they be
wanting, their commandments cannot bind to obedience.

For, 1. The very ground and reason wherefore we ought to obey the
magistrate(939) is, for that he is the minister of God, or a deputy set in
God’s stead to us. Now, he is the minister of God only for our good, Rom.
xiii. 4. Neither were he God’s minister, but his own master, if he should
rule at his pleasure, and command things which serve not for the good of
the subjects. Since, therefore, the commandments of princes bind only so
far as they are the ministers of God for our good,—and God’s ministers
they are not in commanding such things as are either in their nature
unlawful, or in their use inconvenient,—it followeth that such
commandments of theirs cannot bind.

2. Princes cannot claim any greater power in matters ecclesiastical than
the apostle Paul had, or the church herself yet hath; that is to say,
princes may not by any temporal or regal jurisdiction, urge any ceremony
or form of ecclesiastical policy which the Apostle once might not, and the
church yet may not, urge by a spiritual jurisdiction. But neither had the
Apostle of old, nor hath the church now, power to urge either a ceremony
or anything else which is not profitable for edifying. Paul could do
nothing against the truth, but for the truth; and his power was given to
him to edification, and not to destruction, 2 Cor. xiii. 8, 10; neither
shall ecclesiastical persons, to the world’s end, receive any other power
beside that which is for the perfecting of the saints, and for the
edifying of the body of Christ, Eph. iv. 12. Therefore, as the church’s
power(940) is only to prescribe that which may edify, so the power of
princes is in like sort given to them for edification, and not for
destruction; neither can they do aught against the truth, but only for the
truth.

3. We are bound by the law of God to do nothing which is not good and
profitable, or edifying, 1 Cor. vi. 12; xiv. 26. This law of charity is of
a higher and straiter bond than the law of any prince in the world:—

“The general rule of all indifferent things, is, Let all things be done to
edification; and, Rom. xv. 1, 2, ‘Let every man please his neighbour to
edification, even as Christ pleased not himself but others.’ Whatsoever,
then, is of this rank, which either would weaken or not edify our brother,
be it ever so lawful, ever so profitable to ourselves, ever so powerfully
by earthly authority enjoined,—Christians, who are not born unto
themselves, but unto Christ, unto his church, and fellow-members, must not
dare to meddle with it,” saith one(941) well to our well to our purpose.

_Sect._ 16. A third proposition I promit, which is this, Since the power
of princes to make laws about things ecclesiastical is not absolute, but
bound and adstricted unto things lawful and expedient, which sort of
things, and no other, we are allowed to do for their commandments; and
since princes many times may, and do, not only transgress those bounds and
limits, but likewise pretend that they are within the same, when indeed
they are without them, and enjoin things unlawful and inconvenient, under
the name, title, and show of things lawful and convenient; therefore it is
most necessary as well for princes to permit, as for subjects to take
liberty to try and examine by the judgment of discretion, everything which
authority enjoineth, whether it be agreeable or repugnant to the rules of
the word; and if, after trial, it be found repugnant, to abstain from the
doing of the same.

For, 1. The word teacheth us, that the spiritual man judgeth all things, 1
Cor. ii. 15; trieth the things that are different, Phil. i. 10; hath his
senses exercised to discern both good and evil, Heb. v. 14; and that every
one who would hold fast that which is good, and abstain from all
appearance of evil, must first prove all things, 1 Thess. v. 21.

2. Whatsoever is not of faith is sin, Rom. xiv. 23. But whatsoever a man
doth without the trial, knowledge, and persuasion of the lawfulness of it
by the word of God, that is not of faith; therefore a sin. It is the word
of God, and not the arbitration of princes whereupon faith is grounded.
And though the word may be without faith, yet faith cannot be without the
word. By it therefore must a man try and know assuredly the lawfulness of
that which he doth.

3. “Every one of us shall give account of himself to God.” But as we
cannot give an account to God of those actions which we have done in
obedience to our prince, except we have examined, considered, and
understood the lawfulness of the same; so an account could not be required
of us for them, if we were bound to obey and to keep all his ordinances in
such sort that we might not try and examine them, with full liberty to
refuse those which we judge out of the word to be unlawful or
inconvenient; for then princes’ ordinances were a most sufficient warrant
to us: we needed try no more. Let him make an account to God of his
command; we have account to make of our obedience.

4. If we be bound to receive and obey the laws of princes, without making
a free trial and examining of the equity of the same, then we could not be
punished for doing, unwillingly and in ignorance, things unlawful
prescribed by them. Whereas every soul that sinneth shall die; and when
the blind leads the blind, he who is lead falls in the ditch as well as
his leader.

5. No man is permitted to do everything which seemeth right in his eyes,
and to follow every conceit which takes him in the head; but every man is
bound to walk by rule, Gal. vi. 6. But the law of a prince cannot be a
rule, except it be examined whether it be consonant to the word of God,
_index secundum legem_, and his law is only such a rule as is ruled by a
higher rule. In so far as it is ruled by the own rule of it, in as far it
is a rule to us; and in so far as it is not ruled by the own rule of it,
in as far it is not a rule to us. _Quid ergo? an non licebit Christiano
cuique convenientiam regulae et regulati (ut vocant) observare?_ saith
Junius.(942)

6. The rule whereby we ought to walk in all our ways, and according to
which we ought to frame all our actions, is provided of God a stable and
sure rule, that it being observed and taken heed unto, may guide and
direct our practice aright about all those things which it prescribeth.
But the law of a prince (if we should, without trial and examination, take
it for our rule) cannot be such a stable and sure rule. For put the case
that a prince enjoin two things which sometimes fall out to be
incompatible and cannot stand together, in that case his law cannot direct
our practice, nor resolve us what to do; whereas God hath so provided for
us, that the case can never occur wherein we may not be resolved what to
do if we observe the rule which he hath appointed us to walk by.

7. Except this judgment of discretion which we plead for be permitted unto
us, it will follow that in point of obedience we ought to give no less,
but as much honour unto princes as unto God himself. For when God
publisheth his commandments unto us, what greater honour could we give him
by our obedience than to do that which he commandeth, for his own sole
will and authority, without making further inquiry for any other reason?

8. The Apostle, 1 Cor. vii. 23, forbiddeth us to be the servants of men,
that is, to do things for which we have no other warrant beside the
pleasure and will of men. Which interpretation is grounded upon other
places of Scripture, that teach us we are not bound to obey men in
anything which we know not to be according to the will of God, Eph. vi. 6,
7; that we ought not to live to the lusts of men, but to the will of God,
1 Pet. iv. 2, and that, therefore, we ought in everything to prove what is
acceptable to the Lord, Eph. v. 20.

9. They who cleanse their way must take heed thereto according to the
word, Psal. cxix. 9; therefore, if we take not heed to our way, according
to the word, we do not cleanse it. They who would walk as the children of
light, must have the word for a lamp unto their feet, and a light unto
their path, Psal. cxix. 105; therefore, if we go in any path without the
light of the word to direct us, we walk in darkness and stumble, because
we see not where we go. They who would not be unwise, but walk
circumspectly, must understand what the will of Lord is, Eph. v. 17;
therefore, if we understand not what the will of the Lord is concerning
that which we do, we are unwise, and walk not circumspectly.

10. _Dona Dei in sanctis non sunt otiosa_.(943) Whatsoever grace God
giveth us, it ought to be used and exercised, and not to lie idle in us;
but God giveth us _actionem cognoscendi, τα διαφεροντα discernendi_,(944)
&c. a certain measure of the spirit of discretion, to teach us what to
choose as good, and what to refuse as evil, 1 John ii. 27, “The same
anointing teacheth you of all things;” 1 Cor. ii. 15, “He that is
spiritual judgeth all things.” Therefore God would have us to exercise
that measure of the gift of discretion which he hath bestowed on us, in
discerning of things which are propounded to us, whether they ought to be
done or not.

11. Do not our divines plead for this judgment of private discretion which
ought to be permitted to Christians, when anything is propounded to be
believed or done by them? And this their judgment is to be seen in their
writings against Papists about the controversies _de interpretatione
Scripturae, de fide implicita_, &c.

12. The Bishop of Salisbury, in his prelections _de Judice
Controversiarum_, doth often and in many places commend unto Christians
the same judgment of discretion which we stand upon, and holdeth it
necessary for them to try and examine whatsoever either princes or
prelates command them to do. _Coactiva_, &c. “The coactive power of a
prince (saith he(945)), doth not absolutely bind the subject, but only
with this condition, except he would compel him to that which is unlawful.
Therefore there is ever left unto subjects a power of proving and judging
in their own mind, whether that which is propounded be ungodly and
unlawful or not; and if it be ungodly, that which the king threateneth
should be suffered, rather than that which he commandeth be done. This
Augustine hath taught,” &c. And whereas it may be objected, that this
maketh a subject to be his prince’s judge, he answereth thus.(946) _Non
se_, &c. He maketh not himself another’s judge, who pondereth and
examineth a sentence published by another, in so far as it containeth
something either to be done or to be believed by him; but only he maketh
himself the judge of his own actions. For howsoever he who playeth the
judge is truly said to judge, yet every one who judgeth is not properly
said to play the judge. He playeth the judge who, in an external court
pronounceth a sentence, which by force of jurisdiction toucheth another;
but he judgeth, who in the inferior court of his own private conscience,
conceiveth such a sentence of the things to be believed or done, as
pertaineth to himself alone. This latter way private men both may and
ought to judge of the sentences and decrees of magistrates, neither by so
doing do they constitute themselves judges of the magistrates, but judges
of their own actions.

_Sect._ 17. Finally, there is none of our opposites but saith so much as
inferreth the necessity of this judgment of private and practical
discretion; for every smatterer among them hath this much in his mouth,
that if the king or the church command anything unlawful, then we ought to
obey God rather than men; but when they command things indifferent and
lawful, then their ordinance ought to be our rule. But (good men) will
they tell us how we shall know whether the things which the king or the
church (as they speak) do enjoin are lawful or unlawful, indifferent or
not indifferent? and so we shall be at a point. Dare they say, that they
may judge those things indifferent which our superiors judge to be such?
and those unlawful which our superiors so judge of? Nay, then, they should
deliver their distinction in other terms, and say thus: If our superiors
enjoin anything which they judge to be unlawful, and which they command us
so to account of, then we ought to obey God rather than men; but if they
enjoin such things as they judge to be indifferent, and which they command
us so to account of, then we ought to obey their ordinance. Which
distinction, methinks, would have made Heraclitus himself to fall a
laughing with Democritus. What then remaineth? Surely our opposites must
either say nothing, or else say with us, that it is not only a liberty but
a duty of inferiors, not to receive for a thing lawful that which is
enjoined by superiors, because they account it and call it such, but by
the judgment of their own discretion following the rules of the word, to
try and examine whether the same be lawful or unlawful.

_Sect._. 18. These _praecognita_ being now made good, come we to speak
more particularly of the power of princes to make laws and ordinances
about things which concern the worship of God. The purpose we will unfold
in three distinctions: 1. Of things; 2. Of times; 3. Of ties. First, Let
us distinguish two sorts of things in the worship of God, viz., things
substantial, and things circumstantial. To things substantial we refer as
well sacred and significant ceremonies as the more necessary and essential
parts of worship, and, in a word, all things which are not mere external
circumstances, such as were not particularly determinable within those
bounds which it pleased God to set to his written word, and the right
ordering whereof, as it is common to all human societies, whether civil or
sacred, so it is investigable by the very light and guidance of natural
reason. That among this kind of mere circumstances sacred significant
ceremonies cannot be reckoned, we have otherwhere made it evident. Now,
therefore, of things pertaining to the substance of God’s worship, whether
they be sacred ceremonies, or greater and more necessary duties, we say
that princes have not power to enjoin anything of this kind which hath not
the plain and particular institution of God himself in Scripture. They may
indeed, and ought to publish God’s own ordinances and commandments, and,
by their coactive temporal power, urge and enforce the observation of the
same. Notwithstanding, it is a prince’s duty, “that in the worship of God,
whether internal or external, he move nothing, he prescribe nothing,
except that which is expressly delivered in God’s own written word.”(947)
We must beware we confound not things which have the plain warrant of
God’s word with things devised by the will of man. David, Jehoshaphat,
Hezekiah, Josiah, and other kings among the people of God, did, as well
laudably as lawfully, enjoin and command that worship and form of religion
which God, in his law and by his prophets, commanded; and forbid, avoid,
and abolish such corruptions as God had forbidden before them, and
appointed to be abolished; whence it followeth not that kings may enjoin
things which want the warrant of the word, but only this much, which all
of us commend, viz., “That a Christian prince’s office in religion,(948)
is diligently to take care that, in his dominion or kingdom, religion out
of the pure word of God, expounded by the word of God itself, and
understood according to the first principles of faith (which others call
the analogy of faith), either be instituted, or, being instituted, be kept
pure, or, being corrupted, be restored and reformed, that false doctrines,
abuses, idols, and superstitions, be taken away, to the glory of God, and
to his own and his subjects’ salvation.”

_Sect._ 19. But in all the Scripture princes have neither a commendable
example, nor any other warrant, for the making of any innovation in
religion, or for the prescribing of sacred significant ceremonies of men’s
devising. Jeroboam caused a change to be made in the ceremonies and form
of God’s worship, whereas God ordained the ark of the covenant to be the
sign of his presence, and that his glory should dwell between the
cherubims. Jeroboam set up two calves to be the signs representative of
that God who brought “Israel out of Egypt;” and this he means while he
saith, “Behold thy gods,” &c., 1 Kings xii. 28, giving to the signs the
thing signified; whereas God ordained Jerusalem to be the place of
worship, and all the sacrifices to be brought to the temple of Solomon,
Jeroboam made Dan and Bethel to be places of worship, and built there
altars and high places for the sacrifices; whereas God ordained the sons
of Aaron only to be his priests, Jeroboam made priests of the lowest of
the people, which were not of the sons of Levi; whereas God ordained the
feast of tabernacles to be kept on the fifteenth day of the seventh month,
Jeroboam appointed it on the fifteenth day of the eighth month. Now, if
any prince in the world might have fair pretences for the making of such
innovations in religion, Jeroboam much more. He might allege for his
changing of the signs of God’s presence, and of the place of worship, that
since Rehoboam’s wrath was incensed against him, and against the ten
tribes which adhered unto him (as appeareth by the accounting of them to
be rebels, 2 Chron. xiii. 6, and by the gathering of a huge army for
bringing the kingdom again to Rehoboam, 2 Chron. xi. 1), it was no longer
safe for his subjects to go up to Jerusalem to worship, in which case God,
who required mercy more than sacrifice, would bear with their changing of
a few ceremonies for the safety of men’s lives. For his putting down of
the priests and Levites, and his ordaining of other priests which were not
of the sons of Levi, he might pretend that they were rebellious to him, in
that they would not assent unto his new ordinances,(949) which he had
enacted for the safety and security of his subjects, and that they did not
only simply refuse obedience to these his ordinances, but in their refusal
show themselves so stedfastly minded, that they would refuse and withstand
even to the suffering of deprivation and deposition; and not only so, but
likewise drew after them many others of the rest of the tribes to be of
their judgment, 2 Chron. xi. 16, and to adhere to that manner of worship
which was retained in Jerusalem. Lastly, For the change which he made
about the season of the feast of tabernacles, he might have this pretence,
that as it was expedient for the strengthening of his kingdom(950) to draw
and allure as many as could be had to associate and join themselves with
him in his form of worship (which could not be done if he should keep that
feast at the same time when it was kept at Jerusalem); so there was no
less (if not more) order and decency in keeping it in the eighth month,
when the fruits of the ground were perfectly gathered in(951) (for
thankful remembrance whereof that feast was celebrated) than in the
seventh, when they were not so fully collected.

These pretences he might have made yet more plausible, by professing and
avouching that he intended to worship no idols, but the Lord only; that he
had not fallen from anything which was fundamental and essential in divine
faith and religion, that the changes which he had made were only about
some alterable ceremonies which were not essential to the worship of God,
and that even in these ceremonies he had not made any change for his own
will and pleasure, but for important reasons which concerned the good of
his kingdom and safety of his subjects. Notwithstanding of all this, the
innovations which he made about these ceremonies of sacred signs, sacred
places, sacred persons, sacred times, are condemned for this very reason,
because he devised them of his own heart, 1 Kings xii. 33, which was
enough to convince him of horrible impiety in making Israel to sin.
Moreover, when king Ahaz took a pattern of the altar of Damascus, and sent
it to Urijah the priest, though we cannot gather from the text that he
either intended or pretended any other respect beside the honouring and
pleasuring of his patron and protector, the king of Assyria, 2 Kings xvi.
10, 18 (for of his appointing that new altar for his own and all the
people’s sacrifices, there was nothing heard till after his return from
Damascus, at which time he began to fall back from one degree of defection
to a greater), yet this very innovation of taking the pattern of an altar
from idolaters is marked as a sin and a snare. Last of all, whereas many
of the kings of Judah and Israel did either themselves worship in the
groves and the high places, or else, at least, suffer the people to do so,
howsoever they might have alleged(952) specious reasons for excusing
themselves,—as namely, that they gave not this honour to any strange gods,
but to the Lord only; that they chose these places only to worship in
wherein God was of old seen and worshipped by the patriarchs, that the
groves and the high places added a most amiable splendour and beauty to
the worship of God, and that they did consecrate these places for divine
worship in a good meaning, and with minds wholly devoted to God’s
honour,—yet notwithstanding, because this thing was not commanded of God,
neither came it into his heart, he would admit no excuses, but ever
challengeth it as a grievous fault in the government of those kings, that
those high places were not taken away, and that the people still
sacrificed in the high places; from all which examples we learn how highly
God was and is displeased with men for adding any other sacred ceremonies
to those which he himself hath appointed.(953)

_Sect._ 20. Now as touching the other sort of things which we consider in
the worship of God, namely, things merely circumstantial, and such as have
the very same use and respect in civil which they have in sacred actions,
we hold that whensoever it happeneth to be the duty and part of a prince
to institute and enjoin any order or policy in these circumstances of
God’s worship, then he may only enjoin such an order as may stand with the
observing and following of the rules of the word, whereunto we are tied in
the use and practice of things which are in their general nature
indifferent.

Of these rules I am to speak in the fourth part of the dispute. And here I
say no more but this: Since the word commandeth us to do all things to the
glory of God, 1 Cor. x. 31; to do all things to edifying, 1 Cor. xiv. 29;
and to do all things in faith, and full persuasion of the lawfulness of
that which we do, Rom. xiv. 5, 23, therefore there is no prince in the
world who hath power to command his subjects to do that which should
either dishonour God, or not honour him; or that which should either
offend their brother, or not edify him; or, lastly, that which their
conscience either condemneth or doubteth of. For how may a prince command
that which his subjects may not do? But a wonder it were if any man should
so far refuse to be ashamed that he would dare to say we are not bound to
order whatsoever we do according to these rules of the word, but only such
matters of private action wherein we are left at full liberty, there being
no ordinance of superiors to determine our practice, and that if such an
ordinance be published and propounded unto us, we should take it alone for
our rule, and no longer think to examine and order our practice by the
rules of the word;

For, 1. This were as much as to say, that in the circumstances of God’s
worship we are bound to take heed unto God’s rules, then only and in that
case when men give us none of their rules, which, if they do, God’s rules
must give place to men’s rules, and not theirs to his.

2. If it were so, then we should never make reckoning to God, whether that
which we had done in obedience to superiors was right or wrong, good or
bad, and we should only make reckoning of such things done by us as were
not determined by a human law.

3. The law of superiors is never the supreme but ever a subordinate rule,
and (as we said before) it can never be a rule to us, except in so far
only as it is ruled by a higher rule. Therefore we have ever another rule
to take heed unto beside their law.

4. The Scripture speaketh most generally, and admitteth no exception from
the rules which it giveth: “Whatsoever ye do (though commanded by
superiors) do all to the glory of God. Let all things (though commanded by
superiors) be done to edifying. Whatsoever is not of faith (though
commanded by superiors) is sin.”

5. We may do nothing for the sole will and pleasure of men, for this were
to be the servants of men, as hath been shown. The Bishop of Salisbury
also assenteth hereunto.(954) _Non enim_ (saith he) _Deus vult, ut hominis
alicujus voluntatem regulam nostrae voluntatis atque vitae faciamus: sed
hoc privilegium sibi ac verbo suo reservatum voluit._ And again,(955) _Pio
itaque animo haec consideratio semper adesse debet, utrum id quod
praecipitur sit divino mandato contrarium necne: atque ne ex hac parte
fallantur, adhibendum est illud judicium discretionis, quod nos tantopere
urgemus._

_Sect._ 21. These things if Saravia had considered,(956) he had not so
absolutely pronounced that the power of the kings may make constitutions
of the places and times, when and where the exercises of piety may be
conveniently had, also with what order, what rite, what gesture, what
habit, the mysteries shall be more decently celebrated. But what! thought
he this power of kings is not astricted to the rules of the word? Have
they any power which is to destruction and not to edification? Can they
command their subjects to do anything in the circumstances of divine
worship which is not for the glory of God, which is not profitable for
edifying, and which they cannot do in faith? Nay, that all the princes in
the world have not such power as this, will easily appear to him who
attendeth unto the reasons which we have propounded. And because men do
easily and ordinarily pretend that their constitutions are according to
the rules of the word, when they are indeed repugnant to the same,
therefore we have also proved that inferiors may and must try and examine
every ordinance of their superiors, and that by the judgment of private
discretion, following the rules of the word. I say following the rules of
the word, because we will never allow a man to follow Anabaptistical or
Swenckfeldian-like enthusiasms and inspirations.

_Sect._ 22. Touching the application of what hath been said unto the
controverted ceremonies, there needs nothing now to be added. For that
they belong not to that sort of things which may be applied to civil uses,
with the same respect and account which they have being applied to
religious uses, the account I mean of mere circumstances serving only for
that common order and decency which is and should be observed in civil no
less than in sacred actions, but that they belong to the substance of
worship, as being sacred significant ceremonies, wherein both holiness and
necessity are placed, and which may not without his sacrilege be used out
of the compass of worship, we have elsewhere plainly evinced. And this
kind of things, whensover they are men’s devices, and not God’s
ordinances, cannot be lawfully enjoined by princes, as hath been showed.

But if any man will needs have these ceremonies in question to go under
the name of mere circumstances, let us put the case they were no other,
yet our conforming unto them, which is urged, cannot stand with the rules
of the word.

It could not be for the glory of God, not only for that it is offensive to
many of Christ’s little ones, but likewise for that it ministereth
occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme; to atheists, because by
these naughty observances they see the commandments of God made of little
or no effect, and many godly both persons and purposes despised and
depressed, whereat they laugh in their sleeve and say, Aha! so would we
have it; to Papists, because as by this our conformity they confirm
themselves in sundry of their errors and superstitions, so perceiving us
so little to abhor the pomp and bravery of their mother of harlots, that
we care not to borrow from her some of her meretricious trinkets, they
promise to themselves that in the end we shall take as great a draught of
the cup of the wine of her fornications as they themselves.

Neither yet can our conforming unto the ceremonies pressed upon us be
profitable for edifying, for we have given sufficient demonstration of
manifold hurts and inconveniences ensuing thereon.

Nor, lastly, can we conform to them in faith; for as our consciences
cannot find, so the word cannot afford, any warrant for them. Of all which
things now I only make mention, because I have spoken of them enough
otherwhere.

_Sect._ 23. The second distinction which may help our light in this
question about the power of princes, is of times; for when the church and
ministers thereof are corrupted and must be reformed, princes may do much
more in making laws about things ecclesiastical than regularly they may,
when ecclesiastical persons are both able and willing to do their duty, in
rightly taking care of all things which ought to be provided for the good
of the church, and conservation or purgation of religion. “For (saith
Junuis(957)) both the church, when the joining of the magistrate faileth,
may extraordinarily do something which ordinarily she cannot; and again,
when the church faileth of her duty, the magistrate may extraordinarily
procure that the church return to her duty; that is, in such a case
extraordinarily happening, these (ecclesiastical persons) and those
(magistrates) may extraordinarily do something which ordinarily they
cannot. For this belongeth to common law and equity, that unto
extraordinary evils, extraordinary remedies must also be applied.” We
acknowledge that it belongeth to princes(958) “to reform things in the
church, as often as the ecclesiastical persons shall, either through
ignorance, disorder of the affection of covetousness, or ambition, defile
the Lord’s sanctuary.” At such extraordinary times, princes, by their
coactive temporal power, ought to procure and cause a reformation of
abuses, and the avoiding of misorders in the church, though with the
discontent of the clergy, for which end and purpose they may not only
enjoin and command the profession of that faith, and the practice of that
religion which God’s word appointeth, but also prescribe such an order and
policy in the circumstances of divine worship as they in their judgment of
Christian discretion, observing and following the rules of the word, shall
judge and try to be convenient for the present time and case, and all this
under the commination of such temporal losses, pains, or punishments as
they shall deprehend to be reasonable. But at other ordinary times, when
ecclesiastical persons are neither through ignorance unable, nor through
malice and perverseness of affection unwilling, to put order to whatsoever
requireth any mutation to be made in the church and service of God, in
that case, without their advice and consent, princes may not make an
innovation of any ecclesiastical rite, nor publish any ecclesiastical law.

_Sect._ 24. When Dr Field(959) speaketh of the power of princes to
prescribe and make laws about things spiritual or ecclesiastical, he
saith, That the prince may, with the advice and direction of his clergy,
command things pertaining to God’s worship and service, both for
profession of faith, ministration of the sacraments, and conversation
fitting to Christians in general, or men of ecclesiastical order in
particular, under the pains of death, imprisonment, banishment,
confiscation of goods, and the like; and by his princely power establish
things formerly defined and decreed, against whatsoever error and contrary
ill custom and observation. In all this the Doctor saith very right; but I
demand, further, these two things: 1. What if the thing have not been
decreed before? and what if the free assent of the clergy be not had for
it? Would the Doctor have said that in such a case the prince hath not
power by himself, and by his own sole authority, to enjoin it, and to
establish a law concerning it? For example, that king James had not power
by himself to impose the controverted ceremonies upon the church of
Scotland at that time when as no free assent (much less the direction) of
the clergy was had for them, so neither had they been formerly decreed,
but laws and decrees were formerly made against them. If the Doctor would
have answered affirmatively that he had this power, then why did he, in a
scornful dissimulation, so circumscribe and limit the power of princes, by
requiring a former decree, and the free assent of the clergy? If he would
have answered negatively, that he had no such power, we should have
rendered him thanks for his answer. 2. Whether may the clergy make any
laws about things pertaining to the service of God which the prince may
not as well by himself, and without them, constitute and authorise? If the
affirmative part be granted unto us, we gladly take it. But we suppose Dr
Field did, and our opposites yet do, hold the negative. Whereupon it
followeth that the prince hath as much, yea, the very same power, of
making laws in all ecclesiastical things which the clergy themselves have
when they are convened in a lawful and free assembly, yet I guess from the
Doctor’s words that he would have replied, namely, that the difference is
great betwixt the power of making laws about things ecclesiastical in the
prince, and the same power in the clergy assembled together; for he
describeth the making of a law to be the prescribing of something, under
some pain or punishment, which he that so prescribeth hath power to
inflict. Whereby he would make it appear that he yieldeth not unto princes
the same power of spiritual jurisdiction, in making of ecclesiastical
laws, which agreeth to the clergy; because, whereas a council of the
clergy may frame canons about things which concern the worship of God, and
prescribe them under the pain of excommunication, and other ecclesiastical
censures, the ordinance of princes about such matters is only under the
pain of some external or bodily punishment. But I answer, _potestas_
διατακτικὴ is one thing, and _potestas_ κειτικὴ is another thing. When the
making of a law is joined either with the intention, or with the
commination of a punishment, in case of transgression, this is but
accidental and adventitious to the law, not naturally nor necessarily
belonging to the essence of the same; for many laws there hath been, and
may be, which prescribe not that which they contain under the same pain or
punishment. Gratian distinguisheth three sorts of laws: _Omnis_, &c.
“Every law (saith he(960)) either permits something; for example, let a
valorous man seek a reward: or forbids; for example, let it be lawful to
no man to seek the marriage of holy virgins: or punisheth; for example, he
who committeth murder let him be capitally punished.” And in this third
kind only there is something prescribed under a pain or punishment. It is
likewise holden by schoolmen,(961) that it is a law which permitteth
something indifferent, as well as it which commandeth some virtue, or
forbiddeth some vice. When a prince doth statute and ordain, that
whosoever, out of a generous and magnanimous spirit, will adventure to
embark and hazard in a certain military exploit against a foreign enemy,
whom he intendeth to subdue, shall be allowed to take for himself in
propriety all the rich spoil which he can lay hold on,—there is nothing
here prescribed under some pain or punishment, yet it is a law, and
properly so termed. And might not the name of a law be given unto that
edict of King Darius, whereby he decreed that all they in his dominions
should fear the God of Daniel, forasmuch as he is the living and eternal
God, who reigneth for ever, Dan. vi.; yet it prescribed nothing under some
pain or punishment to be inflicted by him who so prescribed. Wherefore,
though the prince publisheth ecclesiastical laws under other pains and
punishments than the clergy doth, this showeth only that _potestas_
κειτικὴ is not the same, but different, in the one and in the other; yet
if it be granted that whatsoever ecclesiastical law a synod of the clergy
hath power to make and publish, the prince hath power to make and publish
without them, by his own sole authority, it followeth, that the power of
the church to make laws which is called _potestas_ διατακτικὴ, doth agree
as much, as properly, and as directly to the prince, as to a whole synod
of the church.

_Sect._ 25. Now, therefore, we firmly hold, 1. That the prince may not
innovate any custom or rite of the church, nor publish any ecclesiastical
law, without the free assent of the clergy, they being neither unable for,
nor unwilling unto, their ecclesiastical functions and duties; yea,
further, that so far as is possible, the consent of the whole church ought
to be had whensoever any change is to be made of some order or custom in
the church; for that which toucheth the whole church, and is to be used by
the whole church, _ab omnibus etiam merito curatur_.(962) Therefore, when
there is any change to be made in the rites of the church, _merito fit hoc
cum omnium ordinum ecclesiae consensu_.(963) Neither was there ever a
rightly reformed church which was helped and not hurt by such rites and
customs as, to their grief and miscontentment, princes did impose upon
them. Whence it was, that “they who were orthodox did ever withstand such
a magistrate as would have, by his commandments, tied the church to that
which was burdensome to their consciences.”(964) That such inconveniences
may be shunned, it is fit, that, when any change is to be made in the
policy of a church, not the clergy alone, but the elders also, and men of
understanding among the laity, in a lawful assembly, freely give their
voices and consent thereunto. Good reason have our writers to hold against
Papists, that laymen ought to have place in councils wherein things which
concern the whole church are to be deliberated upon. 2. Lest it be thought
enough that princes devise, frame, and establish, ecclesiastical laws as
them best liketh, and then, for more show of orderly proceeding, some
secret and sinistrous way extort and procure the assent of the synod of
the church; therefore we add, that it belongeth to the synod (the clergy
having the chief place therein, to give direction and advice), not to
receive and approve the definition of the prince in things which concern
the worship of God, but itself to define and determine what orders and
customs are fittest to be observed in such things, that thereafter the
prince may approve and ratify the same, and press them upon his subjects
by his regal coactive power. To me it is no less than a matter of
admiration how Camero could so far forget himself as to say,(965) that in
things pertaining unto religion, _dirigere atque disponere penes
magistratum est proprie, penes ecclesiasticos ministerium atque executio
proprie_, telling us further, that the directing and disposing of such
things doth then only belong to ecclesiastical persons when the church
suffereth persecution, or when the magistrate permitteth that the matter
be judged by the church.

Our writers have said much of the power of the church to make laws, but
this man (I perceive) will correct them all, and will not acknowledge that
the church hath any power of making laws about things pertaining to
religion (except by accident, because of persecution or permission), but
only a power of executing what princes please to direct. More fully to
deliver our mind, we say, that in the making of laws about things which
concern the worship of God, the prince may do much _per actus imperatos_,
but nothing _per actus elicitos_. For the more full explanation of which
distinction, I liken the prince to the will of man; the ministers of the
church to man’s particular senses; a synod of the church to that internal
sense which is called _sensus communis_; the fountain and original of all
the external things and actions ecclesiastical, or such as concern the
worship of God, to the objects and actions of the particular senses; and
the power of making ecclesiastical laws to that power and virtue of the
common sense, whereby it perceiveth, discerneth, and judgeth of the
objects and actions of all the particular senses. Now as the will
commandeth the common sense to discern and judge of the actions and
objects of all the particular senses, thereafter commandeth the eye to
see, and the ear to hear, the nose to smell, &c., yet it hath not power by
itself to exercise or bring forth any of these actions, for the will can
neither see nor yet judge of the object and action of sight, &c. So the
prince may command a synod of the church to judge of ecclesiastical things
and actions, and to define what order and form of policy is most
convenient to be observed in things pertaining to divine worship, and
thereafter he may command the particular ministers of the church to
exercise the works of their ministry, and to apply themselves unto that
form of church regiment and policy which the synod hath prescribed, yet he
may not by himself define and direct such matters, nor make any laws
thereanent.

_Sect._ 26. For proof of these things I add, 1. Politic government,
_versatur circa res terrenas et hominem externum_ (saith one of our
writers(966)); _magistratus_ (saith another(967)) _instituti sunt à Deo
rerum humanarum __ quae hominum societati necessariae sunt respectu, et ad
carum curam_; but they are ecclesiastical ministers who are “ordained for
men in things pertaining to God,” Heb. v. 1, that is, in things which
pertain unto God’s worship. It belongeth not therefore to princes to
govern and direct things of this nature, even as it belongeth not to
pastors to govern and direct earthly things which are necessary for the
external and civil society of men, I mean ordinarily and regularly, for of
extraordinary cases we have spoken otherwise. But according to the common
order and regular form we are ever to put this difference betwixt civil
and ecclesiastical government, which one of our best learned divines hath
excellently conceived after this manner:(968) _Altera differentia_, &c.,
“The other difference (saith he) taken from the matter and subject of the
administrations. For we have put in our definition human things to be the
subject of civil administration, but the subject of ecclesiastical
administration we have taught to be things divine and sacred. Things
divine and sacred we call both those which God commandeth for the
sanctification of our mind and conscience as things necessary, and also
those which the decency and order of the church requireth to be ordained
and observed for the profitable and convenient use of the things which are
necessary; for example, prayers, the administration of the word and
sacraments, ecclesiastical censure, are things necessary, and essentially
belonging to the communion of saints; but set days, set hours, set places,
fasts, and if there be any such like, they belong to the decency and order
of the church, without which the church cannot be well edified, nor any
particular member thereof rightly fashioned and fitly set in the body. But
human things we call such duties as touch the life, the body, goods, and
good name, as they are expounded in the second table of the Decalogue, for
these are the things in which the whole civil administration standeth.
Behold how the very circumstances which pertain to ecclesiastical order
and decency are exempted from the compass of civil government.”

2. “Natural reason (saith the Bishop of Salisbury) telleth,(969) that to
judge of everything, and to instruct others, belongeth to them who before
others take pains and study to the care and knowledge of the same, so
physicians judge which meat is wholesome, which noisome. Lawyers declare
what is just, what unjust, and in all arts and sciences, they who
professedly place their labour and study in the polishing and practising
of the same, both use and ought to direct the judgments of others.” Since
therefore(970) the ministers of the church are those _quibus ecclesiae
cura incumbit vel maxime_, since they do above and before the civil
magistrate devote themselves to the care and knowledge of things
pertaining to God and his worship, whereabout they profess to bestow their
ordinary study and painful travail, were it not most repugnant to the law
of natural reason to say that they ought not to direct, but be directed
by, the magistrate in such matters?

3. The ministers of the church are appointed to be “watchmen in the city
of God,” Mic. vii. 4, and “overseers of the flock,” Acts xx. 28; but when
princes do, without the direction and definition of ministers, establish
certain laws to be observed in things pertaining to religion, ministers
are not then watchmen and overseers, because they have not the first
sight, and so cannot give the first warning of the change which is to be
made in the church. The watchmen are upon the walls, the prince is within
the city. Shall the prince now view and consider the breaches and defects
of the city better and sooner than the watchmen themselves? Or shall one,
within the city, tell what should be righted and helped therein, before
them who are upon the walls? Again, the prince is one of the flock, and is
committed, among the rest, to the care, attendance, and guidance of the
overseers; and, I pray, shall one of the sheep direct the overseers how to
govern and lead the whole flock, or prescribe to them what orders and
customs they shall observe for preventing or avoiding any hurt and
inconvenience which may happen to the flock?

4. Christ hath ordained men of ecclesiastical order, not only “for the
work of the ministry,”(971) that is, for preaching the word and
ministering the sacraments, for warning and rebuking them who sin, for
comforting the afflicted, for confirming the weak, &c., but also for
providing whatsoever concerneth either the private spiritual good of any
member of the church, which the Apostle calleth “the perfecting of the
saints,” or the public spiritual good of the whole church, which he
calleth the “edifying of the body of Christ,” Eph. iv. 12. Since,
therefore, the making of laws about such things, without which the worship
of God cannot be orderly nor decently (and so not rightly) performed,
concerneth the spiritual good and benefit of the whole church, and of all
the members thereof, it followeth that Christ hath committed the power of
judging, defining, and making laws about those matters, not to
magistrates, but to the ministers of the church.

5. The Apostle, speaking of the church ministers, saith, “Obey them that
have the rule over you, and submit yourselves for they watch for your
souls as they that must give account,” Heb. xiii. 17. Whence we gather,
that in things pertaining to God, and which touch the spiritual benefit of
the soul, the ministers of the church ought to give direction, and to be
obeyed, as those who, in things of this nature, have the rule over all
others of the church (and by consequence over princes also), so that it be
in the Lord. And lest this place and power which is given to ministers,
should either be abused by themselves to the commanding of what they will,
or envied by others, as too great honour and pre-eminence, the Apostle
showeth what a painful charge lieth on them, and what a great reckoning
they have to make. They watch for your souls, saith he, not only by
preaching and warning every one, and by offering up their earnest prayers
to God for you, but likewise by taking such care of ecclesiastical
discipline, order, and policy, that they must provide and procure
whatsoever shall be expedient for your spiritual good, and direct you in
what convenient and beseeming manner you are to perform the works of God’s
worship, as also to avoid and shun every scandal and inconveniency which
may hinder your spiritual good. And of these things, whether they have
done them or not, they must make account before the judgment seat of the
great Bishop of your souls. Surely, if it belong to princes to do fine and
ordain what order and policy should be observed in the church, what forms
and fashions should be used, for the orderly and right managing of the
exercises of God’s worship, how scandals and misorders are to be shunned,
how the church may be most edified, and the spiritual good of the saints
best helped and advanced, by wholesome and profitable laws, concerning
things which pertain to religion, then must princes take also upon them a
great part of that charge of pastors, to watch for the souls of men, and
must liberate them from being liable to a reckoning for the same.

_Sect._ 27. 6. Constantine the Great, Theodosius, both the one and the
other, Martianus, Charles the Great, and other Christian princes, when
there was any change to be made of ecclesiastical rites, did not, by their
own authority, imperiously enjoin the change, but convocate synods for
deliberating upon the matter, as Balduine noteth.(972) The great Council
of Nice was assembled by Constantine, not only because of the Arian
heresy, but, also (as Socrates witnesseth(973)), because of the difference
about the keeping of Easter; and though the bishops, when they were
assembled, did put up to him libels of accusation, one against another, so
that there could be no great hope of their agreement upon fit and
convenient laws; yet, notwithstanding, he did not interpone his own
definition and decree, for taking up that difference about Easter, only he
exhorted the bishops convened in the council to peace, and so commended
the whole matter to be judged by them.

7. We have for us the judgment of worthy divines. A notable testimony of
Junius we have already cited. Danaeus will not allow princes by themselves
to make laws about ecclesiastical rites,(974) but this he will have done
by a synod. _Porro quod ad ritus,_ &c. “Furthermore (saith he), for rites
and ceremonies, and that external order which is necessary in the
administration of the church, let a synod of the church convene, the
supreme and godly magistrate both giving commandment for the convening of
it, and being present in it; and let that synod of the church lawfully
assembled define what should be the order and external regiment of the
church. This decree of the ecclesiastical synod shall the godly and
supreme magistrate afterward confirm, stablish, and ratify by his edict.”
Joh. Wolphius observeth of king Joash,(975) that he did not by himself
take order for the reparation of the temple, nor define what was to be
done unto every breach therein, but committed this matter to be directed
and cared for by the priests, whom it chiefly concerned, commanding them
to take course for the reparation of the breaches of the house,
wheresoever any breach should be found, and allowing them money for the
work. Whereupon he further noteth, that as the superior part of man’s soul
doth not itself hear, see, touch, walk, speak, but commandeth the ears,
eyes, hands, feet, and tongue, to do the same; so the magistrate should
not himself either teach or make laws, but command that these things be
done by the doctors and teachers. Cartwright and Pareus upon Heb. xiii.
17, tell the Papists, that we acknowledge princes are holden to be
obedient unto pastors in things that belong unto God, if they rule
according to the word, which could not be so, if the making of laws about
things pertaining to God and his worship did not of right and due belong
unto pastors, but unto princes themselves. Our Second Book of Discipline,
chap. 12, ordaineth, “That ecclesiastical assemblies have their place,
with power to the kirk to appoint times and places convenient for the
same, and all men, as well magistrates as inferiors, to be subject to the
judgment of the same in ecclesiastical causes.” Balduine holdeth,(976)
that a prince may not by himself enjoin any new ecclesiastical rite, but
must convocate a synod for the deliberation and definition of such things.
And what mean our writers when they say,(977) that kings have no spiritual
but only a civil power in the church? As actions are decerned by the
objects, so are powers by the actions: if, therefore, kings do commendably
by themselves make laws about things pertaining to God’s worship, which is
a spiritual action, then have they also a spiritual power in the church;
but if they have no spiritual power, that is, no power of spiritual
jurisdiction, how can they actually exercise spiritual jurisdiction? That
the making of laws about things pertaining to God’s worship is an action
of spiritual jurisdiction, it needeth no great demonstration; for, 1. When
a synod of the church maketh laws about such things, all men know that
this is an action of spiritual jurisdiction flowing from that power of
spiritual jurisdiction which is called _potestas_ διατακτικὴ. And how then
can the prince’s making of such laws be called an action of civil, not of
spiritual jurisdiction? I see not what can be answered, except it be said,
that the making of those laws by a synod is an action of spiritual
jurisdiction, because they are made and published with the commination of
spiritual and ecclesiastical punishments in case of transgression, but the
making of them by the prince is an action of jurisdiction only, because he
prescribeth and commandeth, under the pain of some temporal loss or
punishment. But I have already confuted this answer, because
notwithstanding of the different punishments which the one and the other
hath power to threaten and inflict, yet, at least, that part of spiritual
jurisdiction which we call _potestas_ διατακτικὴ remaineth the same in
both, which power of making laws must not (as I show) be confounded with
that other power of judging and punishing offenders. 2. Actions take their
species or kind from the object and the end, when other circumstances
hinder not. Now, a prince’s making of laws about things pertaining to
religion, is such an action of jurisdiction, as hath both a spiritual end,
which is the edification of the church and spiritual good of Christians,
and likewise a spiritual object; for that all things pertaining to divine
worship, even the very external circumstances of the same, are rightly
called things spiritual and divine, not civil or human, our opposites
cannot deny, except they say, not only that such things touch the lives,
bodies, estates, or names of men, and are not ordained for the spiritual
benefit of their souls, but also that the synod of the church, whose power
reacheth only to things spiritual, not civil or human, can never make laws
about those circumstances which are applied unto, and used in the worship
of God; and as the prince’s making of laws about things of this nature, is
in respect of the object and end, an action of spiritual jurisdiction, so
there is no circumstance at all which varieth the kind, or maketh it an
action of civil jurisdiction only. If it be said, that the circumstance of
the person changeth the kind of the action, so that the making of laws
about things pertaining to religion, if they be made by ecclesiastical
persons, is an action of spiritual jurisdiction; but if, by the civil
magistrate, an action of civil jurisdiction, this were a most extremely
unadvised distinction; for so might Uzziah the king have answered for
himself, 2 Chron. xxvi. 18, that, in burning incense, he did not take upon
him to execute the priest’s office, because he was only a civil person; so
may the Pope say, that he might not take upon him the power of emperors
and monarchs, because he is an ecclesiastical person. Many things men do
_de facto_, which they cannot _de jure_. Civil persons may exercise a
spiritual jurisdiction and office, and, again, ecclesiastical persons may
exercise a civil jurisdiction _de facto_, though not _de jure_. Wherefore
the prince’s making of laws about things spiritual remaineth still an
action of spiritual jurisdiction, except some other thing can be alleged
to the contrary, beside the circumstance of the person. But some man,
peradventure, will object that a prince, by his civil power, may enjoin
and command not only the observation of those ecclesiastical rites which a
synod of the church prescribeth, but also that a synod (when need is)
prescribe new orders and rites, all which are things spiritual and divine.
And why then may he not, by the same civil power, make laws about the
rites and circumstances of God’s worship, notwithstanding that they are
(in their use and application to the actions of worship) things spiritual,
not civil.

_Ans._ The schoolmen say,(978) that an action proceedeth from charity two
ways, either _elicitive_ or _imperative_, and that those actions which are
immediately produced and wrought out by charity, belong not to other
virtues distinct from charity, but are comprehended under the effects of
charity itself, such as are the loving of good and rejoicing for it. Other
actions, say they, which are only commanded by charity, belong to other
special virtues distinct from charity. So, say I, an action may proceed
from a civil power either _elicitive_ or _imperative_. _Elicitive_ a civil
power can only make laws about things civil or human; but _imperative_ it
may command the ecclesiastical power to make laws about things spiritual,
which laws thereafter it may command to be observed by all who are in the
church.

_Sect._ 28. 8. Our opposites themselves acknowledge no less than that
which I have been pleading for. “To devise new rites and ceremonies (saith
Dr Bilson(979)), is not the prince’s vocation, but to receive and allow
such as the Scriptures and canons commend, and such as the bishops and
pastors of the place shall advise.” And saith not the Bishop of
Salisbury,(980) _Ceremonias utiles et decoras excogitare, ad
ecclesiasticos pertinet; tamen easdem comprobare, et toti populo
observandas imponere, ad reges spectat_? Camero saith,(981) that it is the
part of a prince to take care for the health of men’s souls, even as he
doth for the health of their bodies, and that as he provideth not for the
curing or preventing of bodily diseases directly and by himself, but
indirectly and by the physicians, so he should not by himself prescribe
cures and remedies for men’s spiritual maladies. _Perinde principis est
curare salutem animarum, ac ejusdem est saluti corporum prospicere: non
est autem principis providere ne morbi grassentur directe, esset enim
medicus, at indirecte tamen princeps id studere debet._ Whence it
followeth, that even as when some bodily sickness spreadeth, a prince’s
part is not to prescribe a cure, but to command the physicians to do it;
just so, when any abuse, misorder, confusion, or scandal in the church,
requireth or maketh it necessary that a mutation be made of some rite or
order in the same, and that wholesome laws be enacted, which may serve for
the order, decency, and edification of the church, a prince may not do
this by himself, but may only command the pastors and guides of the
church, who watch for the souls of men as they who must give account, to
see to the exigency of the present state of matters ecclesiastical, and to
provide such laws as they, being met together in the name of the Lord,
shall, after due and free deliberation, find to be convenient, and which,
being once prescribed by them, he shall by his royal authority confirm,
establish, and press.

_Sect._ 29. Needs now it must be manifest, that the lawfulness of our
conforming unto the ceremonies in question can be no way warranted by any
ordinance of the supreme magistrate, or any power which he hath in things
spiritual or ecclesiastical; and if our opposites would ponder the reasons
we have given, they should be quickly quieted, understanding that, before
the prince’s ordinance about the ceremonies can be said to bind us, it
must first be showed that they have been lawfully prescribed by a synod of
the church, so that they must retire and hold them as the church’s
ordinance. And what needeth any more? Let us once see any lawful ordinance
of the synod or church representative for them, we shall, without any more
ado, acknowledge it to be out of all doubt that his Majesty may well urge
conformity unto the same.

Now, of the church’s power we have spoken in the former chapter; and if we
had not, yet that which hath been said in this chapter maketh out our
point. For it hath been proved, that neither king nor church hath power to
command anything which is not according to the rules of the word; that is,
which serveth not for the glory of God, which is not profitable for
edifying, and which may not be done in faith; unto which rules, whether
the things which are commanded us be agreeable or not, we must try and
examine by the private judgment of Christian discretion, following the
light of God’s word.

_Sect._ 30. Resteth the third distinction, whereof I promised to speak,
and that was of ties or bonds. _Quoedam obligatio_, &c. “Some bond (saith
Gerhard(982)) is absolute, when the law bindeth the conscience simply, so
that, in no respect, nor in no case, without the offence of God and wound
of conscience, one may depart from the prescript thereof; but another bond
is hypothetical, when it bindeth not simply, but under a condition, to
wit, if the transgression of the law be done of contempt,—if for the cause
of lucre or some other vicious end,—if it have scandal joined with it.”
The former way, he saith that the law of God and nature bindeth, and that
the law of the civil magistrate bindeth the latter way; and with him we
hold that whatsoever a prince commandeth his subjects in things any way
pertaining to religion, it bindeth only this latter way, and that he hath
never power to make laws binding the former way, for confirmation
wherefore we say,

1. The laws of an ecclesiastical synod, to the obedience whereof, in
things belonging to the worship of God, we are far more strictly tied than
to the obedience of any prince in the world, who (as hath been showed) in
this sort of things hath not such a vocation nor power to make laws. The
laws, I say, of a synod cannot bind absolutely, but only conditionally, or
in case they cannot be transgressed without violating the law of charity,
by contempt showed or scandal given, which, as I have made good in the
first part of this dispute, so let me now produce for it a plain testimony
of the Bishop of Salisbury,(983) who holdeth that the church’s rites and
ordinance do only bind in such sort, _ut si extra_, &c., “That if, out of
the case of scandal or contempt, through imprudence, oblivion, or some
reasonable cause enforcing, they be omitted, no mortal sin is incurred
before God; for as touching these constitutions, I judge the opinion of
Gerson to be most true, to wit, that they remain inviolated so long as the
law of charity is not by men violated about the same.” Much less, then,
can the laws of princes about things spiritual or ecclesiastical bind
absolutely, and out of the case of violating the law of charity.

2. If we be not bound to receive and acknowledge the laws of princes as
good and equitable, except only in so far as they are warranted by the law
of God and nature, then we are not bound in conscience to obey them,
except only conditionally, in case the violating of them include the
violating of the law of God and nature; but the former is true, therefore
the latter. It is God’s peculiar sovereignty, that his will is a rule
ruling, but not ruled, and that therefore a thing is good because God will
have it to be good. Man’s will is only such a rule as is ruled by higher
rules, and it must be known to be _norma recta_ before it can be to us
_norma recti_.

3. If we be bound to try and examine, by the judgment of discretion
(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 such, to neglect them, then their laws cannot bind absolutely and by
themselves, (else what need were there of such trial and examination?) but
only conditionally, and in case they cannot be neglected without violating
some other law, which is of a superior bond. But the former we have proved
by strong reasons, therefore the latter standeth sure.

4. If neither princes may command, nor we do anything which is not lawful
and expedient, and according to the other rules of the word, then the laws
of princes bind not absolutely, but only in case the neglecting of them
cannot stand with the law of charity and the rules of the word; but the
former hath been evinced and made good, therefore the latter necessarily
followeth.

5. If the laws of princes could bind absolutely and simply, so that in no
case, without offending God and wounding our conscience, we could neglect
them, this bond should arise either from their own authority, or from the
matter and thing itself which is commanded, but from neither of these it
can arise, therefore from nothing. It cannot arise from any authority
which they have, for if, by their authority, we mean their princely
pre-eminence and dignity, they are princes when they command things
unlawful as well as when they command things lawful, and so if, because of
their pre-eminence their laws do bind, then their unlawful ordinances do
bind no less than if they were lawful; but if by their authority we mean
the power which they have of God to make laws, this power is not absolute
(as hath been said) but limited; therefore from it no absolute bond can
arise, but this much at the most, that “kings on earth must be
obeyed,(984) so far as they command in Christ.”

Neither yet can the bond be absolute in respect of the thing itself which
is commanded.

When princes publish the commandments of God, the things themselves bind
whether they should command them or not, but we speak of such things as
God’s word hath left in their nature indifferent, and of such things we
say, that if being enjoined by princes they did absolutely bind, then they
should be in themselves immutably necessary, even secluding as well the
laws of princes which enjoin them, as the end of order, decency, and
edification, whereunto they are referred. To say no more, hath not Dr
Forbesse told us in Calvin’s words,(985) _Notatu dignum_, &c.? “It is
worthy of observation, that human laws, whether they be made by the
magistrate or by the church, howsoever they be necessary to be observed (I
speak of such as are good and just), yet they do not, therefore, by
themselves bind the conscience, because the whole necessity of observing
them looketh to the general end, but consisteth not in the things
commanded.”

6. Whatsoever bond of conscience is not confirmed and warranted by the
word is, before God, no bond at all. But the absolute bond wherewith
conscience is bound to the obedience of the laws of princes is not
confirmed nor warranted by the word; therefore the proposition no man can
deny, who acknowledged that none can have power or dominion over our
consciences but God only, the great Lawgiver, who alone can save and
destroy, James iv. 12. Neither doth any writer, whom I have seen, hold
that princes have any power over men’s consciences, but only that
conscience is bound by the laws of princes, for this respect, because God,
who hath power over our consciences, hath tied us to their laws. As to the
assumption, he who denyeth it must give instance to the contrary. If those
words of the Apostle be objected, Rom. xiii. 5, “Ye must needs be subject,
not only for wrath, but also for conscience’ sake.”

I answer, 1. The Apostle saith not that we must obey, but that we must be
subject, for conscience’ sake; and how oft shall we need to tell our
opposites that subjection is one thing, and obedience another?

2. If he had said that we must obey for conscience’ sake, yet this could
not have been expounded of an absolute bond of conscience, but only of an
hypothetical bond, in case that which the magistrate commandeth cannot be
omitted without breaking the law of charity. If it be said again, that we
are not only bidden be subject, but likewise to obey magistrates, Tit.
iii. 1: _Ans._ And who denyeth this? But still I ask, are we absolutely
and always bound to obey magistrates? Nay, but only when they command such
things as are according to the rules of the word, so that either they must
be obeyed or the law of charity shall be broken; in this case, and no
other, we are bidden obey.

_Sect._ 31. Thus have we gained a principal point, viz., that the laws of
princes bind not absolutely but conditionally, not _propter se_, but
_propter aliud_. Whereupon it followeth, that except the breach of those
ceremonial ordinances wherewith we are pressed include the breach of the
law of charity, which is of a superior bond, we are not holden to obey
them. Now that it is not the breach, but the obedience of those ordinances
which violateth the law of charity, we have heretofore made manifest, and
in this place we will add only one general: Whensoever the laws of princes
about things ecclesiastical do bind the conscience conditionally, and
because of some other law of a superior bond, which cannot be observed if
they be transgressed (which is the only respect for which they bind, when
they bind at all), then the things which they prescribe belong either to
the conservation or purgation of religion; but the controverted ceremonies
belong to neither of these, therefore the laws made thereanent bind not,
because of some other law which is of a superior bond. As to the
proposition, will any man say that princes have any more power than that
which is expressed in the twenty-fifth article of the Confession of Faith,
ratified in the first parliament of king James VI., which saith thus:
“Moreover, to kings, princes, rulers, and magistrates, we affirm that
chiefly and most principally, the conservation and the purgation of the
religion appertains, so that not only they are appointed for civil policy,
but also for maintenance of the true religion, and for suppressing of
idolatry and superstition whatsoever?” _Hoc nomine_, saith Calvin,(986)
_maxime laudantur sancti reges in scriptura, quod Dei cultum corruptum vel
eversum restituerint, vel curam gesserint religionis, ut sub illis pura et
incolumis floreret_. The twenty-first Parliament of king James, holden at
Edinburgh 1612, in the ratification of the acts and conclusions of the
General Assembly, kept in Glasgow 1610, did innovate and change some words
of that oath of allegiance which the General Assembly, in reference to the
conference kept 1751, ordained to be given to the person provided to any
benefice with cure, in the time of his admission, by the ordinate. For the
form of the oath, set down by the Act of the Assembly, beginneth thus: “I,
A. B., now nominate and admitted to the kirk of D., utterly testify and
declare in my conscience, that the right excellent, right high, and mighty
prince, James VI., by the grace of God king of Scots, is the only lawful
supreme governor of this realm, as well in things temporal as in the
conservation and purgation of religion,” &c. But the form of the oath set
down by the Act of Parliament beginneth thus: “I, A. B., now nominate and
admitted to the kirk of D., testify and declare in my conscience, that the
right excellent, &c., is the only lawful supreme governor of this realm,
as well in matters spiritual and ecclesiastical, as in things temporal,”
&c. Yet I demand, whether or not do the _matters spiritual and
ecclesiastical_, of which the Act of Parliament speaketh, or those _all
spiritual or ecclesiastical things or causes_, of which the English oath
of supremacy speaketh, comprehend any other thing than is comprehended
under _the conservation and purgation of religion_, whereof the Act of
Assembly speaketh? If it be answered affirmatively, it will follow that
princes have power to destruction, and not to edification only; for
whatsoever may edify or profit the church, pertaineth either to the
conservation or the purgation of religion. If negatively, then it cannot
be denied that the conservation and purgation of religion do comprehend
all the power which princes have in things ecclesiastical.

_Sect._ 32. Now to the assumption. And first, that the controverted
ceremonies pertain not to the conservation of religion, but contrariwise
to the hurt and prejudice of the same, experience hath, alas! made it too
manifest; for O what a doleful decay of religion have they drawn with them
in this land! Let them who have seen Scotland in her first glory tell how
it was then, and how it is now. Idle and idol-like bishopping hath shut
too the door of painful and profitable catechising.(987) The keeping of
some festival days is set up instead of the thankful commemoration of
God’s inestimable benefits, howbeit the festivity of Christmas hath
hitherto served more to bacchanalian lasciviousness than to the
remembrance of the birth of Christ.(988) The kneeling down upon the knees
of the body hath now come in place of that humiliation of the soul
wherewith worthy communicants addressed themselves unto the holy table of
the Lord; and, generally, the external show of these fruitless observances
hath worn out the very life and power of religion. Neither have such
effects ensued upon such ceremonies among us only, but let it be observed
everywhere else, if there be not least substance and power of godliness
among them who have most ceremonies, whereunto men have, at their
pleasure, given some sacred use and signification in the worship of God;
and most substance among them who have fewest shows of external rites. No
man of sound judgment (saith Beza(989)) will deny, _Jesum Christum quo
nudior_, &c., “that Jesus Christ, the more naked he be, is made the more
manifest to us; whereas, contrariwise, all false religions use by certain
external gesturings to turn away men from divine things.” Zanchius saith
well of the surplice and other popish ceremonies,(990) _Quod haec nihil ad
pietatem accendendam, multum autem ad restinguendam valeant_.
Bellarmine,(991) indeed, pleadeth for the utility of ceremonies, as things
belonging to the conservation of religion. His reason is, because they set
before our senses such an external majesty and splendour, whereby they
cause the more reverence. This he allegeth for the utility of the
ceremonies of the church of Rome. And I would know what better reason can
be alleged for the utility of ours. But if this be all, we throw back the
argument, because the external majesty and splendour of ceremonies doth
greatly prejudge and obscure the spirit and life of the worship of God,
and diverteth the minds of men from adverting unto the same, which we have
offered to be tried by common experience. Durand himself, for as much as
he hath written in the defence of ceremonies, in his unreasonable
_Rationale_, yet he maketh this plain confession:(992) _Sane in primitiva
ecclesia, sacrificium fiebat in vasis ligneis et vestibus communibus: tunc
enim erant lignei calices et aurei sacerdotes: nunc vero è contra est._
Behold what followeth upon the majesty and splendour which ceremonies
carry with them, and how religion, at its best and first estate, was
without the same!

_Sect._ 33. Neither yet do the ceremonies in question belong to the
purgation of religion; for wheresoever religion is to be purged in a
corrupted church, all men know that purgation standeth in putting
something away, not in keeping it still; in voiding somewhat, nor in
retaining it; so that a church is not purged, but left unpurged, when the
unnecessary monuments of bypast superstition are still preserved and kept
in the same. And as for the church of Scotland, least of all could there
be any purgation of it intended by the resuming of those ceremonies; for
such was the most glorious and ever memorable reformation of Scotland,
that it was far better purged than any other neighbour church. And of Mr
Hooker’s jest we may make good earnest; for, in very deed, as the
reformation of Geneva did pass the reformation of Germany, so the
reformation of Scotland did pass that of Geneva.

_Sect._ 34. Now hitherto we have discoursed of the power of princes, in
making of laws about things which concern the worship of God; for this
power it is which our opposites allege for warrant, of the controverted
ceremonies, wherefore to have spoken of it is sufficient for our present
purpose. Nevertheless, because there are also other sorts of
ecclesiastical things beside the making of laws, such as the vocation of
men of ecclesiastical order, the convocation and moderation of councils,
the judging and deciding of controversies about faith, and the use of the
keys, in all which princes have some place and power of intermeddling, and
a mistaking in one may possibly breed a mistaking in all; therefore I
thought good here to digress, and of these also to add somewhat, so far as
princes have power and interest in the same.

DIGRESSION I.

OF THE VOCATION OF MEN OF ECCLESIASTICAL ORDER.

In the vocation and calling of ecclesiastical persons, a prince ought to
carry himself _ad modum procurantis speciem, non designantis individuum_.
Which shall be more plainly and particularly understood in these
propositions which follow.

_Propos._ 1. Princes may and ought to provide and take care that men of
those ecclesiastical orders, and those only which are instituted in the
New Testament by divine authority, have vocation and office in the church.

Now, beside the apostles, prophets, and evangelists, which were not
ordained to be ordinary and perpetual offices in the church, there are but
two ecclesiastical orders or degrees instituted by Christ in the New
Testament,(993) viz., elders and deacons. _Excellenter canones duos tantum
sacros ordines appellari censet, diaconatus scilicet et presbyteratus,
quia hos solos primitiva ecclesia legitur habuisse, et de his solis
preceptum apostoli habemus_, saith the Master of sentences.(994) As for
the order and decree of bishops superior to that of elders, that there is
no divine ordinance nor institution for it, it is not only holden by
Calvin, Beza, Bucer, Martyr, Sadeel, Luther, Chemnitius, Gerhard,
Balduine, the Magdeburgians, Musculus, Piscator, Hemmingius, Zanchius,
Polanus, Junius, Pareus, Fennerus, Danaeus, Morney, Whittakers, Willets,
Perkins, Cartwright, the Professors of Leyden, and the far greatest part
of writers in reformed churches, but also by Jerome, who, upon Tit. i.,
and in his epistle to Evagrius, speaketh so plainly, that the Archbishop
of Spalato is driven to say,(995) _Deserimus in hac parte Hieronymum,
neque ei in his dictis assentimus_; also by Ambrose on 1 Tim. iii.;
Augustine in his Book of Questions out of both Testaments, quest. 101;
Chrysostom on 1 Tim. iii.; Isidore, dist. 21, cap. 1; the Canon Law, dist.
93, cap. 24, and dist. 95, cap. 5; Lombard., lib. 4, dist. 24. And after
him, by many schoolmen, such as Aquinas, Alensis, Albertus, Bonaventura,
Richardus, and Dominicus Soto, all mentioned by the Archbishop of Spalato,
lib. 2, cap. 4, num. 25. Gerhard(996) citeth for the same judgment,
Anselmus, Sedulius, Primasius, Theophylactus, Oecumenius, the Council of
Basil, Arelatensis, J. Parisiensis, Erasmus, Medina, and Cassander, all
which authors have grounded that which they say upon Scripture; for beside
that Scripture maketh no difference of order and degree betwixt bishops
and elders, it showeth also that they are one and the same order. For in
Ephesus and Crete, they who were made elders were likewise made bishops,
Acts xx. 17, 28; Tit. i. 5, 7. And the Apostle, Phil. i. 1, divideth the
whole ministry in the church of Philippi into two orders, bishops and
deacons. Moreover, 1 Tim. iii., he giveth order only for bishops and
deacons, but saith nothing of a third order. Wherefore it is manifest,
that beside those two orders of elders and deacons, there is no other
ecclesiastical order which hath any divine institution, or necessary use
in the church; and princes should do well to apply their power and
authority to the extirpation and rooting out of popes, cardinals,
patriarchs, primates, archbishops, bishops, suffragans, abbots, deans,
vice-deans, priors, archdeacons, subdeacons, abbots, chancellors,
chantors, subchantors, exorcists, monks, eremites, acoloths, and all the
rabble of popish orders, which undo the church, and work more mischief in
the earth than can be either soon seen or shortly told.

But, contrariwise, princes ought to establish and maintain in the church,
elders and deacons, according to the apostolical institution. Now elders
are either such as labour in the word and doctrine, or else such as are
appointed for discipline only. They who labour in the word and doctrine
are either such as do only teach, and are ordained for conserving, in
schools and seminaries of learning, the purity of Christian doctrine, and
the true interpretation of Scripture, and for detecting and confuting the
contrary heresies and errors, whom the Apostle calleth doctors or
teachers; or else they are such as do not only teach, but also have a more
particular charge to watch over the flock, to seek that which is lost, to
bring home that which wandereth, to heal that which is diseased, to bind
up that which is broken, to visit every family, to warn every person, to
rebuke, to comfort, &c., whom the Apostle called sometimes pastors, and
sometimes bishops or overseers. The other sort of elders are ordained only
for discipline and church government, and for assisting of the pastors in
ruling the people, overseeing their manners, and censuring their faults.
That this sort of elders is instituted by the Apostle, it is put out of
doubt, not alone by Calvin, Beza, and the divines of Geneva, but also by
Chemnitius (_Exam._ part 2, p. 218), Gerhard (_Loc. Theol._, tom. 6, p.
363, 364), Zanchius (in 4 _Proec._, col. 727), Martyr (in 1 Cor. xii. 28),
Bullinger (in 1 Tim. v. 17), Junius (_Animad. in Bell._, contr. 5, lib. 1,
cap. 2), Polanus (_Synt._, lib. 7, cap. 11), Pareus (in Rom. xii. 8; 1
Cor. xii. 28), Cartwright (on 1 Tim. v. 17), the Professors of Leyden
(_Syn. Pur. Theol._ disp. 42, thes. 20), and many more of our divines, who
teach that the Apostle, 1 Tim. v. 17, directly implieth that there were
some elders who ruled well, and yet laboured not in the word and doctrine;
and those elders he meaneth by them that rule, Rom. xii. 8; and by
_governments_, 1 Cor. xii. 28, where the Apostle saith not, _helps in
governments_, as our new English translation corruptly readeth, but
_helps, governments_, &c. plainly putting governments for a different
order from helps or deacons. Of these elders(997) speaketh Ambrose,(998)
as Dr Fulk also understandeth him,(999) showing that with all nations
eldership is honourable; wherefore the synagogue also, and afterwards the
church, hath had some elders of the congregation, without whose council
and advice nothing was done in the church; and that he knew not by what
negligence this had grown out of use, except it had been by the
sluggishness of the teachers, or rather their pride, whilst they seemed to
themselves to be something, and so did arrogate the doing of all by
themselves.

Deacons were instituted by the apostles(1000) for collecting, receiving,
keeping, and distributing ecclesiastical goods, which were given and
dedicated for the maintenance of ministers, churches, schools, and for the
help and relief of the poor, the stranger, the sick, and the weak; also
for furnishing such things as are necessary to the ministration of the
sacrament.(1001) Besides which employments, the Scripture hath assigned
neither preaching, nor baptising, nor any other ecclesiastical function to
ordinary deacons.

_Propos._ 2. Princes, in their dominions, ought to procure and effect,
that there be never wanting men qualified and fit for those ecclesiastical
functions and charges which Christ hath ordained, and that such men only
be called, chosen, and set apart for the same.

There are two things contained in this proposition. 1. That princes ought
to procure that the church never want men qualified and gifted for the
work and service of the holy ministry, for which end and purpose they
ought to provide and maintain schools and colleges, entrusted and
committed to the rule and oversight of orthodox, learned, godly, faithful,
and diligent masters, that so qualified and able men may be still
furnished and sent to take care that the ministers of the church neither
want due reverence, 1 Tim. v. 17; Heb. xiii. 17, nor sufficient
maintenance, 1 Cor. ix., that so men be not scarred from the service of
the ministry, but rather encouraged unto the same, 2 Chron. xxxi. 4.

2. That princes ought also to take order and course, that well-qualified
men, and no others, be advanced and called to bear charge and office in
the church, for which purpose they should cause not one disdainful
prelate, but a whole presbytery or company of elders, to take trial of 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 fitness to
teach. And further, that due trial may be continually had of the growth or
decay of the graces and utterance of every pastor, it is the part of
princes to enjoin the visitation of particular churches, and the keeping
of other presbyterial meetings, likewise the assembling of provincial, and
national synods, for putting order to such things as have not been helped
in the particular presbyteries. And as for the other sort of elders,
together with deacons, we judge the ancient order of this church to have
been most convenient for providing of well-qualified men for those
functions and offices; for the eighth head of the First Book of
Discipline, touching the election of elders and deacons, ordaineth that
only men of best knowledge and cleanest life be nominate to be in
election, and that their names be publicly read to the whole church by the
minister, giving them advertisement that from among them must be chosen
elders and deacons, that if any of these nominate be noted with public
infamy, he ought to be repelled; and that if any man know others of better
qualities within the church than those that be nominate, they shall be put
in election, that the church may have the choice.

If these courses, whereof we have spoken, be followed by Christian
princes, they shall, by the blessing of God, procure that the church shall
be served with able and fit ministers; but though thus they may _procurare
speciem_, yet they may not _designare individuum_, which now I am to
demonstrate.

_Propos._ 3. Nevertheless,(1002) princes may not design nor appoint such
or such particular men to the charge of such or such particular churches,
or to the exercise of such or such ecclesiastical functions, but ought to
provide that such an order and form be kept in the election and ordination
of the ministers of the church, as is warranted by the example of the
apostles and primitive church.

The vocation of a minister in the church is either inward or outward. The
inward calling which one must have in finding himself, by the grace of
God, made both able and willing to serve God and his church faithfully in
the holy ministry, lieth not open to the view of men, and is only manifest
to him from whom nothing can be hid; the outward calling is made up of
election and ordination: that signified in Scripture by _cheirotonia_ this
by _cheirothesia_ concerning which things we say with Zanchius,(1003)
_Magistratus_, &c.: “It pertaineth to a Christian magistrate and prince to
see for ministers unto his churches. But how? Not out of his own
arbitrement, but as God’s word teacheth; therefore let the Acts of the
Apostles and the epistles of Paul be read, how ministers were elected and
ordained, and let them follow that form.”

The right of election pertaineth to the whole church, which as it is
maintained by foreign divines who write of the controversies with Papists,
and as it was the order which this church prescribed in the Books of
Discipline, so it is commended unto us by the example of the apostles, and
of the churches planted by them. Joseph and Matthias were chosen and
offered to Christ by the whole church, being about 120 persons, Acts i.
15, 23; the apostles required the whole church and multitude of disciples,
to choose out from among them seven men to be deacons, Acts vi. 2, 3; the
Holy Ghost said to the whole church at Antioch, being assembled together
to minister unto the Lord, “Separate me Barnabas and Saul,” Acts xiii. 1,
2; the whole church chose Judas and Silas to be sent to Antioch, Acts xv.
22; the brethren who travelled in the church’s affairs were chosen by the
church, and are called the church’s messengers, 2 Cor. viii. 19, 23; such
men only were ordained elders by Paul and Barnabas who were chosen and
approved by the whole church, their suffrages being signified by the
lifting up of their hands, Acts xiv. 23. Albeit, Chrysostom and other
ecclesiastical writers use the word _cheirotonia_ for ordination and
imposition of hands, yet when they take it in this sense, they speak it
figuratively and synecdochically, as Junius showeth.(1004) For these two,
election by most voices, and ordination by laying on of hands, were joined
together, did cohere, as an antecedent and a consequent, whence the use
obtained, that the whole action should be signified by one word, _per
modum intellectus_, collecting the antecedent from the consequent, and the
consequent from the antecedent. Nevertheless, according to the proper and
native signification of the word, it noteth the signifying of a suffrage
or election by the lifting up of the hand, for _cheimotonehin_ is no other
thing nor _chehiras tehinein_ or _hanatehineiu_ to lift or hold up the
hands in sign of a suffrage; and so Chrysostom himself useth the word when
he speaketh properly, for he saith that the senate of Rome took upon him
_cheirosoiehin theohne_; that is (as D. Potter turneth his words(1005)),
to make gods by most voices.

Bellarmine(1006) reckoneth out three significations of the word
_cheirosoiehin_: 1. To choose by suffrages; 2. Simply to choose which way
soever it be; 3. To ordain by imposition of hands. Junius answereth
him,(1007) that the first is the proper signification; the second is
metaphorical; the third synecdochical.

Our English translators, 2 Cor. i. 19, have followed the metaphorical
signification, and in this place, Acts xiv. 23, the synecdochical. But
what had they to do either with a metaphor or a synecdoche when the text
may bear the proper sense? Now that Luke, in this place, useth the word in
the proper sense, and not in the synecdochical, Gerhard(1008) proveth from
the words which he subjoineth, to signify the ordaining of those elders by
the laying on of hands; for he saith that they prayed, and fasted, and
commended them to the Lord, in which words he implieth the laying on of
hands upon them, as may be learned from Acts vi. 6, “When they had prayed,
they laid their hands on them;” Acts xiii. 3, “When they had fasted, and
prayed, and laid their hands on them;” so Acts viii. 15, 17, prayer and
laying on of hands went together. Wherefore by _cheirotouhêsagtes_ Luke
pointeth at the election of those elders by voices, being, in the
following words, to make mention of their ordination by imposition of
hands.

Cartwright(1009) hath for the same point other weighty reasons: “It is
absurd (saith he) to imagine that the Holy Ghost, by Luke, speaking with
the tongues of men, that is to say, to their understanding, should use a
word in that signification in which it was never used before his time by
any writer, holy or profane, for how could he then be understood, if using
the note and name they used, he should have fled from the signification
whereunto they used it, unless therefore his purpose was to write that
which none could read? It must needs be that as he wrote so he meant the
election by voices. And if Demosthenes, for knowledge in the tongue, would
have been ashamed to have noted the laying down of hands by a word that
signifieth the lifting of them up, they do the Holy Ghost (which taught
Demosthenes to speak) great injury in using this impropriety and
strangeness of speech unto himself, which is yet more absurd, considering
that there were both proper words to utter the laying on of hands by, and
the same also was used in the translation of the LXX, which Luke, for the
Gentiles’ sake, did, as it may seem (where he conveniently could), most
follow. And yet it is most of all absurd that Luke, which straiteneth
himself to keep the words of the seventy interpreters, when as he could
have otherwise uttered things in better terms than they did, should here
forsake the phrase wherewith they noted the laying on of hands, being most
proper and natural to signify the same. The Greek Scholiast also, and the
Greek Ignatius, do plainly refer this word to the choice of the church by
voices.”

But it is objected, that Luke saith not of the whole church, but only of
Paul and Barnabas, that they made them by voices elders in every city.

_Ans._ But how can one imagine that betwixt them two alone the matter went
to suffrages? Election by most voices, or the lifting up of the hand in
taking of a suffrage, had place only among a multitude assembled together.
Wherefore we say with Junius,(1010) that τὸ χειροτονεὶν is both a common
and a particular action whereby a man chooseth, by his own suffrage in
particular, and likewise with others in common, so that in one and the
same action we cannot divide those things which are so joined together.

From that which hath been said, it plainly appeareth that the election of
ministers, according to the apostolic institution, pertaineth to the whole
body of that church where they are to serve; and that this was the
apostolic and primitive practice, it is acknowledged even by some of the
Papists, such as Lorinus, Salmeron, and Gaspar Sanctius, all upon Acts
xiv. 23. The canon law(1011) itself commendeth this form and saith,
_Electio clericorum est petitio plebis_. And was he not a popish
archbishop(1012) who condescended that the city of Magedeburg should have
_jus vocandi ac constituendi ecclesiae ministros_? Neither would the city
accept of peace without this condition.

That in the ancient church, for a long time, the election of ministers
remained in the power of the whole church or congregation, it is evident
from Cypr., lib. 1, epist. 4, 68; August., epist. 106; Leo I., epist. 95;
Socrat., lib. 4, cap. 30; and lib. 6, cap. 2; Possidon, _in Vita Aug._,
cap. 4. The testimonies and examples themselves, for brevity’s cause, I
omit. As for the thirteenth canon of the Council of Laodicea, which
forbiddeth to permit to the people the election of such as were to
minister at the altar, we say with Osiander,(1013) that this canon cannot
be approved, except only in this respect, that howbeit the people’s
election and consent be necessary, yet the election is not wholly and
solely to be committed to them, excluding the judgment and voice of the
clergy. And that this is all which the Council meant, we judge with
Calvin(1014) and Gerhard.(1015) That this is the true interpretation of
the canon, Junius(1016) proveth both by the words ὄχλοις ἐπιτρέπειν,
_permittere turbis_, for ἐπιτρέπειν signifieth to quit and leave the whole
matter to the fidelity and will of others; and, likewise, by the common
end and purpose of that Council which was to repress certain faults of the
people which had prevailed through custom. Indeed, if the whole matter
were altogether left to the people, contentions and confusions might be
feared; but whilst we plead for the election of the people, we add,

1. Let the clergy of the adjacent bounds, in their presbyterial assembly,
try and judge who are fit for the ministry; thereafter let a certain
number of those who are by them approven as fit, be offered and propounded
to the vacant church, that a free election may be made of some one of that
number, providing always that if the church or congregation have any real
reason for refusing the persons nominate and offered unto them, and for
choosing of others, their lawful desires be herein yielded unto.

2. Even when it comes to the election,(1017) yet _populus non solus
judicat, sed proeunte et moderante actionem clero et presbyterio_, let the
elders of the congregation, together with some of the clergy concurring
with them, moderate the action, and go before the body of the people.

Would to God that these things were observed by all who desire the worthy
office of a pastor; for neither the patron’s presentation, nor the
clergy’s nomination, examination and recommendation, nor the bishop’s
laying on of hands and giving of institution, nor all these put together,
can make up to a man’s calling to be a pastor to such or such a particular
flock, without their own free election. Even, as in those places where
princes are elected, the election gives them _jus ad rem_ (as they speak),
without which the inauguration can never give them _jus in re_; so a man
hath, from his election, power to be a pastor so far as concerneth _jus ad
rem_, and ordination only applieth him to the actual exercising of his
pastoral office, which ordination ought to be given unto him only who is
elected, and that because he is elected. And of him who is obtruded and
thrust upon a people, without their own election, it is well said by
Zanchius, that he can neither with a good conscience exercise his
ministry, nor yet be profitable to the people, because they will not
willingly hear him, nor submit themselves unto him.

Furthermore, because patronages and presentation to benefices do often
prejudge the free and lawful election which God’s word craveth, therefore
the Second Book of Discipline, chap. 12, albeit it permitteth and alloweth
the ancient patrons of prebendaries, and such benefices as have not _curam
animarum_, to reserve their patronages, and to dispone thereupon to
benefices that have _curam animarum_, may have no place in this light of
reformation. Not that we think a man presented to a benefice that hath
_curam animarum_ cannot be lawfully elected, but because of the often and
ordinary abuse of this unnecessary custom, we could wish it abolished by
princes.

It followeth to speak of ordination, wherein, with Calvin,(1018)
Junius,(1019) Gersom Burer,(1020) and other learned men, we distinguish
betwixt the act of it and the rite of it. The act of ordination standeth
in the mission to the deputation of a man to an ecclesiastical function,
with power and authority to perform the same; and thus are pastors
ordained when they are sent to a people with power to preach the word,
minister the sacraments, and exercise ecclesiastical discipline among
them. For “How shall they preach except they be sent?” Rom. x. 15. Unto
which mission or ordination neither prayer nor imposition of hands, nor
any other of the church’s rites, is essential and necessary, as the
Archbishop of Spalato showeth,(1021) who placeth the essential act of
ordination in _missione potestativa_, or a simple deputation and
application of a minister to his ministerial function with power to
perform it. This may be done, saith he, by word alone, without any other
ceremony, in such sort that the fact should hold, and the ordination thus
given should be valid enough. When a man is elected by the suffrages of
the church, then his ordination is _quasi solennis missio in possessionem
honoris illius, ex decreto_, saith Junius.(1022) Chemnitius noteth,(1023)
that when Christ, after he had chosen his twelve apostles, ordained them
to preach the gospel, to cast out devils, and to heal diseases, we read of
no ceremony used in this ordination, but only that Christ gave them power
to preach, to heal, and to cast out devils, and so sent them away to the
work. And howsoever the church hath for order and decency used some rite
in ordination, yet there is no such rite to be used with opinion of
necessity, or as appointed by Christ or his apostles. When our writers
prove against Papists that order is no sacrament, this is one of their
arguments, that there is no rite instituted in the New Testament to be
used in the giving of orders. Yet because imposition of hands was used in
ordination not only by the apostles, who had power to give extraordinarily
the gifts of the Holy Ghost, but likewise by the presbytery or company of
elders; and Timothy did not only receive the gift that was in him, by the
laying on of Paul’s hands. 2 Tim. i. 16, as the mean, but also with the
laying on of the hands of the presbytery, 1 Tim. iv. 14, as the rite and
sign of his ordination; therefore the church, in the after ages, hath
still kept and used the same rite in ordination, which rite shall, with
our leave, be yet retained in the church, providing, 1. It be not used
with opinion of necessity; for that the church hath full liberty either to
use any other decent rite (not being determined by the word to any one),
or else to use no rite at all, beside a public declaration that the person
there presented is called and appointed to serve the church in the
pastoral office, together with exhortation to the said person, and the
commending of him to the grace of God, the church not being tied by the
word to use any rite at all in the giving of ordination. 2. That it be not
used as a sacred significant ceremony to represent and signify either the
delivering to the person ordained authority to preach and to minister the
sacraments, or the consecration and mancipation of him to the holy
ministry; or, lastly, God’s bestowing of the gifts of his Spirit upon him,
together with his powerful protection and gracious preservation in the
performing of the works of his calling, but only as a moral sign, solemnly
to assign and point out the person ordained; which, also, was one of the
ends and uses whereunto this rite of laying on of hands was applied by the
apostles themselves, as Chemnitius showeth.(1024) And so Joshua was
designed and known to the people of Israel as the man appointed to be the
successor of Moses, by that very sign, that Moses laid his hands on him,
Deut. xxxiv.

As a sacred significant ceremony we may not use it, 1. Because it hath
been proved,(1025) that men may never, at their pleasure, ascribe to any
rite whatsoever, a holy signification of some mystery of faith or duty of
piety. The apostles, indeed, by laying on of their hands, did signify
their giving of the gift of the Holy Ghost; but, now, as the miracle, so
the mystery hath ceased, and the church not having such power to make the
signification answer to the sign, if now a sacred or mystical
signification be placed in the rite, it is but an empty and void sign, and
rather minical than mystical. 2. All such sacred rites as have been
notoriously abused to superstition, if they have no necessary use, ought
to be abolished, as we have also proven;(1026) therefore, if imposition of
hands in ordination be accounted and used as a sacred rite, and as having
a sacred signification (the use of it not being necessary), it becometh
unlawful, by reason of the bygone and present superstitious abuse of the
same in Popery.

Now the right and power of giving ordination to the ministers of the
church belongeth primarily and wholly to Christ, who communicateth the
same with his bride the church. Both the bridegroom for his part, and the
bride for her part, have delivered this power of ordination to the
presbytery _jure_ DIVINO. Afterward the presbytery conferred, _jure
humano_, this power upon them, who were specially called bishops, whence
the tyrannical usurpation of bishops hath in process followed, claiming
the proper right and ordinary position of that which at first they had
only by free concession; and thus that great divine, Franciscus
Junius,(1027) deriveth the power of ordination. All which, that it may be
plain unto us, let us observe four several passages.

1. The whole church(1028) hath the power of ordination communicated to her
from Christ, to whom it wholly pertaineth; for, 1. It is most certain (and
among our writers agreed upon) that, to the whole church collectively
taken, Christ hath delivered the keys of the kingdom of heaven with power
to use the same, promising that whosoever the church bindeth on earth,
shall be bound in heaven, and whosoever she looseth on earth, shall be
loosed in heaven, Matt. xviii. 18; therefore he hath also delivered unto
the whole church power to call and ordain ministers for using the keys,
otherwise the promise might be made void, because the ministers which she
now hath may fail. 2. Christ hath appointed a certain and an ordinary way
how the church may provide herself of ministers, and so may have ever in
herself the means of grace and comfort sufficient to herself, according to
that of the Apostle, 1 Cor. iii. 21, 22, “All things are yours, whether
Paul or Apollos,” &c. But if she had not the power of ordaining ministers
unto herself when she needeth, then might she sometimes be deprived of
such an ordinary and certain way of providing herself. 3. When the
ministry of the church faileth or is wanting, Christian people have power
to exercise that act of ordination which is necessary to the making of a
minister. Dr Fulk(1029) showeth out of Ruffinus and Theodoret, that
Ædesius and Frumentius, being but private men, by preaching of the gospel,
converted a great nation of the Indians; and that the nation of the
Iberians being converted by a captive woman, the king and the queen became
teachers of the gospel to the people. And might not, then, the church in
those places both elect and ordain ministers?

2. The church hath, by divine institution, delivered the power of
ordaining ordinary ministers to the presbytery, whereof the church
consisteth _repræsentative_. And so saith Pareus,(1030) that the power of
mission (which is _ordination_) belongeth to the presbytery. _Scriptura_,
saith Balduine,(1031) _ordinationem tribuit toti presbyterio, non seorsim
episcopo_. With whom say the Professors of Leyden in like manner.(1032)
Now when the divines of Germany and Belgia speak of a presbytery, they
understand such a company as hath in it both those two sorts of elders
which we speak of, viz., some who labour in the word and doctrine, whom
the Apostle calleth bishops, and others who labour only in discipline. The
apostolic and primitive times knew neither parishional nor diocesan
churches. Christians lived then in cities only, not in villages, because
of the persecution; and it is to be remembered, that in Rome, Corinth,
Ephesus, Colosse, Philippi, Thessalonica, and such other cities inhabited
by Christians, there were more pastors than one. The Apostle called unto
him the elders (not elder) of the church of Ephesus, Acts xx. 17; he
writeth to the bishops (not bishop) of the church at Philippi, Phil. i. 1;
he biddeth the Thessalonians know them (not him) which laboured among
them, 2 Thess. v. 12. Now that number of pastors or bishops which was in
one city, did in common govern all the churches within the city, and there
was not any one pastor who, by himself, governed a certain part of the
city particularly assigned to his charge, to which purpose the Apostle
exhorteth the elders of the church at Ephesus, to take heed to all the
flock, παντι τῳ ποιμιῳ, Acts xx. 28. And to the same purpose it is said by
Jerome,(1033) that before schemes and divisions were, by the devil’s
instigation, made in religion, _communi presbyterorum consilio ecclesiæ
gubernabantur_.

This number of preaching elders in one city, together with those elders
which, in the same city, laboured for discipline only, made up that
company which the Apostle,(1034) 1 Tim. iv. 14, calleth a presbytery, and
which gave ordination to the ministers of the church. To the whole
presbytery, made up of those two sorts of elders, belonged the act of
ordination, which is mission, howbeit the right,(1035) which was
imposition of hands, belonged to those elders alone which laboured in the
word and doctrine. And so we are to understand that which the Apostle
there saith of the presbytery’s laying on of hands upon Timothy. As for Dr
Downame’s(1036) two glosses upon that place, which he borroweth from
Bellarmine, and whereby he thinketh to elude our argument, we thank Dr
Forbesse(1037) for confuting them. _Quod autem_, &c.: “But whereas (saith
he) some have expounded the presbytery in this place to be a company of
bishops, except by bishops thou would understand presbyteries, it is a
violent interpretation, and an insolent meaning, and whereas others have
understood the degree itself of eldership, this cannot stand, for the
degree hath not hands, but hands are men’s.” Wherefore the Doctor himself,
by the presbytery whereof the Apostle speaketh, understandeth (as we do)
_confessus presbyterorum_.

But since we cannot find, in the apostles’ times, any other presbytery or
assembly of elders beside that which hath been spoken of, how cometh it,
nay, some say that the church of Scotland, and other reformed churches,
did appoint two sorts of presbyterial assemblies, one (which here we call
sessions) wherein the pastor of the parish, together with those elders
within the same, whom the Apostle calleth governments and presidents, put
order to the government of that congregation, another (which here we
presbyteries) wherein the pastors of sundry churches, lying near together,
do assemble themselves? Which difficulty yet more increaseth, if it be
objected that neither of these two doth in all points answer or conform
itself unto that primitive form of presbytery whereof we speak. _Ans._ The
division and multiplication of parishes, and the appointment of particular
pastors to the peculiar oversight of particular flocks, together with the
plantation of churches in villages as well as in cities, hath made it
impossible for us to be served with that only one form of presbytery which
was constitute in the apostles’ times. But this difference of the times
being (as it ought to be) admitted, for an inevitable cause of the
differences of the former, both those two forms of presbyterial meetings
appointed by the church of Scotland do not only necessarily result from
that one apostolic form, but likewise (the actions of them both being laid
together) do accomplish all these ordinary ecclesiastical functions which
were by it performed.

And first, Sessions have a necessary use, because the pastors and those
elders who assist them in the governing of their flocks must, as well
conjunctly as severally, as well publicly as privately, govern, admonish,
rebuke, censure, &c. As for presbyteries, because the parishes being
divided in most places, there is but one pastor in a parish, except there
should be a meeting of a number of pastors out of divers parishes, neither
could trial be well had of the growth or decay of the gifts, graces, and
utterance of every pastor, for which purpose the ninth head of the First
book of Discipline appointed the ministers of adjacent churches to meet
together at convenient times, in towns and public places, for the exercise
of prophecying and interpreting of Scripture, according to that form
commended to the church at Corinth, 1 Cor. xiv. 29-32. For yet could the
churches be governed by the common council and advice of presbyteries,
which being necessary by apostolic institution, and being the foundation
and ground of our presbyteries, it maketh them necessary too.

3. After the golden age of the apostles was spent and away, presbyteries,
finding themselves disturbed with emulations, contentions, and factions,
for unity’s sake, chose one of their number to preside among them, and to
confer, in name of the rest, the rite and sign of initiation (which was
imposition of hands) on them whom they ordained ministers. This honour did
the presbyters yield to him who was specially and peculiarly called
bishop, _jure humano_; yet the act of ordination they still reserved in
their own power. And wheresoever the act doth thus remain in the power of
the whole presbytery, the conferring of the outward sign or rite by one in
the name of the rest, none of us condemneth, as may be seen in Beza,
Didoclavius, and Gersom Bucer. Neither is there any more meant by
Jerome(1038) when he saith, “What doth a bishop (ordination being
excepted) which a presbyter may not do?” For, 1. He speaketh not of the
act of ordination, which remained in the power of the presbytery, but of
the outward sign or rite, which synedochically he calls ordination.(1039)
2. He speaketh only of the custom of that time, and not of any divine
institution; for that the imposition of hands pertained to the bishop
alone, not by divine institution, but only by ecclesiastical custom,
Junius proveth(1040) out of Tertullian, Jerome and Ambrose.

4. Afterward bishops began to appropriate to themselves that power which
pertained unto them _jure devoluto_, as if it had been their own _jure
proprio_. Yet so that some vestiges of the ancient order have still
remained; for both Augustine and Ambrose (whose words, most plain to this
purpose, are cited by Dr Forbesse(1041)) testify that, in their time, in
Alexandria and all Egypt, the presbyters gave ordination when a bishop was
not present. The canon law(1042) ordaineth that, in giving of ordination,
presbyters lay on their hands, together with the bishop’s hands. And it is
holden by many Papists (of whom Dr Forbesse(1043) allegeth some for the
same point) that any simple presbyter (whom they call a priest) may, with
the Pope’s commandment or concession, give valid ordination. That which
maketh them grant so much is, because they dare not deny that presbyters
have the power of ordination _jure divino_. Yet saith Panormitanus,(1044)
_Olim presbytery in communi regebant ecclesiam, et ordinabant sacradotes._
The Doctor himself holdeth, that one simple presbyter howsoever having, by
virtue of his presbyterial order, power to give ordination, _quod ad actum
primum sive aptitudinem_, yet _quo ad exercitium_ cannot validly give
ordination without a commission from the bishop or from the presbytery, if
either there be no bishop, or else he be a heretic or wolf. But I would
learn why may not the presbytery validly ordain, either by themselves, or
by any one presbyter with commission and power from them, even where there
is a bishop (and he no heretic) who consenteth not thereto; for the
Doctor(1045) acknowledgeth, that not only _quo ad aptitudinem_, but even
_quo ad plenariam ordinationis executionem_, the same power pertaineth to
the presbytery _collegialiter_, which he allegeth (but proveth not) that
the apostles gave to bishops _personaliter_.

Now from all these things princes may learn how to reform their own and
the prelates’ usurpation, and how to reduce the orders and vocation of
ecclesiastical persons unto conformity with the apostolic and primitive
pattern, from which if they go on either to enjoin or to permit a
departing, we leave them to be judged by the King of terrors.

DIGRESSION II.

OF THE CONVOCATION AND MODERATION OF SYNODS.

Touching the convocation of synods, we resolve with the Professors of
Leyden,(1046) that if a prince do so much as tolerate the order and
regiment of the church to be public, his consent and authority should be
craved, and he may also design the time, place, and other circumstances;
but much more,(1047) if he be a Christian and orthodox prince, should his
consent, authority, help, protection, and safeguard be sought and granted.
And that according to the example, both of godly kings in the Old
Testament, and of Christian emperors and kings in the New.(1048) Chiefly,
then, and justly(1049) the magistrate may and ought to urge and require
synods, when they of the ecclesiastical order cease from doing their duty.
_Veruntamen si contra_,(1050) &c. “Nevertheless (say they), if,
contrariwise, the magistrate be an enemy and persecutor of the church and
of true religion, or cease to do his duty; that is, to wit, in a manifest
danger of the church, the church notwithstanding ought not to be wanting
to herself, but ought to use the right and authority of convocation, which
first and foremost remaineth with the rulers of the church, as may be
seen, Acts xv.”

But that this be not thought a tenet of anti-episcopal writers alone, let
us hear what is said by one of our greatest opposites:(1051) _Neque
defendimus ita_, &c.: “Neither do we so defend that the right of
convocating councils pertaineth to princes, as that the ecclesiastical
prelates may no way either assemble themselves together by mutual consent,
or be convocated by the authority of the metropolitan, primate, or
patriarch. For the apostles did celebrate councils without any convocation
of princes. So many councils that were celebrate before the first Nicea,
were, without all doubt, gathered together by the means alone of
ecclesiastical persons; for to whom directly the church is fully
committed, they ought to bear the care of the church. Yet princes in some
respect indirectly, for help and aid, chiefly then when the prelates
neglect to convocate councils, or are destitute of power for doing of the
same, of duty may, and use to convocate them.” Where we see his judgment
to be, that the power of convocating councils pertaineth directly to
ecclesiastical persons, and to princes only indirectly, for that they
ought to give help and aid to the convocation of the same, especially when
churchmen either will not or cannot assemble themselves together. His
reasons whereupon he groundeth his judgment are two, and those strong
ones.

1. The apostolical councils, Acts vi. 2; iv. 16, and so many as were
assembled before the first council of Nice, were not convocated by
princes, but by ecclesiastical persons without the leave of princes;
therefore, in the like cases, the church ought to use the like liberty,
that is, when there is need of synods, either for preventing or reforming
some corruptions in the doctrine or policy of the church; and for avoiding
such inconveniences as may impede the course of the gospel (princes in the
meantime being hostile opposites to the truth of God and to the purity of
religion), then to convocate the same without their authority and leave.

2. The church is fully committed (and that directly) to the ministers whom
Christ hath set to rule over the same; therefore they ought to take care
and to provide for all her necessities as those who must give account, and
be answerable to God for any hurt which she receiveth in things spiritual
or ecclesiastical, for which (when they might) they did not provide a
remedy, which being so, it followeth, that when princes will neither
convocate synods, nor consent to the convocating of them, yet if the
convocating of a synod be a necessary mean for healing of the church’s
hurt, and ecclesiastical persons be able (through the happy occasion of a
fit opportunity) synodically to assemble themselves, in that case they
ought by themselves to come together, unless one would say that princes
alone, and not pastors, must give account to God how it hath gone with the
church in matters spiritual and ecclesiastical.

If it be objected that our divines maintain against Papists, that the
right and power of convocating synods pertaineth to princes: _Ans._, And
so say I; but for making the purpose more plain I add three directions: 1.
In ordinary cases, and when princes are not enemies to the truth and
purity of the gospel, ecclesiastical persons should not do well to
assemble themselves together in a synod, except they be convocate with the
authority or consent of princes. Yet, as Junius showeth,(1052) in
extraordinary cases, and when the magistrate will not concur nor join with
the church, the church may well assemble and come together beside his
knowledge, and without his consent, for that extraordinary evils must have
extraordinary remedies. 2. Ecclesiastical persons may convocate councils
simply, and by a spiritual power and jurisdiction; but to convocate them
by a temporal and coactive power, pertaineth to princes only.
“Ecclesiastical power (saith the Archbishop of Spalato(1053)) may appoint
and convocate councils; but yet the ecclesiastical power itself cannot,
with any effect or working, compel bishops, especially if the bishops of
another province, or kingdom, or patriarchship, be to be convocated. For
because the church can work by her censures, and deprive them who refuse
of her communion, if they come not, yet they shall not therefore come to
the council if they contemn the censure; therefore that no man may be able
to resist, it is necessary that they be called by a coactive authority,
which can constrain them who gainstand, both with banishments and bodily
punishments, and compel the bishops, not only of one province, but also of
the whole kingdom or empire, to convene.” 3. In the main and substantial
respects, the convocations of councils pertaineth to the ministers of the
church, that is, as councils are ecclesiastical meetings, for putting
order to ecclesiastical matters, they ought to be assembled by the
spiritual power of the ministers, whose part it is to espy and note all
the misorders and abuses in the church, which must be righted; but because
councils are such meetings as must have a certain place designed for them
in the dominions and territories of princes, needing further, for their
safe assembling, a certification of their princely protection; and,
finally, it being expedient for the better success of councils, that
Christian princes be present therein, either personal or by their
commissioners, that they may understand the councils, conclusions, and
decrees, and assenting unto the same, ratify and establish them by their
regal and royal authority, because of these circumstances it is, that the
consent and authority of Christian princes is, and ought to be, sought and
expected for the assembling of synods.

As for the right of presidency and moderation, we distinguish, with
Junius,(1054) two sorts of it, both which have place in councils, viz.,
the moderation of the ecclesiastical action, and the moderation of the
human order; and with him we say, that in councils, the whole
ecclesiastical action ought to be moderated by such a president as is
elected for the purpose; even as Hosius, bishop of Corduba, was chosen to
preside in the first council of Nice: which office agreeth not with
princes; for in the point of propounding rightly the state of questions
and things to be handled, and of containing the disputation in good order,
_certe præsidere debet persona ecclesiastica, in sacris literis erudita_,
saith the Archbishop of Spalato.(1055) The presiding and moderating in the
human order, that is, by a coactive power to compass the turbulent, to
avoid all confusion and contention, and to cause a peaceable proceeding
and free deliberation, pertaineth indeed to princes, and so did
Constantine preside in the same council of Nice.

DIGRESSION III.

OF THE JUDGING OF CONTROVERSIES AND QUESTIONS OF FAITH.

There is a twofold judgment which discerneth and judgeth of faith. The one
absolute, whereby the Most High God, whose supreme authority alone bindeth
us to believe whatsoever he propoundeth to be believed by us, hath in his
written word pronounced, declared, and established, what he would have us
to believe concerning himself or his worship; the other limited and
subordinate, which is either public or private. That which is public is
either ordinary or extraordinary. The ministerial or subordinate public
judgment, which I call ordinary, is the judgment of every pastor or
doctor, who, by reason of his public vocation and office, ought by his
public ministry to direct and instruct the judgments of other men in
matters of faith, which judgment of pastors and doctors is limited and
restricted to the plain warrants and testimonies of Holy Scripture, they
themselves being only the ambassadors(1056) of the Judge to preach and
publish the sentence which he hath established, so that a pastor is not
properly _judex_ but _index_. The subordinate public judgment, which is
extraordinary, is the judgment of a council assembled for the more public
and effectual establishment and declaration of one or more points of faith
and heads of Christian doctrine, and that in opposition to all contrary
heresy or error, which is broached and set a-foot in the church. From
which council,(1057) no Christian man who is learned in the Scriptures may
be excluded, but ought to be admitted to utter his judgment in the same;
for in the indagation or searching out of a matter of faith, they are not
the persons of men which give authority to their sayings, but the reasons
and documents which every one bringeth for his judgment. The subordinate
judgment, which I call private, is the judgment of discretion whereby
every Christian,(1058) for the certain information of his own mind, and
the satisfaction of his own conscience, may and ought to try and examine,
as well the decrees of councils as the doctrines of particular pastors,
and in so far to receive and believe the same, as he understandeth them to
agree with the Scriptures.

Besides these, there is no other kind of judgment which God hath allowed
to men in matters of faith, which being first observed, we say next,
concerning the part of princes, that when questions and controversies of
faith are tossed in the church, that which pertaineth to them is, to
convocate a council for the decision of the matter, civilly to moderate
the same, by causing such an orderly and peaceable proceeding as is alike
necessary in every grave assembly, whether of the church or of the
commonwealth; and, finally, by their coactive temporal power to urge and
procure that the decrees of the council be received, and the faith therein
contained professed, by their subjects.

But neither may they, by their own authority and without a council, decide
any controverted matter of faith, nor yet having convocated a council, may
they take upon them to command, rule, order, and dispose the disputes and
deliberations according to their arbitrement; nor, lastly, may they, by
virtue of their regal dignity, claim any power to examine the decrees
concluded in the council, otherwise than by the judgment of private
discretion which is common to every Christian.

First, I say, they may not by themselves presume, publicly and judicially,
to decide and define any matter of faith, which is questioned in the
church; but this definition they ought to remit unto a lawful and free
council. Ambrose would not come to the court to be questioned and judged
by the emperor Valentinian in a matter of faith, whenever he heard that
emperors judged bishops in matters of faith, seeing, if that were granted,
it would follow that laymen should dispute and debate matters, and bishops
hear, yea, that bishops should learn of laymen.

The true ground of which refusal (clear enough in itself) is darkened by
Dr Field,(1059) who allegeth, 1. That the thing which Valentinian took on
him was, to judge of a thing already resolved in a general council called
by Constantine, as if it had been free, and not yet judged of at all. 2.
That Valentinian was known to be partial; that he was but a novice; and
the other judges which he meant to associate himself suspected; but
howsoever these circumstances might serve the more to justify Ambrose’s
not compearing to be judged in a matter of faith by Valentinian, yet the
Doctor toucheth not that which is most considerable, namely, the reason
which he alleged for his not compearing, because it hath been at no time
heard of that emperors judged bishops in matters of faith, and if that
were granted, it would follow that bishops should learn of laymen; which
reason holdeth ever good, even though the thing hath not been formerly
judged by a council.

And, furthermore, if those (which the Doctor mentioneth) were the true
reasons of his refusing to be judged by Valentinian, then why did he
pretend another reason (whereof we have heard), and not rather defend
himself with the real and true reason? Wherefore we gather, that the
reason which made Ambrose refuse to be judged by him was no other than
this, because he considered that princes, neither by themselves, nor by
any whom they please to choose, may, without a lawfully assembled and free
council, usurp a public judgment and decisive sentence in controversies of
faith, which, if they arrogate to themselves, they far exceed the bounds
of their vocation; for it is not said of princes, but of priests, that
their lips should preserve knowledge, and that they should seek the law
from their mouths, Mal. ii. 7. And the priests did Jehoshaphat set in
“Jerusalem, for the judgment of the Lord, and for controversies,” 2 Chron.
xix. 8, 10, and for judging betwixt law and commandment, statutes and
judgments.

In the meanwhile we deny not but that in extraordinary cases, when lawful
councils cannot be had, and when the clergy is universally corrupted
through gross ignorance, perverse affections, and incorrigible negligence,
in such a case the prince, notwithstanding the defect of the ordinary and
regular judges, may yet, by the power of the civil sword, repress and
punish so many as publish and spread such doctrines as both he and other
Christians, by the judgment of discretion, plainly understand from
Scripture to be heretical.

Next, I say, that the prince, having assembled a council, may not take so
much upon him as imperiously to command what he thinketh good in the
disputes and deliberations, and to have everything ordered, disposed, and
handled according to his mind. “To debate and define theological
controversies, and to teach what is orthodoxal, what heretical, is the
office of divines, yet, by a coactive authority, to judge this orthodox
faith to be received by all, and heretical pravity to be rejected, is the
office of kings, or the supreme magistrates, in every commonwealth,” saith
the Bishop of Salisbury.(1060) And, again,(1061) “In searching, directing,
teaching, divines ordinarily, and by reason of their calling, ought to go
before kings themselves; but in commanding, establishing, compelling,
kings do far excel:” where he showeth how, in defining of the
controversies of religion, in one respect ecclesiastical persons, and in
another respect kings, have the first place.

In the debating of a question of faith, kings have not, by virtue of their
princely vocation, any precedency or chief place, the action being merely
ecclesiastical. For howbeit kings may convocate a council, preside also
and govern the same as concerning the human and political order, yet,
saith Junius,(1062) _Actiones, deliberationes, et definitiones, ad
substantiam rei ecclesiasticae pertinentes, a sacerdotio sunt, a caetu
servoram Dei, quibus rei suoe administrationem mandavit Deus._ And, with
him, the Archbishop of Spalato saith, in like manner,(1063) that howbeit
Christian princes have convocated councils, and civilly governed the same,
yet they had no power nor authority in the very discussing, handling and
deciding of matters of faith.

What then? In the handling of controversies of faith, have princes no
place nor power at all beside that of political government only? Surely,
by virtue of their princely authority, they have no other place in the
handling of these matters. Yet, what if they be men of singular learning
and understanding in the Scriptures? Then let them propound their own
suffrage, with the grounds and reasons of it, even as other learned men in
the council do. But neither as princes, nor as men singularly learned, may
they require that others in the council shall dispute and debate matters,
and that they themselves shall sit as judges having judicial power of a
negative voice; for in a council no man’s voice hath any greater strength
than his reasons and probation have. _Non enim admitto_, &c: “For I admit
not in a council (saith the same prelate(1064)) some as judges, others as
disputators, for I have showed that a conciliary judgment consisteth in
the approbation of that sentence which, above others, hath been showed to
have most weight, and to which no man could enough oppose. Wherefore no
man in the council ought to have a judiciary voice, unless he be withal a
disputator, and assigns a reason wherefore he assigns to that judgment and
repels another, and that reason such a one as is drawn from the Scripture
only, and from antiquity.”

Lastly, I hold, that, after the definition and decision of a council,
princes may not take upon them, by any judicial power or public vocation,
to examine the same, as if they had authority to pronounce yet another
decisive sentence, either ratifying or reversing what the council hath
decreed. Most certain it is, that, before princes give their royal assent
unto the decrees of any council whatsoever, and compel men to receive and
acknowledge the same, they ought, first of all, carefully to try and
examine them whether they agree with the Scriptures or not; and, if they
find them not to agree with the Scriptures, then to deny their assent and
authority thereto. But all the princes do not by any judicial power or
public authority, but only by the judgment of private discretion, which
they have as Christians, and which, together with them, is common also to
their subjects; for neither may a master of a family commend to his
children and servants the profession of that faith which is published by
the decrees of a council, except, in like manner, he examine the same by
the Scriptures.

DIGRESSION IV.

OF THE POWER OF THE KEYS, AND ECCLESIASTICAL CENSURES.

Ecclesiastical censures and punishments, wherewith delinquents are bound,
and from which, when they turn penitents, they are loosed, are of two
sorts: either such as are common, and agree unto all, as excommunication
and absolution; or such as are peculiar, and agree only to men of
ecclesiastical order, as suspension, deprivation, &c.

As touching the power of the keys, to bind and loose, excommunicate and
absolve; first of all, princes are to remember, that neither they may, by
themselves, exercise this power (for _regum est corporalem irrogare
paenam; sacerdotum spiritualem inferre vindictam_(1065)), nor yet by their
deputies or commissioners in their name, and with authority from them;
because, as they have not themselves the power of the keys, so neither can
they communicate the same unto others. Secondly, Forasmuch as princes are
the wardens, defenders, and revengers of both the Tables, they ought,
therefore, to provide and take course that neither laymen be permitted to
have and exercise, the power of excommunication, nor yet that the prelates
themselves be suffered, in their particular dioceses, to appropriate this
power and external jurisdiction, as peculiar to themselves; but that it
remain in their hands to whom it pertaineth by divine institution. What a
woeful abuse is it, that, in our neighbour churches of England and
Ireland, the bishop’s vicar-general, or official, or commissary, being
oftentimes such a one as hath never entered into any holy orders, shall
sit in his courts to use (I should have said abuse) the power of
excommunication and absolution? And what though some silly presbyter be
present in the court? Doth not the bishop’s substitute, being a layman,
examine and judge the whole matter, decree, and give sentence what is to
be done? Hath he not the presbyter’s tongue tied to his belt? And what
doth the presbyter more but only pronounce the sentence according to that
which he who sitteth judge in the court hath decreed and decerned? As
touching the prelates themselves, I pray, by what warrant have they
appropriated to themselves the whole external jurisdiction of binding and
loosing, excommunicating and absolving? But that we may a little scan this
their usurpation, and discover the iniquity thereof to the view of the
princes, whose part it is to cause the same to be reformed, let us
consider to whom Christ himself, who hath the key of David (Rev. iii. 7),
who openeth and no man shutteth, and shutteth and no man openeth, hath
committed this power of the keys to be used on earth. And, first, Let us
distinguish betwixt the power itself, and the execution of it.

The power and authority of binding and loosing Christ hath delivered to
the whole church, that is, to every particular church collectively taken.
“The authority of excommunication pertaineth to the whole church,” saith
Dr Fulk.(1066) _Jus excommunicandi_, saith Balduine,(1067) _non est penes
quamvis privatum, sive ex ordine sit ecclesiastico, sive politico_, &c.
_Sed hoc jus pertiner ad totam ecclesiam._ So say Zanchius (in 4 Praec.,
col. 756), Polanus (_Synt._, lib. 7, cap. 18), Pareus (in 1 Cor. v., _De
Excom._), Cartwright (on 1 Cor. v. 4), Perkins (on Jude 3): and,
generally, all our sound writers. The Magdeburgians(1068) cite, for the
same judgment, Augustine and Primatius. Gerhard(1069) citeth also some
popish writers assenting hereunto. The reasons which we give for
confirmation hereof are these:—

1. It pertaineth to the whole church, collectively taken, to deny her
Christian communion to such wicked persons as add contumacy to their
disobedience: therefore, it pertaineth to the whole church to
excommunicate them. Again, it pertaineth to the whole church to admit and
receive one into her communion and familiar fellowship: therefore, to the
whole church it likewise pertaineth to cast one out of her communion.
Sure, the sentence of excommunication is pronounced in vain, except the
whole church cut off the person thus judged from all communion with her:
and the sentence of absolution is to as little purpose pronounced, except
the whole church admit one again to have communion with her. Shortly, the
whole church hath the power of punishing a man, by denying her communion
unto him: therefore, the whole church hath the power of judging that he
ought to be so punished. The whole church hath the power of remitting this
punishment again: therefore, the whole church hath the power of judging
that it ought to be remitted.

2. The Apostle, in 1 Cor. v., showeth that the Israelites’ purging away of
leaven out of their dwellings in the time of the passover, was a figure of
excommunication, whereby disobedient and obstinate sinners, who are as
leaven to infect other men, are to be avoided and thrust out of the
church. Now, as the purging away of the leaven did not peculiarly belong
unto any one, or some few, among the Israelites, but unto the whole
congregation of Israel; so the Apostle, writing to the whole church of
Corinth, even to as many as should take care to have the whole lump kept
unleavened, saith to them all, “Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth
the whole lump? Purge out, therefore, the old leaven. Put away from among
yourselves that wicked person,” 1 Cor. v. 6, 7, 13.

3. Christ hath delivered the power of binding and loosing to every
particular church or congregation, collectively taken, which thus we
demonstrate:—If our brother who trespasseth against us will neither be
reclaimed by private admonition, nor yet by a rebuke given him before some
more witnesses, then, saith Christ, “Tell it unto the church; but if he
neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a
publican. Verily, I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall
be bound in heaven, and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed
in heaven,” Matt. xviii. 17, 18: where he showeth, that, in the Christian
church (which he was to plant by the ministry of the apostles),
excommunication was to be used as the last remedy for curing of the most
deadly and desperate evils; which excommunication he setteth forth by
allusion unto the order and custom of the Jews in his time, among whom
they who were cast out, and excommunicate from the synagogue, were
accounted as heathens and publicans. And so when he saith, “Let him be
unto thee as an heathen man and a publican,” he presupposeth that the
church hath excommunicated him for his contumacy, which he hath added to
his disobedience. For, as Pareus saith,(1070) “If by me, and thee, and
every one, he is to be accounted for such a man, it must needs be that the
judgment of the church be, by public declaration, made known to me, and
thee, and every one. And this meaning is thoroughly drawn out of the
following verse—‘For whatsoever ye shall bind on earth,’ &c.; therefore,
the church ought first to bind him before he ought to be accounted by me
or thee for one bound, that is, excommunicate.” Now, what meaneth Christ
by the church, to which he giveth the power of binding and loosing? Not
the church universal, sure; for I cannot tell the church universal
(whether it be understood _collective_ or _representative_) whensoever my
brother trespasseth against me, and will not be reformed. He meaneth,
therefore, the particular church, whereof, for the time, it shall happen
one to be a member. “The power of the keys (saith Perkins(1071)) is given
to all ministers, churches, and congregations.” Neither could there,
otherwise, an ordinary, perpetual, and ready course be had, for the
correcting of all public contumacy and scandal, by the means of
ecclesiastical discipline. But it will be said, when he biddeth us tell
that particular church whereof we are members, he meaneth not that we
should tell the whole body of that church _collective_, but that we should
tell the governors of the church, who are the church _representative_.

How, then, is this place alleged to prove that the whole church
_collective_ hath power and authority to bind and loose?

_Ans._ Christ meaneth, indeed, that we should tell those governors who
represent the church; but whilst he calleth them by the name of the
church, and sendeth us to them as to those who represent the church, he
plainly insinuateth that they exercise the power of the keys (as in his
name, so) in the name of the church, and that this power and authority
pertaineth to the whole church, even as when one man representeth another
man’s person, whatsoever power he exerciseth _eo nomine_, doth first of
all agree to the man who is represented.

4. The Apostle, in his own proper person, writing to the whole church at
Corinth, 1 Cor. v. 4, 5, will have them (being gathered together) to
deliver that incestuous person to Satan; therefore, every particular
church or congregation hath power to excommunicate such a contumacious
sinner as that incestuous person was. It is the common answer of Papists,
that albeit the Apostle commanded the act should be done in face of the
church, yet the judgment and authority of giving sentence was in himself
alone, and not in the church of Corinth, whereupon they would make it to
follow, that the power of excommunication pertaineth to the bishop alone,
and not the church. And the same answer doth Saravia return to Beza;(1072)
but, howsoever, the Apostle saith, that he had already judged concerning
the incestuous person, yet he did not hereby seclude the church of Corinth
from the authority of excommunicating him. “It is to be observed (saith
Calvin(1073)) that Paul, albeit he was an apostle, doth not for his own
will excommunicate alone, but communicateth his council with the church,
that the thing may be done by common authority. Himself, indeed, goeth
before and showeth the way, but whilst he adjoineth to himself other
partakers, he signifieth sufficiently that it is not the private power of
one man.” Nay, let us farther observe with Junius,(1074) that the apostles
hath a twofold power: one common to them with other presbyters, 1 Pet. v.
1; another, singular, proper, and extraordinary, which they had as
apostles. By this singular power Paul saith, “What will ye? shall I come
unto you with a rod?” 1 Cor. iv. 21; but by the common power it was that
he said, “When ye are gathered together, and my spirit,” &c., 1 Cor. v. 4.
By no other power than that which was common to him with the rest of the
presbyters or bishops in Corinth did he judge the incestuous person to be
excommunicated; and thus, as though he had been present in body among the
other presbyters of that church, and assembled together with them in their
ordinary council or consistory (in which _fuerunt liberi apostoli, alii
vero presbyteri ex vocatione propria, et necessitate officii_(1075)), so
he both pronounceth(1076) his own judgment, and likewise goeth before, by
pronouncing that judgment which was to be in common by them pronounced.
Furthermore, that the Apostle would not have that incestuous man to be
excommunicate by his own authority alone, but by the authority of the
church of Corinth, thus it appeareth:

1. The Apostle challengeth and condemneth the Corinthians, 1 Cor. v. 2, 6,
9, because they had not excommunicate him before his writing unto them,
which he would never have done if that church had not had power and
authority of excommunication.

2. Howbeit the Apostle gave his judgment, that he should be excommunicate,
because he ought not to have been tolerated in the church, yet, for all
that, he should not have been indeed excommunicate and thrust out of the
church of Corinth, except the ministers and elders of that church had, in
name of the whole body of the same, judicially cast him forth and
delivered him to Satan, which plainly argueth that he should not have been
excommunicate by the Apostle’s authority alone, but by the authority of
the church of Corinth.

3. The Apostle only showeth that he should be excommunicate, but referreth
the giving of sentence and judgment upon him to the Corinthians; for he
saith not that the Corinthians, being gathered together, should declare or
witness that such an one was delivered to Satan by Paul’s own power and
authority, but that they themselves should deliver him to Satan, ver. 4,
5. And again, “Purge out, therefore, the old leaven; put away from among
yourselves that wicked person,” ver. 7, 13. But, saith Saravia,(1077)
_partes apostoli in illa actione fuerunt authoritatis, ecclesiae vero
Corinthiacae, obedientiae. Ans._ That the action was done by the authority
of the church of Corinth, it is manifest both from that which hath been
said, and likewise if further we consider that the Apostle ascribeth to
the Corinthians as much authority in this action as he assumeth to
himself. For he saith of himself, that he had judged concerning him that
had done this deed, ver. 3; and so he saith of them, “Do not ye judge them
that are within?” ver. 12. Where he speaketh not of the judgment of
private discretion (for so they might have judged them that were without
also), but even of the external and authoritative judgment of
ecclesiastical discipline. The Apostle, indeed, saith, 2 Cor. ii. 9, that
he wrote to the Corinthians to excommunicate that person, that he might
know them, whether they were obedient in all things; but this proveth not
that the authority of the excommunication was not theirs; for their part
in this action proceeded both from authority and from obedience: from
authority, absolutely; from obedience in, in some respect. _De jure_ they
had no liberty nor power not to excommunicate him, but were bound to do
that which Paul pointed out to be their duty, and in that respect he
calleth them obedient; yet absolutely and _de facto_ it was free to them
(notwithstanding of Paul’s writing to them) either to excommunicate him or
not to excommunicate him, and if they had not by their authority
excommunicate him, he had not been at all excommunicate by any virtue of
Paul’s adjudging of him.

4. When the Corinthians proceeded to excommunicate him, the Apostle
calleth this a censure which was inflicted of many, ver. 6, which could
not be said if he was to be excommunicate by the Apostle’s authority
alone.

5. The Apostle, ver. 7, writeth again to the Corinthians, to forgive the
incestuous man, to receive him into their communion, and to remit the
punishment of his excommunication, because he was won to repentance. And
he addeth, ver. 10, “To whom ye forgive anything, I forgive also.” Now,
who can remit the punishment and save one from underlying the censure,
except such as have the power and authority of judgment?

Hitherto we have proven that the power of binding and loosing pertaineth
to every particular church collectively taken; but the execution and
judicial exercising of this power pertaineth to that company and assembly
of elders in every church which the Apostle, 1 Tim. iv. 14, calleth a
presbytery. In Scotland we call it a session; in France it is called a
consistory; in Germany and Belgia, according to the Scripture phrase, it
is termed a presbytery. It is made up of the pastor or pastors of every
congregation, together with those governing elders which labour there (not
in doctrine, but) in discipline only, of which things we have spoken
before.(1078) That unto this company or consistory of elders pertaineth
the power of binding and loosing, it is averred by the best divines:
Calvin (on Matt. viii. 17, 18, _et Lib. Epist._, col. 168, 169), Beza
(_Contra Saraviam de Divers. Minist. Grad._), Zanchius (in 4 _Praec._,
col. 756), Junius (_Animad. in Bell._, cont. 5, lib. 1, cap. 14, nota 28),
Polanus (_Synt._, lib. 7, cap. 18), Tilen (_Synt._, part 2, disp. 28), the
Professors of Leyden (_Syn. Pur. Theol._, disp. 48), Gerhard (_Loc.
Theol._, tom. 6, p. 137, 138), Balduine (_de Cas. Cons._, lib. 4, cap. 11,
cas. 11), Pareus (in Matt, xviii. 17, 18; and in 1 Cor. v.), Cartwright
(in Matt. xviii., sect. 7), Fennerus (_Theol._, lib. 7, cap. 7, p. 152,
153), Alstedius (_Theol. Casuum_, cap. 27), Danæus (_Pol. Christ._, lib.
6, p. 452, 464), Hemmingius (_Enchirid._, class. 3, cap. 11, p. 388),
Martyr (in 1 Cor. v.), and sundry others. Bullinger recordeth(1079) that
this was the manner of the particular churches in Helvetia, to choose unto
themselves a certain senate of elders, or company of the best men in the
church, which might, according to the canon of holy Scripture, exercise
the discipline of excommunication, which form is well warranted by the
Scriptures; for when Christ committeth the authority of binding and
loosing unto the church, Matt. viii. 17, 18, however the power and
authority itself pertain to any particular church collectively taken, as
hath been said, yet the execution of the same is committed to the
consistory or senate of elders which representeth that church, and which
Paul calleth a presbytery. Zanchius saith that Chrysostom,(1080)
Bullinger, and all good interpreters, understand the presbytery to be
there meant by Christ when he saith, “Tell the church.” Chrysostom saith
προίδροις καὶ προεστῶσι, that is, saith Junius,(1081) the ecclesiastical
sanhedrim made up of pastors and elders. Thus Camero likewise expoundeth
the place.(1082) _Ecclesiæ nomine_, saith he, _videtur Christus
significasse collegium presbyterorum qui ecelesiæ Christianæ erant
præfuturi, cujus presbyterii mentio fit_, 1 Tim. iv. Now if Christ hath
committed the power of excommunication unto the church, what have bishops
to say for themselves who appropriate this power unto themselves, each one
in his diocese? For when we cannot give the name of the church unto a
bishop,(1083) because he is but one man, and the church is a company of
many men; nay, nor yet can we give the name of the church unto a company
of bishops, for if they might be called the church, it should be for this
respect alone, because they represent the church: but _soli episcopi_,
&c., “Bishops alone (saith Gerhard(1084)), or they who teach, cannot
represent the church, since hearers also pertain to the definition
thereof, but the presbytery can represent the church, whereunto not only
they pertain who labour in the word, but also elders or governors put in
authority for expeding of ecclesiastical matters in name of the whole
church:” we grant, then, that by the church, Christ meaneth that company
of church governors whereby a certain particular church is
represented;(1085) but forasmuch as the church consisteth of two integrant
parts, viz., pastors and sheep, teachers and hearers, we therefore deny
that the representative church whereof Christ speaketh, can be any other
than that ecclesiastical consistory whereof we have spoken.

Moreover, albeit the Apostle wrote to the whole church of Corinth to
deliver the incestuous man to Satan, because the matter could not be
otherwise done, but only in the name and with the consent of that whole
church; yet he never meant that the common promiscuous multitude should,
by their suffrages and voices, examine and judge that cause. But, saith
Calvin,(1086) “Because the multitude, unless it be governed by council,
never doth anything moderately nor gravely, there was ordained in the
ancient church (meaning the apostolic church) a presbytery; that is, a
company of elders which, by the consent of all, had the first judgment and
examination of things; from it the matter was carried to the people, but
being already determined before.” Again, when the Apostle writeth to them
in his second epistle that they should forgive him, because he hath
repented, thus he reasoneth: “Sufficient to such a man is this censure
which was inflicted of many,” 2 Cor. ii. 6. Which words, that we may the
better understand, it is worthy of observation (which not Calvin
only,(1087) but Saravia also noteth(1088)), that it appeareth from this
place, he was not to excommunicate, but, by sharp rebukes, timeously win
to repentance, whereby the Apostle showeth it to be needless, yea, most
inconvenient, to proceed against him to the extremity of discipline. The
word ἐπιτιμία, there used by the Apostle, signifieth rebuke, reprehension,
or chiding, saith Dr Fulk;(1089) and so Scapula taketh it to be the same
with ἐπιτίμησις and to signify another thing than ἐπιτίμιον or ἐπιτιμημα.
Beza and Tremellius turn ἐπιπμία by _increpatio_; Ar. Montanus readeth
_objurgatio_. This chiding or threatening of the man proceeded not from
the whole church of Corinth, but only from many therein, as is plain from
the text, and as Saravia also granteth.(1090) And who were the πλέιοιες,
those _many_ of whom the Apostle speaketh? Not such as, from Christian and
brotherly charity, did privately chide and rebuke him, for the matter was
not then depending in private rebukes, but by the Apostle’s direction it
was brought to the church’s part and to public discipline, the scandal
itself being so public and notoriously manifest; they were, therefore,
such as had public office and authority to chide him. And who were those
but the consistory of pastors and elders which represented the whole
church, and were set in authority for judging and managing of things
pertaining to ecclesiastical discipline? They (no doubt) being met
together, called the man before them, and did most sharply rebuke him and
chide with him, and threatened that they would not only debar him from the
Lord’s table (which is called lesser excommunication, but more properly a
step or degree tending next to excommunication), but also wholly cast him
out of the church and deliver him to Satan. Whereupon the man being made
to see the grievousness of his sin, and the terrible punishment which was
to follow upon it, becometh most sorrowful, humble, and penitent. And this
moved the Apostle to say, “Sufficient to such a man,” &c., as if he would
say, What needeth him now to be excommunicate, and so to be corrected and
put to shame by you all, when every one of you shall deny to him your
Christian communion, as one wholly cast out of the church? Is it not
enough that many among you, even your whole presbytery, hath put him to
such public shame by their sharp reprehensions, and to so great fear by
their dreadful threatenings? And since, through the blessing of God upon
these means, he is already win to repentance, why would you have him yet
more publicly corrected and rejected by all and every one.

And further, the Apostle addeth, that now they should not only forgive and
comfort him, ver. 7, but also confirm (κυρῶσαι) their love towards him,
ver. 8. Now κύροω signifieth to confirm or ratify by authority; and so
Chemnitius,(1091) Bullinger,(1092) and Cartwright,(1093) expoundeth it in
this place. It cometh from κῦρος, _authority_, whence cometh also κύριος,
a _lord_, or one having authority. As, therefore, the presbytery, or
company of pastors and elders, had, by their authority, established that
he was to be excommunicate, and determined to proceed to the execution of
extreme discipline against him, so now the Apostle would have them, by the
same authority, to ratify and establish the remission of this punishment
unto him, and to decree that the church should not deny her communion unto
him. For this authority of binding and loosing, though it pertained to the
whole church, _in actu primo sive in esse_, yet it pertained to the
presbytery alone, _in actu secundo sive in operara_; and even as the act
of speaking pertaineth to a man, as _principium quod_, but to the tongue
alone, as _principium quo_; so albeit the power of the keys doth primarily
and principally belong to the church, collectively taken, yet the actual
execution of this power belongeth only to the presbytery which
representeth the church, and unto which the church hath committed her
authority to bind and loose. Wherefore, since the Apostle writeth to the
whole church of Corinth to confirm, by their authority, their love to the
penitent man; and since this authority, in the actual execution of it
(which the Apostle craveth) did not agree to that whole church,
collectively taken, we must needs understand his meaning to be, that their
love towards that man, and their forgiving of him, should be ratified and
confirmed by the authority of those church governors, _qui ecclesiae nomen
ad coetum repraesentant, totius nimirum presbyterii authoritate atque
consensu_.

Thus have we showed that the actual use of the keys, or the execution of
the authority of binding and loosing, pertaineth to that ecclesiastical
senate in every particular church, which the Apostle calleth a presbytery.
For further illustration of the truth whereof, I add these four
observations:—

1. We must distinguish(1094) a twofold power of the keys: the one is
executed in doctrine; the other in discipline: the one _concionalis_; the
other _judicialis_. Touching the former, we grant it is proper for pastors
alone, whose office and vocation it is, by the preaching and publishing of
God’s word, to shut the kingdom of heaven against impenitent and
disobedient men, and to open it unto penitent sinners; to bind God’s heavy
wrath upon the former, and (by application of the promises of mercy) to
loose the latter from the sentence and fear of condemnation. When we
ascribe the power of binding and loosing to that whole consistory, wherein
governing elders are joined together with pastors, we mean only of the
keys of external discipline, which are used in ecclesiastical courts and
judicatories.

2. When we teach that the pastor or pastors of every particular church and
congregation, with the elders of the same, being met together, have power
to bind and loose, we understand this only of such places wherein a
competent number of understanding and qualified men may be had to make up
an eldership; otherwise let there be one eldership made up of two or three
of the next adjacent parishes, according as was ordained by the Church of
Scotland, in the 7th chapter of the Second Book of Discipline. _Sine
totius_ &c.: “Without the consent of some whole church (saith
Zanchius(1095)) no man ought to be excommunicate. Yea, I add, if it be a
small church, and not consisting of many learned and skilful men,
excommunication ought not to be done, except the neighbour churches be
asked counsel of.” And, as touching the pastor’s part, Calvin saith well,
_Nunquam_, &c.:(1096) “I never thought it expedient the liberty of
excommunicating should be permitted to every pastor.” The fear of great
inconveniences, which he thought likely to follow upon such a custom, if
once it were permitted, makes him confess, in that epistle, that he durst
not advise Liserus to excommunicate any man without taking counsel of
other pastors. Now, I much marvel what butt Dr Forbesse(1097) shot at when
he entitleth one of his chapters _De Potestate Excommunicandi_, and then,
in the body of the chapter, doth no more at all but only quote those two
testimonies of Zanchius and Calvin; both of which do utterly condemn the
usurpation of bishops who appropriate to themselves the power of
excommunication, and ascribe this power to the consistory of pastors and
elders in every particular church; and, in the forequoted places, do only
(for preventing of abuses) set some bounds to the execution of their
power; which bounds we also think good to be kept, viz., that if a church
be so small that it hath not so many well-qualified men as may be
sufficient to assist the pastor in the government thereof, then let one
common eldership be made up out of it and some other neighbour churches:
by which means it shall moreover come to pass (which is the other caution
to be given), that not every pastor (no not with the elders of his
congregation) shall be permitted to have full liberty of binding and
loosing, but shall, in those matters, receive counsel and advice from
other pastors. Howbeit, for this latter purpose, the church of Scotland
hath profitably provided another remedy also, namely, that, in certain
chief places, all the pastors in the adjacent bounds shall, at set and
ordinary times, assemble themselves (which assemblies, in this nation, we
call presbyteries), that so the churches may be governed _communi
presbyterorum consilio_, as Jerome speaketh of the primitive times of the
church.

3. Though the execution of the discipline of excommunication and
absolution pertain to the consistory of the pastor and elders in every
church, yet this discipline is to be by them executed in name of the whole
church.(1098) Saravia is bold to affirm,(1099) that he who receiveth a
sinner, or casteth him out of the church, doeth this in the name and
authority of God alone. We have proven, by strong arguments, that the
authority of excommunication pertaineth to the whole church; which, though
he contradicteth, yet, in one place,(1100) forgetting himself, he
acknowledges that the authority of the church of Corinth was to intervene
in the excommunication of the incestuous man. Wherefore, as in the name of
God, so in the name and authority of the whole church, must one be cast
out or received.

4. To the right execution of this discipline the manifest consent of the
whole church is also necessary:(1101) the truth whereof, beside that it
appeareth from that which hath been said concerning the church’s
authority, it is further confirmed, if we consider either the importance
of the thing, or the good of the person. Touching the importance of the
thing, _Gravissima_, &c.: “Most weighty matters in the church,” saith
Gerhard,(1102) and the same saith Zanchius also,(1103) “ought not to be
undertaken without the consent of the whole ecclesiastical body;” and, as
Pope Leo writeth, “Such things as pertain unto all ought to be done with
the consent of all. But what can be more weighty, and what doth more
pertain to the body of the church, than to cut off some member from the
body?” And, touching the good of the person, Augustine showeth(1104) that
then only a sinner is both stricken with fear and healed with shame, when,
seeing himself anathematised by the whole church, he cannot find a fellow
multitude together wherewith he may rejoice in his sin and insult upon
good men. And that otherwise, if the tares grow so rank that they cannot
be pulled up, and if the same evil disease take hold of so very many that
the consent of the church cannot be had to the excommunication of a wicked
person, then good men must grieve and groan, and endure what they cannot
help. Therefore that excommunication may fruitfully succeed, the consent
of the people is necessary: _Frustra enim ejicitur ex ecclesia, et
consortio fidelium privatur, quem populus, abigere, et a quo abstinere
recuset._(1105) Howbeit, even in such cases, when the consent of the
church cannot be had to the execution of this discipline, faithful pastors
and professors must, every one for his own part, take heed that he have no
fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but even reprove them;
yea, they ought, _in. sensu negativo_, excommunicate those who should be
(but are not) excommunicate positively, which negative excommunication is
not an ecclesiastical censure, but either a bare punishment, or a cautel
and animadversion; and so saith the Archbishop of Spalato,(1106) not only
one brother may refuse to communicate with another, but a people, also,
may refuse to communicate with their pastor, which he confirmeth by
certain examples. But the public censure of positive excommunication
should not be inflicted without the church’s consent, for the reasons
foresaid. Cyprian writeth to Cornelius, bishop 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 again received into the communion of the
church; which, if he might have done by himself, why did he labour and
deal so much with the people in that business? And as they were not
received into the church’s communion without the people’s consent, so
neither were they without their consent excommunicate. Chrysostom
showeth,(1107) concerning his time, that when one was to be excommunicate,
the whole church was humbled in prayer to God for him; and, when he was
again released, they did all kindly salute him, and wish him peace.
Tertullian also writeth,(1108) that he who was to be excommunicate in the
public assembly of the church, was, by the common consent of all, stricken
with judgment, and that all the approven and well-liked elders had the
precedence or direction of the rest of the church in these matters.

Now, from all this which hath been said of the power and authority to
excommunicate and absolve, it is manifest how unjustly usurping prelates
do arrogate and appropriate to themselves this power, which Christ hath
committed to every particular church or congregation, and ordained to be
execute by the ecclesiastical consistory within the same. Which episcopal
usurpation, as it hath been showed to be most contrary to divine
institution, so doth it also depart from the manner of the ancient church:
for it may be seen, in Cyprian,(1109) that the authority of reconciling
and receiving into the church such as had fallen, was not proper to the
bishop, but, with him, common to his clergy and presbytery, and that _jus
communicationis_ was given them by the clergy as well as by the bishop. We
have heard, out of Jerome,(1110) that a bishop did nothing which a
presbyter did not also, except only that he gave rite or sign of
ordination, that is, imposition of hands. Whereby we understand that as
all other things, beside ordination, so the power of excommunication,
among the rest, was alike common to bishops and presbyters. Whence it is,
that the same Jerome, writing to Demetriades, calleth excommunication
_Episcoporum et Presbyterorum censura_. And elsewhere, _Alligat vel solvit
Episcopus et Presbyter._(1111) Justinian (_Novel_. 123, cap. 11) saith,
_Omnibus autem Episcopis et Presbyteris interdicimus segregare aliquem a
sacra communione, antequam causa monstretur_, &c., certifying them, if
they do otherwise, that he whom they excommunicate should be loosed from
excommunication _a majore sacerdota_. Whence we see, that presbyters also
were wont to excommunicate, and that this power was common to them with
the bishops. The First Council of Carthage, can. 23, decreeth that a
bishop hear no man’s cause without the presence of his clergy; and that
otherwise his sentence shall be void, except it be confirmed by the
presence of his clergy. The canon law itself hath some vestiges of the
ancient order: it ordaineth,(1112) that when a bishop either
excommunicateth or absolveth any man, twelve of the clergy be present, and
concur with him. Dr Forbesse now also acknowledgeth,(1113) that it is not
lawful for a bishop to exercise the power of public jurisdiction by
himself, and without the presbytery; and, under this power of
jurisdiction, whereof he speaketh,(1114) he comprehendeth the visitation
of churches, ordination, suspension, and deposition of ministers, the
excommunicating of contumacious persons, and the reconciling of them when
they become penitent, the calling of the fellow-presbyters to a synod, the
making of ecclesiastical canons, &c.; which power of jurisdiction, saith
he,(1115) remaineth one and the same, whole and entire, both in the
bishop, and in the presbytery: in him personally; in it collegially. His
confession of the presbytery’s power and authority, we catch and lay hold
on; but whereas he would have this power any way proper and personal to
bishops, he is confuted by our former arguments.

And thus far have we demonstrated to princes, who be they to whom Christ
hath committed the power of excommunication, that with them they may cause
it to remain, and correct the usurpation of prelates, who bereave them of
it. Let us next consider what princes may, or should do, after that the
sentence of any man’s excommunication or reconciliation is given forth by
them to whom the power of this discipline pertaineth. The Archbishop of
Spalato is of opinion,(1116) that not only it is free to princes to
communicate with excommunicate persons, but also, that if they shall
happen to communicate with them, the church (for the reverence she oweth
to princes) should straight absolve them, and that her sentence of
excommunication should no longer have any strength. What! Shall the church
draw and put up again the spiritual sword at the pleasure of princes? Or
because princes will perhaps cast holy things to dogs, must others do so
likewise? O prodigious licentiousness, and hellish misorder, worthy to be
drowned in the lake of Lethe! But what, then, is the part of the prince,
after that the church hath given judgment? Surely, whensoever need is, he
ought, by the private judgment of Christian discretion, to try and examine
whether this discipline be rightly executed or not. If he find the
execution thereof to be unreprovable, and that yet the sinner goeth on in
his contumacy, then, by his civil power,(1117) he ought further to punish
him in his person or worldly estate, that he may either reform or repress
such an one as hath not been terrified by the church’s censures. But if,
after trial, he understand that the sentence given forth is unjust and
erroneous, either through the ignorance or the malice of the
ecclesiastical and regular judges, then he ought to interpone his
authority, and cause a due proceeding; for, in such extraordinary cases of
the failing of ecclesiastical persons, princes may do much in things
spiritual, which, ordinarily, they cannot.

It remaineth to show who have the power of those censures and punishments
which are proper to ecclesiastical persons. Where, first, we are to
consider, that there are two sorts of faults which make ecclesiastical men
worthy to be punished, viz., either such as violate sacred, or such as
violate civil and human duties: the one is to be judged by ecclesiastical
judges alone, and that according to the laws of God and the church; the
other by civil judges alone, and that according to the civil and municipal
laws of the commonwealth. This latter form, again, is twofold; for either
the fault is such, that, though a man be condignly punished for it by the
civil magistrate, yet he doth not, therefore, fall from his ecclesiastical
office or dignity; of which sort experience showeth many; or else such as
being punished according to their quality and demerit, a man, by necessary
consequence, falleth from the ecclesiastical function and dignity which
before he had: this was Abiathar’s case, and the case of so many as, being
justly punished by proscription, incarceration, or banishment, are
_secundario et ex consequenti_ shut from their bearing office in the
church. “If Abiathar had sinned in a sacred matter, the cognition thereof
(saith Junius(1118)) had pertained to the priests; but because he sinned
against the commonwealth and the king’s majesty, it was necessary to deal
with him civilly, and not ecclesiastically. What! Are no ecclesiastical
men in this time also thought to be lawfully judged by the civil
magistrate, if, at any time, they be found guilty of appaired majesty?” As
for the other sorts of faults, whereby (as we have said) sacred and
ecclesiastical duties are violate, such as the teaching of false and
heretical doctrine, neglecting of discipline, unbeseeming and scandalous
conversation, &c. which things (if they be not mended) they who have the
execution of ecclesiastical jurisdiction committed to them ought to punish
by suspension, deposition, &c. Now, as when one is called to the work of
the ministry, his fitness and qualification for that work should be tried
and judged by the clergy of the adjacent bounds assembled in their
classical presbytery, to whom it also appertaineth (after that he is by
them tried and approved, and after that he is elected by the church where
he is to serve) to send him out from them with power to exercise the
office of a pastor; so when there is just cause of suspending and
depriving him, it belongeth to the same presbytery to consider and judge
hereof; and, according to his offence, to give judgment against him. For
who should recal him but they that sent him? Or who should discharge him
his ministerial function, except they who ordained him to exercise the
same? And who may take the power from him but they who gave the power unto
him? That ordination pertaineth to the whole presbytery, and not to the
bishop alone, we have showed before, and now, by the same reason, we say
suspension and deposition pertaineth to the presbytery also, and are not
in the power of the bishop. And that, in the ancient church, as bishops
gave not ordination, so neither did they suspend nor depose any man
without the common counsel, advice, and concurrence of the presbytery,
yea, and sometimes of a synod, it is clear from Cypr. (lib. 1, epist. 9;
lib. 3, epist. 2, 10), Council Carthag. 3 (can. 8), Council Carthag. 4
(can. 22, 23), Council African. (can. 20), Council Hispan. 2 (can. 6),
Justin. (_Novel_. 42, cap. 1), Jerome (_Comment. ad Isa_ 3), Siricius
(_Epist ad Ambros. inter Ambr. Epist._) So, touching the suspension and
deposition of ministers, the Assembly at Glasgow, anno 1610, ordained that
the bishop should associate to himself the ministry of those bounds where
the delinquent served, that is, the presbytery whereof he hath been a
member, and, together with them, there take trial of the fact, and, upon
just cause found, to deprive or suspend: which Act was ratified in the
12th parliament of king James, anno 1612. Nevertheless, if any man think
the sentence of the bishop and the presbytery, given forth against him, to
be unjust, he ought to have liberty of recourse to the synod, and there to
be heard, according as it was decreed by the Fourth Council of Carthage,
can. 66. But oftimes the matter is of such difficulty or importance that
the bishop and the presbytery may not give out any peremptory sentence of
suspension or deprivation till the matter be brought to the synod of the
province,(1119) where, according to the ancient order, the matter is to be
handled,(1120) not “by the censure of one bishop, but by the judgment of
the whole clergy gathered together.”

Princes, therefore, may not suffer bishops to usurp the power of
suspending and depriving at their pleasure, and whensoever they commit any
such tyranny in smiting of their fellow-servants, it is the part of
princes to cause these things to be redressed, and for this end graciously
to receive the grievances of oppressed ministers. The Arians of old, being
assembled in a council at Antioch, decreed, that if any ecclesiastical
person should, without the advice and the letters of the bishops(1121) of
the province, and chiefly of the metropolitan, go to the emperor to put up
any grievance unto him, he should be cast out, not only from the holy
communion, but from his proper dignity which he had in the church.
Whereupon Osiander hath this observation:(1122) “This canon also was
composed against holy Athanasius; for Athanasius being expelled by the
Arians, had fled to the emperor Constantine the younger, and had from him
obtained a return to his own church. Now this canon is very unjust, which
forbids that a bishop, or any other minister of the church, being unjustly
oppressed, flee to his godly civil magistrate; since it was lawful to the
apostle Paul to appeal to the Roman emperor wicked Nero, as the Acts of
the Apostles witness. But it may be seen in this place, that bishops were
very soon seeking dominion, yea, tyranny over the church, and over their
colleges.” Besides all this, there is yet another thing which ought to
have a very principal consideration in the deposition of a minister, and
that is, the consent of the church and congregation where he hath served.
Let the magistrate know, saith Gerhard,(1123) “that as the vocation of
ministers pertaineth to the whole church, so to the same also pertaineth
the removing of ministers; therefore, as a minister ought not to be
obtruded upon an unwilling church, so the hearers, being unwilling and
striving against it, a fit minister ought not to be plucked away from
them.” The deposing of a minister, whom the church loves and willingly
hears, Balduine accounteth to be high sacrilege,(1124) and holdeth that,
as the calling, so the dismissing of ministers pertaineth to the whole
church; and so teacheth Junius.(1125) Shortly, as a man is rightly called
to the ministerial office and dignity when he is elected by the church and
ordained by the presbytery, so is he rightly deposed and put from the same
when he is rejected by the church and discharged by the presbytery.

How there was brought forth in Scotland, anno 1610, a certain amphibian
brood, sprung out of the stem of Neronian tyranny, and in manners like to
his nearest kinsman, the Spanish Inquisition. It is armed with a
transcendant power, and called by the dreadful name of the _High
Commission_. Among other things, it arrogateth to itself the power of
deposing ministers; but how unjustly, thus it appeareth:

1. If those commissioners have any power at all to depose ministers, they
have it from the king, whose commissioners they are: but from him they
have it not; therefore they have none at all. The proposition is most
certain; for they sit not in that commission to judge in their own name,
nor by their own authority, (_quum nihil exerceat delegatus nomine
proprio_, as Panormitan saith,(1126)) but by virtue only of the commission
and delegation which they have of the king. Yea, bishops themselves
exercise not any jurisdiction in the High Commission as bishops, but only
as the king’s commissioners, as Dr Downame acknowledgeth.(1127) The
assumption is grounded upon this reason: The king hath not power to depose
ministers; therefore he cannot give this power to others. For _nemo potest
plus juris transferre in alium quam sibi competere dignoscatur_,(1128) the
king may sometimes inflict such a civil punishment upon ministers,
whereupon, secondarily and accidentally, will follow their falling away
from their ecclesiastical office and function (in which sense it is said
that Solomon deposed Abiathar, as we heard before), but to depose them
directly and formally (which the High Commission usurped to do) he hath no
power, and that because this deposition is an act of ecclesiastical
jurisdiction; whereas the power of ecclesiastical jurisdiction doth no
more agree to the king than the power of ecclesiastical order: his power
is civil and temporal, not spiritual and ecclesiastical. Dr Field also
confesseth,(1129) that none may judicially degrade, or put any one,
lawfully admitted, from his degree and order, but the spiritual guides of
the church alone.

2. The deposing of ministers pertaineth to classical presbyteries, or (if
the matter be doubtful and difficult) to synods, as hath been showed. And
who, then, can give the High Commission such authority as to take this
power from them and assume it unto itself. These commissioners profess
that they have authority to discharge other ecclesiastical judicatories
within the kingdom from meddling with the judging of anything which they
shall think impertinent for them, and which they shall think good to judge
and decide by themselves in their commission: which, if it be so, then,
when it pleaseth them, they may make other ecclesiastical judicatories to
be altogether useless and of no effect in the church.

3. In this commission ecclesiastical and temporal men are joined together,
and both armed with the same power; therefore it is not right nor regular,
nor in any ways allowable. For even, as when a minister hath offended in a
civil matter, his fault is to be judged by civil judges according to the
civil laws, and by no other; so, when he offendeth in an ecclesiastical
matter, his fault is to be judged only by ecclesiastical persons according
to ecclesiastical laws; and, in such case, Justinian forbiddeth(1130)
civil men to be joined with ecclesiastical men in judgment. They are
ecclesiastical things or causes which are handled and examined by the High
Commission in the process of deposing ministers; and a shame it is to
ecclesiastical men, if they cannot, without the help and joining of
temporal men, judge and decide things of this quality.

4. As in the matters to be judged, so in the censures and punishments to
be inflicted, ecclesiastical and civil men have, in this commission, alike
power and authority; for ecclesiastical men therein have power of fining,
confining, warding, &c., common to them with the temporal men; and, again,
the temporal men have power of excommunication, suspension, deprivation,
&c., common to them with the ecclesiastical men. For they all sit there as
the king’s commissioners, and _eo nomine_, they exercise this
jurisdiction; which commission being alike discharged by them all, it is
manifest that both temporal men take hold of the keys and ecclesiastical
men take hold of the civil sword. And this monstrous confusion and mixture
giveth sufficient demonstration that such a form of judgment is not from
the God of order.

Of the abuses and irregularities of the High Commission we may not now
speak at greater length, but are hasted to make forward.

CHAPTER IX.

THAT THE LAWFULNESS OF THE CEREMONIES CANNOT BE WARRANTED BY THE LAW OF
NATURE.

_Sect._ 1. What our opposites have alleged for the ceremonies, either from
the law of God, or the law of man, we have hitherto answered; but we heard
the law of nature also alleged(1131) for holidays, and for kneeling at the
communion. And when Hooker(1132) goeth about to commend and defend such
visible signs, “which, being used in performance of holy actions, are
undoubtedly most effectual to open such matter, as men, when they know and
remember carefully, must needs be a great deal the better informed to what
effect such duties serve,” he subjoineth: “We must not think but that
there is some ground of reason even in nature,” &c. This is a smoke to
blind the eyes of the unlearned. Our opposites have taken no pains nor
travail to make us see any deduction of those ceremonies from the law of
nature: we desire proofs, not words. In the meanwhile, for giving further
evidence to the truth, we will express our own mind touching things
warranted by the law of nature.

_Sect._ 2. And, first, we must understand aright what is meant by the law
of nature: to wit, that law which God writeth and imprinteth in the nature
of man,(1133) so that it is as it were co-natural and born together with
man. Now, if we consider what law was written in the nature of man in his
first creation, it was no other than the decalogue, or the moral
law.(1134) But the law which we are here to inquire of is that law which,
after the fall, God still writeth in the heart of every man; which (we all
know) cometh far short, and wanteth much of that which was written in the
heart of man before his fall. That we may understand what this law of
nature is which is written in all men’s hearts since the fall, we must
distinguish _jus naturale_ from _jus divinum naturale_. For that law which
is simply called _jus naturale_ is _innatum_, and layeth before the minds
of men that way wherein, by the guidance and conduct of nature,(1135) they
may be led to that good which is, in the end, proportionate to nature;
whereas _jus divinum_ is _inspiratum_, and layeth before us another way,
wherein, by a supernatural guidance,(1136) we may be led to a supernatural
good, which is an end exceeding the proportion of nature. As for that part
of the law of God which is called _jus divinum naturale_, it is so called
in opposition to _jus divinum positivum_.

_Sect._ 3. _Jus naturale,_ saith Justinian,(1137) _est quod naturo omnia
animalia docuit_. This the lawyers take to be the law of nature, which
nature, by its sole instinct, teacheth as well to other living creatures
as to men; for nature teacheth all living creatures to save and preserve
their own being, to decline things hurtful, to seek things necessary for
their life, to procreate their like, to care for that which is procreated
by them, &c. The Archbishop of Spalato(1138) liketh to speak with the
lawyers. _Jus naturale_, saith he, _simpliciter ponitur in omnibus
animalibus. Videntur autem_, saith Joachinus Mynsingerus,(1139) _juris
consulti, valde in hoc abuti vocabulo juris, cum exemplae praedicta sint
potius affectus et inclinationes naturales, quae cum quibusque animantibus
enascuntur; quas philosophi_ στοργὰς φυσικὰς _appellant. In brutis enim
cum nulla sit ratio, igitur nec ullum jus esse potest._

Aquinas also showeth(1140) that beasts are not properly governed by the
law of nature, because _lex_ is _aliquid rationis_. Wherefore they err who
would make the law of nature to differ in kind from _jus gentium_, which
natural reason hath taught to all nations. For this law of nations _per se
speciem non facit_, as saith Mynsingerus.(1141) And the law of nature is
also, by the heathen writers, often called _jus gentium_, as Rosinus
noteth.(1142) If any will needs have the law of nature distinguished from
the law of nations, let them either take Aquinas’ distinction,(1143) who
maketh the law of nature to contain certain principles, having the same
place in practical reason which the principles of scientific
demonstrations have in speculative reason; and the law of nations to
contain certain conclusions drawn from the said principles: or, otherwise,
embrace the difference which is put betwixt those laws by Mattheus
Wesenbecius:(1144) _Quæ bestiæ naturali concitatione; ea_, saith he,
_homines ex eodem sensu ac affectione, cum moderatione tamen ratione si
faciunt, jure naturæ faciunt. Quæ bruta non faciunt, sed sola ratione
hominis propria, non affectione communis naturæ, omnes homines faciunt,
fierique opportere intelligunt hoc fit jure gentium._

_Sect._ 4. For my part, I take the law of nature and the law of nations to
be one and the same. For what is the law of nations but that which
nature’s light and reason hath taught so to all nations? Now this is no
other than the law of nature. We think, therefore, they have well
said,(1145) who comprehend under the law of nature both the common
principles of good and evil, virtue and vice, right and wrong, things
beseeming and things not beseeming, and likewise the general conclusions
which, by necessary consequences, are drawn from the said principles. To
come to the particulars, there are three sort of things which the law of
nature requireth of man, as both schoolmen(1146) and modern doctors(1147)
have rightly taught. The first, it requireth as he is _ens_; the second,
as he is _animal_; and the third, as he is _homo ratione præditus_. First,
As he is _ens_, the law of nature requireth him to seek the conservation
of his own being, and to shun or repel such things as may destroy the
same. For so hath nature framed not only all living creatures, but other
things also which are without life, that they seek their own conservation,
and flee (if they can) from apparent destruction. Let us take one example
out of subtle Scalliger,(1148) which is this: If a small quantity of oil
be poured upon a sound board, let a burning coal be put in the midst of
it, and the oil will quickly flee back from its enemy, and seek the
conservation of itself. This is, therefore, the first precept of the law
of nature, that man seek his own conservation, and avoid his own
destruction. Whereupon this conclusion necessarily followeth, that he may
repel violence with violence. Secondly, As man is a living creature, the
law of nature teacheth him to propagate and conserve his kind. Whereupon
these conclusions do follow, viz., the commixion of male and female, the
procreation of children, the educating of them, and providing for them.
This nature hath taught to man, as a thing common to him with other living
creatures.

_Sect._ 5. Thirdly, As a man is a creature endowed with reason, the law of
nature teacheth him, 1. Something concerning God; 2. Something concerning
his neighbour; 3. Something concerning himself. I mean some general
notions concerning good and evil, in respect of each of these; whereof the
Apostle meaneth whilst he saith that the Gentiles “show the work of the
law written in their hearts,” Rom. ii. 15. First, then, the law of nature
teacheth man to know that there is a God, and that this God is to be
worshipped; whereupon it followeth that man should seek to know God and
the manner of his worship. Now that which may be known of God is showed
even unto the Gentiles. The Apostle saith _signanter_, το λυωστὸν τοῦ
Θεοῦ, Rom. i. 19, meaning those few and small sparkles of the knowledge of
God which nature’s inbred light discovered unto the Gentiles, for making
them inexcusable, namely, that there is an eternal power and Godhead,
which men ought to reverence and to worship. 2. The law of nature teacheth
man to hold fast friendship and amity with his neighbours, forasmuch as he
is _animal sociale. Violare alterum_, saith Cicero, _naturae legae
prohibemur_.(1149) For the law of nature biddeth us do to others as we
would have others to do unto us, Luke vi. 31. And from these precepts it
followeth, that we should not offend other men; that we should keep
promises; stand to bargains; give to every man his own, &c. 3. As touching
a man’s self, the law of nature teacheth him that he should not live as a
reasonless creature, but that all his actions should be such as may be
congruous and beseeming for a creature endued with reason: Whereupon it
followeth, that he should live honestly and virtuously, that he should
observe order and decency in all his actions, &c. Hence the Apostle saith,
that nature itself teacheth that it is a shame for a man to have long
hair, 1 Cor. xi. 14, because it is repugnant to that decency and
comeliness which the law of nature requireth. For, among other
differences(1150) which nature hath put betwixt men and women, this is
one, that it hath given to women thicker and longer hair than to men, that
it might be as a veil, to adorn and cover them. The reason whereof nature
hath hid in the complexion of a woman, which is more humid than the
complexion of a man; so that, if a man should take him to this womanish
ornament, he should but against nature transform himself (in so far) into
a woman.

_Sect._ 6. These things being permitted, I will add four reasons to prove
that neither sacred significant ceremonies in general, nor kneeling,
holidays, &c., in particular, can be warranted unto us by the law of
nature. 1. The law of nature cannot direct us unto a supernatural end, as
is acknowledged not only by our divines,(1151) but by Aquinas also.(1152)
It only teacheth us to seek and to do _bonum, velut finem naturæ_,(1153)
such a good as is an end proportioned to nature. All these precepts of the
law of nature which we have spoken of could never lead men to a
supernatural good. It is only the divine law,(1154) revealed from God,
which informeth the minds of men with such notions as are _supra naturam_,
and which may guide them _ad finem supernaturalem_. But all sacred
significant ceremonies which, by their holy and spiritual significations,
express to us some mysteries of grace, and of the kingdom of God, must be
thought to direct us unto a supernatural good; therefore they are not of
that sort of things which the law of nature requireth; for this law goeth
no higher than to teach men that there is a God, and that this God is to
be worshipped, the knowledge of which things is not a good exceeding the
proportion of nature: for it was found in the Gentiles themselves, who
knew no other spiritual and supernatural good than that which was
proportioned to nature. Let me now conclude this reason with Scalliger’s
words, _Neque enim quae supra naturae leges sunt, ex naturae legibus
judicanda censeo_.(1155)

_Sect._ 7. 2. As the ceremonies, by their sacred, spiritual, and mystical
significations, direct us unto a supernatural good, so they are thought to
guide us unto the same by a way which nature’s light could never discover
unto men. But, in the law of nature, as we are directed unto no other good
than such as is proportioned to nature, so are we guided unto the same
_natura duce_,(1156) that is to say, by such common notions as God hath
imprinted in the nature of all men. Now, I suppose our opposites will not
unwillingly reckon their sacred significant ceremonies among those things
of the Spirit of God which a natural man cannot receive, because they are
spiritually decerned, 1 Cor. ii. 14. What then have they to do with the
law of nature? If it be said, that they necessarily follow upon those
first principles and conclusions which a natural man receiveth, I answer,
This shall never be proved. They will say, perhaps, that nature teacheth
us to use certain rites in the worship of God, to observe set times for
his worship, also to kneel down in reverence of God whom we worship.
_Ans._ Be it so: but how make they up a necessary connection betwixt
certain rites and significant ceremonies of human institution; betwixt set
times, and some more days than one of seven; betwixt kneeling in the
worship of God _in genere_, and kneeling at the sacrament _in specie_,
unless they say that nature requireth us to kneel in every act of worship,
and never to worship God without kneeling on our knees?

_Sect._ 8. 3. _Jus naturae_ is _ubique idem_, as Rosinus:(1157) it is
approved _communi omnium gentium judicio atque assensu_, as the Professors
of Leyden:(1158) it is one and the same among all nations, in respect of
the principles of it, as Aquinas(1159) and Zanchius:(1160) the law of
nature _fixa est cordibus nostris_, as Stella:(1161) yea, it is “so
written in our hearts that iniquity itself cannot blot it out,” as
Augustine saith;(1162) and we learn from the Apostle, that the law of
nature is manifest in the Gentiles, for God hath showed it unto them, Rom.
i. 19; therefore there is none ignorant, saith Pareus.(1163) Whatsoever,
then, the law of nature requireth, it doth clearly and necessarily follow
upon those principles which are written in every man’s conscience, unless
we set up new divinity, and either say that the principles of the law of
nature are not written in every man’s conscience, or else that they may be
at some time abolished and rased out of the consciences of men; which were
to leave men without a witness. Nay, saith Augustine,(1164) the heaven and
the earth, and all that is in them, on every side, cease not to bid all
men love God, that they be made inexcusable. Now if all the principles of
the law of nature be firmly and clearly written in every man’s conscience,
and cannot but be known to every man who has the use of natural judgment
and reason, it followeth, that they who will prove or warrant anything by
the law of nature, must only take their premises from every man’s
conscience, and say, as the Apostle saith, “Judge in yourselves,” &c.,
“doth not even nature itself teach you,” &c., 1 Cor. xi. 13, 14; as if the
Apostle said, This principle of nature is fixed in all your hearts, that
men should affect honesty and comeliness. Go to reason in yourselves, from
the judgment of nature, whether it follow not, upon this principle, that a
man should not wear long hair, forasmuch as his wearing of long hair is
repugnant to the principle of nature. _Committit ipsis judicium_, saith
Pareus; _ipsos testes, imo judices appellat_,(1165) so that, if the
ceremonies be warranted unto us by the law of nature, the judgment must be
committed to every man’s conscience, and so should every man be convinced
in himself, by such a principle of nature, from which the ceremonies have
a necessary and manifest deduction. Yet we attest the Searcher of all
hearts, that we have never been convinced in ourselves, by such a
principle of nature, no, not after diligent search and inquiry.

_Sect._ 9. 4. Let our opposites say to us, once for all, upon what precept
of the law of nature do they ground the ceremonies; for I have before
opened up all sorts of things which the law of nature requireth of man as
he is _ens_; and as he is _animal_ belongeth not to our purpose. As for
that which it requireth of him as he is a creature endued with reason,
there is one part of it that concerneth ourselves, viz., that we should
live honestly, and _secundum modum rationis_, that we should observe order
and decency in all our actions. This order and decency do not respect our
holy duties to God, nor comprehend any sacred ceremony in his worship; but
they look to usward, and are referred only to such beseeming qualities as
are congruous and convenient to a reasonable nature in all its actions.
Yea, even generally, we may say with Scalliger,(1166) _Ordinem dico sine
quo natura constare non potest. Nihil enim absque ordine vel med tata est
vel effecit illa._ Another part of that which nature requireth of man, as
he is a creature endued with reason, concerneth (as we showed) our
neighbours, whom it teacheth us not to harm nor offend, &c. And if our
opposites would reckon with us here, their ceremonies will appear
repugnant to nature, because of the detriment and offence which they offer
unto us, whereof we have spoken in our argument of scandal. But there was
a third part, concerning God and his worship; and here must our opposites
seek a warrant for the ceremonies. Now, albeit nature (as was said)
teaches all men that there is an eternal and mighty God, who should be
worshipped and honoured by them, yet it descendeth not unto such
particular precepts as can have any show of making aught for significant
ceremonies. _Omnibus enim innatum est et in animo quasi insculptum, esse
deos_; but yet _quales sint_, saith Cicero, _varium est_.(1167) And as
nature hath not taught men to know the nature and attributes of the
Godhead, together with the sacred Trinity of persons in the same; so
neither hath it taught what sort or manner of worship should be given unto
God. _Lex naturalis rerum communium est_,(1168) and doth only inform us
with those common notions called κοιναὶ εννοιαὶ. Concerning the worship of
God, it speaks only _de genere_, not _de specie_: wherefore there can be
no inference from that worship which the law of nature requireth, either
of any distinct kind of worship or of any ceremony in that kind, no more
than it followeth, _Si est animal, est Asinus; for à genere ad speciem non
valet consequentia affirmando_.

THE FOURTH PART.

AGAINST THE INDIFFERENCY OF THE CEREMONIES.

CHAPTER I.

OF OUR OPPOSITES’ PLEADING FOR THE INDIFFERENCY OF THE CEREMONIES.

If it seem to any that it is a strange method to speak now of
indifferency, in the end of this dispute, which ought rather to have been
handled in the beginning of it, they may consider, that the method is not
ours, but our opposites’; for they have been fleeing upon Icarus’ wings,
and soaring so high that their wings could not but melt from them: so have
they, from necessity fallen down to expediency; from it to lawfulness; and
from thence to indifferency.

I knew certain of them, who, after reasoning about the ceremonies with
some of our side, required, in the end, no more but that they would only
acknowledge the indifferency of the things in themselves. And so being
wooed and solicitously importuned by our former arguments against the
ceremonies, they take them to the weaving of Penelope’s web, thereby to
suspend us, and to gain time against us: this indifferency, I mean, which
they shall never make out, and which themselves, otherwhiles, unweave
again. Always, so long as they think to get any place for higher notions
about the ceremonies, they speak not so meanly of them as of things
indifferent; but when all their forces of arguments and answers are spent
in vain, then are our ears filled with uncouth outcries and declamations,
which tend to make themselves appear blameless for receiving, and us
blameworthy for refusing matters of rite and indifferency.

Upon this string they harp over and over again, in books, in sermons, in
private discourses. Mr G. Powell (in his book _De Adiaphoris_), and Tilen
(in the 12th and 17th chapters of his _Paraenesis_), condemn those who
make aught ado about the controverted English ceremonies, for so much as
they are things indifferent. Paybody, in his Apology for kneeling at the
communion, standeth much upon the indifferency of this gesture, both in
every worship of God, and in that sacrament namely. The Archbishop of St.
Andrews, in his sermon at Perth Assembly, because he could not prove this
indifferency, he chose to suppose it. “Of the indifferency of these
articles (saith he) I think there is little or no question amongst us.”
Whether he spake this of ignorance or of policy, I leave it to be guessed
at. Howsoever, if we should thus compose our controversy about the
ceremonies, embrace them, and practise them, so being that they be only
called things indifferent, this were to cure our church, as L. Sylla cured
his country, _durioribus remediis quam pericula erant_, saith
Seneca.(1169) Wherefore we will debate this question of indifferency also.

CHAPTER II.

OF THE NATURE OF THINGS INDIFFERENT.

_Sect._ 1. To say nothing here of the homonymy of the word _indifferent_,
but to take it in that signification which concerneth our present purpose,
it signifieth such a mean betwixt good and evil in human actions, as is
alike distant from both these extremes, and yet susceptive of either of
them. _Indifferens_, saith Calepin, is that _quod sua natura neque bonum
est neque malum_. Aquinas(1170) calleth that an indifferent action which
is neither good nor evil. _Rem indifferentem voco quae neque bona neque
mala in se est_, saith a later writer.(1171)

But Dr Forbesse(1172) liketh to speak in another language. He will have
that which is indifferent to be opponed to that which is necessary; and a
thing indifferent he taketh to be such a thing as is neither necessarily
to be done, nor yet necessarily to be omitted, in respect of any necessity
of the commandment of God; or such a thing as is neither remunerable with
eternal life, and commendeth a man unto the reward of God, nor yet is
punishable with eternal death, and polluteth a man with guiltiness. Now,
because he knew that divines define a thing indifferent to be that which
is neither good nor evil, he therefore distinguisheth a twofold goodness
of an individual action.(1173) The one he calleth _bonitas generalis,
concomitans, et sine qua non_; by which goodness is meant the doing of an
action in faith, and the doing of it for the right end, as he expoundeth
himself. This goodness, he saith, is necessary to every human action, and
hindereth not an action to be indifferent. The other he calleth _bonitas
specialis, causans, et propter quam_. This goodness he calleth legal, and
saith that it maketh an action necessary; in which respect indifferent
actions are not good, but those only which God in his law hath commanded,
and which are remunerable with eternal life.

_Sect._ 2. But that we may have the vanity of these quiddities discovered
to us, let us only consider how falsely he supposeth that there are some
things which we do neither laudably nor culpably, and for which we shall
neither be rewarded (it is his own phrase which I use) nor yet punished by
God. I thought we had learned from Scripture that we must all appear
before the judgment-seat of Christ, to give an account of every word which
we speak, and of every deed which we do in the flesh, and accordingly to
receive either a reward or a punishment. What! Could the Doctor say that
these good actions which he calleth indifferent, and of which he saith
that they are done in faith, and for the right end, are not laudable nor
remunerable? Nay, but he saith(1174) that the general goodness which
accompanieth the action is remunerable, because it is necessary, but the
action itself is not necessary, because that general goodness may be had
as well in the omission of it, or in the doing of the contrary, as in the
doing of it, whereupon he would have it to follow that the action itself
is not remunerable.

_Ans._ 1. The Doctor had done well to have remembered that he is speaking
only of individual actions, and that _actus individuatur a circumstantus
et adjecto modo_, so that whilst all that he saith turneth to this, that
one action considered in itself, without the circumstances and concomitant
goodness, is not remunerable, he maketh not out his point; for he saith no
more in effect, but that _actus quo ad speciem_ is not remunerable, which
none of us denieth.

2. An individual good action of that kind which the Doctor calleth
necessary, is no otherwise remunerable and laudable than an individual
good action of that kind which he calleth indifferent, for example, when I
go to hear God’s word upon the Lord’s day, let this action of mine be
considered _quo ad individuum_, is it any otherwise remunerable than in
respect of the goodness which accompanieth it? Whence it is that the
hearing of hypocrites, not being accompanied with such goodness, is not
remunerable, yet the hearing of the word is an action necessary, because
commanded? Now may we know wherein standeth the difference betwixt the
remunerable good of this action of hearing, and remunerable good of one of
those actions which the Doctor calleth indifferent, for example, a woman’s
action of marrying.

I perceive what the Doctor would answer, for he saith,(1175) if a woman
marry in the Lord, this action is good _respectu adjecti modi, quamvis in
se sit media et libera, etiam quo ad individuum_, implying that if, on the
other part, an individual action be necessary (as for example the action
of hearing the word), then it is in itself good, _etiam quo ad
individuum_.

But, I reply, what means he by these words, _in se_? Means he the
individual nature of the action? Nay, then the sense shall be no other
than this, _quo ad individuum, etiam quo ad individuum_. And, besides, the
Doctor cannot define to us any other nature in an individual thing than
the nature of the species or kind.

Is it not holden _individuum non posse definiri, nisi definitione
specici_?(1176) Sure a perfect definition, expressing the nature of the
thing defined, cannot be given to any individual thing other than the
definition of the species, needs, therefore, must the Doctor, by _in se_,
understand the specifical nature, and, indeed, when divines speak of
things indifferent, _in se_, _per se_, or _sua natura_, they mean only
things indifferent _quo ad speciem_. Yet thus also the Doctor hath said
nonsense, for so we should take his words, _quamvis quoad speciem sit
media et libera, etiam quo ad individuum_.

_Sect._ 3. But to let his manner of speaking pass, we will consider what
he would or could have said. There is no difference which can here be
imagined except this: That the individual action of hearing the word (when
one heareth aright) is good and remunerable in a double respect, namely,
because it is both good in itself, or _quo ad speciem_, and likewise
_respectu adjecti modi_, whereas a woman’s action of marrying (when she
marrieth in the Lord) is only good and remunerable in the last respect,
namely, _respectu modi_, for, _in se_, or, _quo ad speciem_, it hath no
remunerable goodness in it.

_Ans._ What do we hear of any difference betwixt these actions _quo ad
speciem_? That which we crave is, that a difference may be showed betwixt
the remunerable goodness of the one and of the other, both being
considered _quo ad individuum_.

That whereby the Doctor either was deceived, or would deceive, appeareth
to be this: That he taketh everything which agreeth to an individual thing
to agree to it _quo ad individuum_, as if to speak of Peter _quatenus est
homo_, and to speak of him _quatenus est individuum signatum_, or _res
singularis sub specie hominis_, were all one thing. Even so, to say of my
individual action of hearing the word, that it is necessary because of the
commandment of God (and in that respect remunerable), is not to speak of
it _quo ad individuum_, but as the specifical nature of that action of
hearing the word (which God hath commanded) is found in it; for if we
speak of this individual action, _quo ad individuum_, we cannot consider
it otherwise than _respectu adjecti modi_, because, in moral actions,
_modus adjectus_ is _principium individuationis_, and nothing else doth
individualise a moral action.

_Sect._ 4. Thus shall my position stand good, namely, that those
individual actions which the Doctor calleth necessary, because their
species is commanded of God, and those individual actions which he calleth
indifferent, because their _species_ is not commanded, both being
considered _quo ad individuum_, the former hath no other remunerable good
in them than the latter, and the whole remunerable good which is in either
of them standeth only _in objecto modo_; which being so, it is all one
when we speak of any individual moral action _quo ad individuum_, whether
we say that it is good, or that it is remunerable and laudable, both are
one. For, as is well said by Aquinas,(1177) _Necessarium est omnem actum
hominis, ut bonum vel malum, culpabilis vel laudabilis rationem habere_.
And again: _Nihil enim est aliud laudari vel culpari, quam imputari alicui
malitiam vel bonitatem sui actus_; wherefore that distinction of a twofold
goodness, _causans_ and _concomitans_, which the Doctor hath given us,
hath no use in this question, because every action is laudable and
remunerable which is morally good, whether it be necessary or not. Now
moral goodness, saith Scalliger,(1178) _est perfectio actus cum recta
ratione_. Human moral actions are called good or evil, _in ordine ad
rationem, quae est proprium principium humanorum actuum_, saith
Aquinas,(1179) thereupon inferring that _illis mores dicuntur boni, qui
rationi congruunt; mali autem, qui à ratione discordant_. Dr Forbesse doth
therefore pervert the question whilst he saith,(1180) _in hac cum
fratribus quaestione, hoc bonum est quod necessarium_. Nay, those actions
we call morally good which are agreeable to right reason, whether they be
necessary or not. Since, then, those actions are laudable and remunerable
which are morally good, and those are morally good which are agreeable to
right reason, it followeth, that forasmuch as those actions which the
Doctor calleth indifferent, are agreeable to right reason, they are,
therefore, not only morally good, but also laudable and remunerable, and
so not indifferent. Yea, those actions which he calleth necessary, being
considered _quo ad individuum_, are no otherwise laudable and remunerable
than those which he calleth indifferent, being considered in like manner
_quo ad individuum_, as hath been showed.

_Sect._ 5. And besides all this, we have somewhat more to say of the
Doctor’s speculation about the nature of things indifferent.

For, 1. The Doctor maketh that which is indifferent to be opponed to that
which is necessary, and yet he maketh both these to be morally good. Now
albeit in natural things one good is opponed to another good, as that
which is hot to that which is cold, yet _bonum bona non contrariatur in
moralibus_.(1181) The reason of the difference is, because _bonitas
physica_, or _relativa est congruentia naturae quaedem_, saith
Scalliger;(1182) and because two natures may be contrary one to another,
therefore the good which is congruous to the one may be contrary to the
good which is congruous to the other; but _bonum virtutis_, saith
Aquinas(1183) _non accipitur nisi per convenientiam ad aliquid unum,
scilicet rationem_; so that it is impossible for one moral good to be
opponed to another.

2. Since divines take a thing indifferent to be _medium inter bonum et
malum morale_; and since (as the very notation of the word showeth) it is
such a means as cometh not nearer to the one extreme than to the other,
but is alike distant from both, how comes it that the Doctor so far
departeth both from the tenet of divines and from the notation of the
word, as to call some such actions indifferent as have a moral remunerable
goodness, and yet not evil in them? or where learned he such a dialect as
giveth to some good things the name of the things indifferent?

3. Why doth he also waver from himself; for he citeth(1184) out of the
Helvetic Confessor Jerome’s definition of a thing indifferent, and
approveth it. _Indifferens_, saith he, _illud est quod nec bonum nec malum
est, ut sive feceris sive non feceris, nec justitiam habeas nec
injustitiam._ Behold the goodness which is excluded from the nature of a
thing indifferent is not only necessity but righteousness also, yet hath
the Doctor excluded only the good of necessity from things indifferent,
making the other good of righteousness to stand with them; for things
which are done in faith, and done for the right end (such as he
acknowledgeth these things to be which he calleth indifferent), have
righteousness in them, as all men know.

CHAPTER III.

WHETHER THERE BE ANYTHING INDIFFERENT IN ACTU EXERCITO.

_Sect._ 1. For our better light in this question I will premit these
considerations, 1. When we measure the goodness or the badness of a human
action, we must not only measure it by the object and the end, but by all
the circumstances which accompany it. Fed. Morellus,(1185) upon those
words of Seneca, _Refert quid, cui, quando, quare, ubi,_ &c., saith, that
without those circumstances of things, persons, times, places, _facti
ratio non constat_. Circumstances sometimes _constituunt rerum earum quae
aguntur speciem_, say our divines,(1186) meaning that circumstances do
make an action good or bad. _Humani actus_, say the schoolmen,(1187) _non
solum ex objectis, verum ex circumstantiis boni vel mali esse dicuntur_.
It is not every man’s part, saith one of our opposites,(1188) to judge _de
circumstantia, quae reddit actionem vel bonam vel malam_. “Some
circumstances, saith another of them,(1189) are intrinsical and essential
to actions, and specially making up their nature.” The principal
circumstances which here we speak of, are comprehended in this versicle:—

Quis, quid, ubi, quibus auxiliis, cur quomodo,
quando.

The first circumstance which maketh an action good or bad is _quis_, which
designeth the person: If a magistrate put to death a malefactor, the
action is good; but if a private person put him to death, it is evil.

The second is _quid_, which noteth the quality or condition of the object:
If a man take _sua_, the action is good; if _aliena_, it is evil.

The third is _ubi_: If men banquet in their own houses, the action is
good; if in the church, it is evil.

The fourth is _quibus auxiliis_: If men seek health by lawful means, the
action is good; if by the devil, or his instruments, it is evil.

The fifth is _cur_: If I rebuke my brother for his fault, out of my love
to him, and desire to reclaim him, the action is good; if out of hatred
and spleen, the action is evil.

The sixth is _quomodo_: For he who doth the work of the Lord carefully
doth well; but he who doth it negligently doth evil.

The seventh is _quando_: To do servile work upon the six days of labour,
is good; but to do it upon the Lord’s Sabbath, is evil.

2. There is another consideration which followeth upon the former; and it
is this: The goodness or badness of a human action may be considered two
ways, viz., either _in actu signato_, and _quo ad speciem_; or _in actu
exercito_, and _quo ad individuum_; for an action is said to be
specificated by its object, and individuated by its circumstances; so
that, when an action is good or evil in respect of the object of it, then
it is called good or evil _quo ad speciem_: when it is good or evil in
respect of the circumstances of it, then it is said to be good or evil
_quo ad individuum_.

3. Human actions, whether considered _quo ad speciem_, or _quo ad
individuum_, are either such as proceed from the deliberation of reason,
or from bare imagination only. To this latter kind we refer such actions
as are done through incogitancy, while the mind is taken up with other
thoughts; for example, to scratch the head, to handle the beard, to move
the foot, &c.; which sort of things proceed only from a certain stirring
or fleeting of the imagination.

4. Let it be remembered, that those things we call morally good, which
agree to right reason; those morally evil which disagree from right
reason; and those indifferent which include nothing belonging to the order
of reason, and so are neither consonant unto nor dissonant from the same.

5. When we speak of the indifferency of an individual action, it may be
conceived two ways: either _absolute et sine respectu ad aliud_; or
_comparate et cum respectu ad aliud_. In the free-will offerings, if so be
a man offered according as God had blessed and prospered his estate, it
was indifferent to offer either a bullock, or a sheep, or a goat; but if
he chose to offer any of them, his action of offering could not be
indifferent, but either good or evil. When we speak of the indifferency of
an action _comparate_, the sense is only this, that it is neither better
nor worse than another action, and that there is no reason to make us
choose to do it more than another thing; but when we speak of the
indifferency of an action considered absolutely and by itself, the simple
meaning is, whether it be either good or evil, and whether the doing of
the same must needs be either sin or evil doing.

6. Every thing which is indifferent in the nature of it, is not by and by
indifferent in the use of it. But the use of a thing indifferent ought
evermore to be either chosen or refused, followed or forsaken, according
to these three rules delivered to us in God’s word: 1. The rule of piety;
2. The rule of charity; 3. The rule of purity.

The first of these rules we find, 1 Cor. x. 31, “Whether, therefore, ye
eat or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God;” and Rom.
xiv. 7, 8, “For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself.
For whether we live, we live unto the Lord, and whether we die, we die
unto the Lord:” where the Apostle, as Calvin noteth,(1190) reasoneth from
the whole to the part. Our whole life, and, by consequence, all the
particular actions of it, ought to be referred to God’s glory, and ordered
according to his will. Again, Col. iii. 17, “And whatsoever ye do, in word
or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus.” In the expounding of which
words Dr Davenant saith well, that _Etiam ille actiones quæ sunt sua
natura adiaphoræ, debent tamen à Christianis fieri in nomine Christi, hoc
est, juxta voluntatem Christi, et ad gloriam Christi_.

The second rule is the rule of charity; which teacheth us not to use
anything indifferent when scandal riseth out of it: Rom. xiv. 21, “It is
good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor anything whereby thy
brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak;” yea, though it do not
weaken, if it be not expedient for edifying our brother, be it never so
lawful or indifferent in its own nature, the law of charity bindeth us to
abstain from it: Rom. xiv. 19, “Let us therefore follow after the things
which make for peace, and the things wherewith one may edify another;”
Rom. xv. 2, “Let every one of us please his neighbour for his good to
edification;” 1 Cor. x. 23, “All things are lawful for me, but all things
are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify
not:” where the Apostle teacheth, that _in cibo_, &c.,(1191) “In meat,
drink, and the whole kind of things indifferent, it is not enough to look
whether they be lawful, but that, farther, we are to look whether to do or
omit the same be expedient, and may edify.” The Bishop of Winchester,
preaching upon John xvi. 7, “I tell you the truth: it is expedient for you
that I go away,” &c., marketh, that Christ would not go away without
acquainting his disciples with the reason of it; and that reason was,
because it was for their good: whereupon he inferreth, 1. That we should
avoid Hophni’s _non vult enim_, and make our _vult_ our _enim_, 1 Sam. ii.
15; that is, that we should not give our will for a reason, but a reason
for our will; 2. That we should not, with the Corinthians, stand upon
_licet_,—it is lawful, but frame our rule by _expedit_,—it is expedient, 1
Cor. vi. 13; x. 23; 3. That our rule should not be Caiaphas’ _expedit
nobis_, but Christ’s _expedit vobis_,—for you it is good, you, the
disciples, John xi. 50; and make that the rule of our going out and our
coming in. The heathens themselves could say that we are born, partly for
God, partly for our country, partly for our friends, &c. How much more
ought Christians to understand that we are not born for ourselves, but for
Christ and his church. And as in the whole course of our life, so
especially in the policy of the church, we may do nothing (be it never so
indifferent in itself) which is not profitable for edification: 1 Cor.
xiii. 26, “Let all things be done to edifying.” From which precept Pareus
inferreth, that nothing ought to be done in the church which doth not
manifestly make for the utility of all and every one; and that therefore
not only unknown tongues, but cold ceremonies and idle gestures should be
exploded out of the church.

The third rule is the rule of purity, which respecteth our peace and
plerophory of conscience, without which anything is unclean to us, though
it be clean and lawful in its own nature: Rom xiv. 14, “To him that
esteemeth anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean,” therefore _si
quis aliquam in cibo immunditiem imagineter, eo libere uti non
potest_.(1192) Whatsoever indifferent thing a man in his conscience
judgeth to be unlawful, he may not lawfully do it: Rom xiv. 5, “Let every
man be fully persuaded in his own mind;” and verse 23, “He that doubteth
is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith; for whatsoever is not
of faith is sin.” _Nefas est omnino_, saith Calvin,(1193) _quippiam
aggredi quod putes illi (domino) displicere, imo quod non persuasus sis
illi placere_. Now if a thing indifferent be used according to these three
rules, the use of it is not only lawful but expedient also; but if it be
not used according to these rules, the use of it is altogether unlawful.

_Sect._ 3. And since a thing indifferent in the nature of it can never be
lawfully used, except according to these rules, hence it followeth, that
the use of a thing indifferent is never lawful to us when we have no other
warrant for using the same beside our own will and arbitrement.

Dr Forbesse speaks unadvisedly whilst he saith,(1194) _Evenit nonnunquam_,
&c.: “It falleth out sometimes that that which was expedient for thee to
do yesterday, and to omit this day, thou mayest, notwithstanding,
afterward either do it, or not do it, according to thy arbitrement:” As
if, forsooth, our using of things indifferent should not evermore be
determined by the rule of expediency which God’s word giveth us, but
sometimes by our own will. Dr Davenant(1195) could not dream that any,
except the ignorant common people, could be of this opinion which Dr
Forbesse holdeth _Fallitur vulgus_, saith he, _dum judicat licere __ sibi,
uti victu, vestitu, sermone, aut quacunque re adiaphora pro arbitrio suo;
nam haec omnia ad regulam adhibenda sunt_.

Moreover, as we may not use any indifferent thing at our own pleasure; so
neither may the church, at her will and pleasure, command the use of it:
but as our practice, so the church’s injunction must be determined and
squared according to the former rules. And if any man think that, in the
using of things indifferent, he may be led and ruled by the church’s
determination, without examining any further, let him understand that the
church’s determination is but a subordinate rule, or a rule ruled by
higher rules.

Dr Forbesse, perceiving how these rules of Scripture may subvert his
cause, desireth to subject them to the church’s determination, and to make
it our highest rule. _Jam autem_, saith he,(1196) _in talium rerum usu, id
edificat, quod pacificum; illud est pacificum quod est ordinatum; is autem
decens ordo est in ecclesia ab ipso Christo constitutus, ut in talibus non
suo quisque se gerat arbitratu, sed audiatur ecclesia, et exhibeatur
praepositis obedientia._

He hath been speaking of the rules which God’s word giveth us concerning
the use of things indifferent; and all of them he comprehendeth under this
rule, that we should hear the church, and obey them who are set over us,
as if God’s rules were subordinate to men’s rules, and not theirs to his.
We say not that every man may use things indifferent _sua arbitratu_, but
we say withal, that neither may the church command the use of things
indifferent _suo arbitratu_. Both she in commanding and we in obeying must
be guided by the rules of Scripture.

They who are set over us in the church have no power given them of Christ
which is not for edifying, Eph. iv. 12. The counsel of the apostles and
elders at Jerusalem (which is a lively pattern of a lawful synod to the
world’s end) professed they would lay no other burden upon the disciples
except such things as the law of charity made necessary for shunning of
scandal, Acts xv. 28; and so that which they decreed had force and
strength to bind _a charitate propter scandalum_, saith Sanctius;(1197)
but _suo arbitratu_ they enjoined nothing. Cartwright saith, “It appeareth
by this place that there may be no abridgement of liberty simply decreed,
but in regard of circumstance, according to the rule of
edification.”(1198) And if the church’s decrees and canons be not
according to the rules of the word; yet, forasmuch as every one of us
shall give account of himself and his own deeds, we must look that
whatsoever the church decree, yet our practice, in the use or omission of
a thing indifferent, be according to the foresaid rules.

We may not, for the commandment of men, transgress the rule of piety, by
doing anything which is not for God’s glory, and ordered according to his
will; neither ought any of us to obey men, except “for the Lord’s sake,” 1
Pet. ii. 13, and “as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God,” Eph.
vi. 6; which teacheth us the manner how we ought to obey men, namely,
_propter Christum et sicut Christus praecipit_;(1199) for if we should
know no more but the will of man for that which we do, then we should be
the “servants of men,” not the servants of Christ. Neither yet may we for
any human ordinance break the rule of charity; “But whatsoever either
would weaken, or not edify our brother, be it never so lawful, never so
profitable to ourselves, never so powerfully by earthly authority
enjoined, Christians, who are not born unto themselves, but unto Christ,
unto his church, and unto the fellow-members, must not dare to meddle with
it.”(1200)

Nor, lastly, may we obey men, so as to break the law of purity, and
“perform any action with a doubtful conscience; that is, whereof either
the world hath not,(1201) nor we out of it have no warrant, in which case
tender consciences must be tendered rather than be racked by authority,
for be the things in themselves never so lawful, &c., they are utterly
unlawful to me without such information.” Whereas, therefore, some say,
that in the use of matters indifferent, the laws of those who are set over
us ought to rule us; we still answer that our practice may not be ruled by
any law of man, except it be according to the rules of the word, whereof
one is this, _Tantum oportere esse obedientiae studium in
Christianis,_(_1202_)_ ut nihil agant, quod non existiment vel potius
certi sint placere Deo_.

_Sect._ 4. These considerations being permitted, for resolution of the
question in hand, we say, 1. As touching those actions which proceed from
bare imagination, whether they be evil and inordinate _quo ad speciem_,
forsomuch as the imagination from which they have their original doth not
in those actions subject itself to the conduct and moderation of reason,
but is like Gehazi, running away without his master’s leave, let the
learned give their judgment. Howsoever, it cannot be denied, that such
actions may be and are of a civil _quo ad individuum_,(1203) or in respect
of the circumstances, which show forth in them reprovable temerity,
incogitancy, levity, and indecency. But such actions belong not to our
purpose. 2. As for those actions which proceed from the deliberation of
reason, howbeit many of them be indifferent, _quo ad speciem_, yet none of
them are, nor can be indifferent, _quo ad individuum_. The reason of this
difference and distinction is, because every action hath its species or
kind,(1204) from the object, and a human moral action hath its species or
kind from the object referred to the original of human actions, which is
reason. Whereupon it cometh, that if the object of the action include
something that agreeth to the order of reason, it shall be a good action,
according to its kind; for example, to give alms to an indigent man. But
if it include something that is repugnant to the order of reason, it shall
be an evil action according to its kind; as to steal or take away another
man’s goods. Now sometimes it happeneth that the object of an action doth
not include something that belongeth to the order of reason; as to lift a
straw from the ground, to go to the field, &c., such actions are
indifferent, according to their kind. But we must pronounce far otherwise
of them when we speak of them _quo ad individuum_, because as they are
individuated by their circumstances, so in their individual being, they
have their goodness or badness from the same circumstances, as hath been
showed. So that no such action as is deliberated upon can be indifferent,
_quo ad individuum_; because _oportet_ (saith Thomas(1205)) _quod quilibet
individualis actus habeat aliquam circumstantiam, per quam trahetur ad
bonum vel malum, ad minus ex parte intentionis finis_. Friar Ambrosius
Catarinus, following the doctrine of Thomas, maintained in the Council of
Trent,(1206) that to do good was a work, the concurrences of all
circumstances is necessary, but the want of one only is sufficient for an
evil, so that howsoever among the works considered in general, some are
indifferent, yet in the singular there is no medium between having all the
circumstances and wanting some; therefore every particular action is good
or evil; and because among the circumstances the end is one, all works
referred to a bad end are infected. He further alleged St. Augustine, that
it is sin not only to refer the action to a bad end, but also not to refer
it to a good end. Thus spake the learned friar very appositely; and the
same is the judgment of our own divines. _De bis rebus indifferentibus_
(saith Martyr(1207)) _statuendum est, quod tantummodo ex genere atque
natura sua indifferentiam habeant, sed quando ad electionem descenditur
nihil est indifferens_; and so saith Pareus likewise.(1208)

_Sect._ 5. These things are so plain and undeniable, that Dr
Forbesse(1209) himself acknowledged no less than that every individual
human action is either good or bad morally; and that there is a goodness
which is necessary to every action, namely, the referring of it to the
last end, and the doing of it in faith; which goodness, if it be wanting,
the action is evil. Notwithstanding, he will have some actions, even _quo
ad individuum_, called indifferent, for this respect, because they are
neither commanded of God, and so necessary to be done, nor yet forbidden,
and so necessary to be omitted.

Of an individual action of this kind, he saith: _Manet homini respectu
istius actus plena arbitrii libertas moralis; tum ea quae exercitii seu
contradictionis dicitur, tum etiam ea quae specificationis seu
contrarietatis libertas appellatur._ He holdeth, that though such an
action be done in faith, and for the right end (which general goodness, he
saith, is necessary to the action, and commendeth a man to God), yet the
action itself is indifferent, because it is not necessary; for a man hath
liberty to omit the same, or to do another thing; which he illustrateth by
this example:—

If the widow Sempronia marry at all, it is faith, because, as the Apostle
teacheth, whatsoever is not of faith is sin. Now whilst everything is
condemned which is not of faith, two sorts of actions are rejected, as
Calvin observeth:(1210) 1. Such actions as are not grounded upon, nor
approven by the word of God. 2. Such actions, as though they be approven
by the word of God, yet the mind, wanting this persuasion, doth not
cheerfully address itself to the doing of them. But, I pray, doth the word
underprop or approve the use of anything indifferent, if it be not used
according to the foresaid rules, and, by consequence, conveniently and
profitably?

_Sect._ 9. The Doctor thinks it enough that, in the use of a thing
indifferent, I believe it is lawful for me to do this thing, albeit I
believe and certainly know that it is lawful to me to omit it, or do the
contrary; so that the doing of a thing in faith inferreth not the
necessity of doing it: but for answer hereunto we say,

1. We have sufficiently proven that it is never lawful for us to do
anything which is in the nature of it indifferent, except we be persuaded
not only of the lawfulness of the thing, but of the expediency of doing
it.

2. Of his comparing of things indifferent together, and not considering
them positively and by themselves, we have also said enough before.

3. The doing of a thing in faith inferreth the expediency and profit of
doing it, and that is enough to take away the indifferency of doing it;
for since every indifferent thing is either expedient to be done, or else
unlawful to be done (as hath been showed), it followeth that either it
ought to be done, or else it ought to be left undone; therefore it is
never indifferent nor free to us to do it, or leave it undone, at our
pleasure.

4. Because the Doctor (I perceive) sticketh upon the term of necessity,
and will have everything which is not necessary to be indifferent;
therefore, to remove this scruple, beside that Chrysostom and the author
of the interlineary gloss upon Matt. xviii. 7, take the meaning of those
words, “It must needs be that offences come,” to be this, _it is
profitable that offences come_. Which gloss, though it be not to be
received, yet as Camero noteth,(1211) it is ordinary to call that
necessary which is very profitable and expedient. Besides this, I say, we
further maintain, that in the use of things indifferent, that which we
deliberate upon to do is never lawful to be done except it be also
necessary, though not _necessitate absoluta seu consequentis_, yet
_necessitate consequentiae seu ex suppositione_. Paul’s circumcising of
Timothy was lawful only because it was necessary, for he behoved by this
means to win the good will of the people of Lystra who had once stoned
him,(1212) otherwise he could not safely have preached the gospel among
them. Therefore he had done wrong if he had not circumcised Timothy, since
the circumcising of him was according to the rules of the word, and it was
expedient to circumcise him, and unexpedient to do otherwise. And (because
_de partibus idem est judicium_) whensoever the use of any indifferent
thing is according to the rules of the word, that is, when it is
profitable for God’s glory, and man’s edification, and the doer is
persuaded of so much, I say, putting this case, then (forsomuch as not
only it may, but ought to be done) the use of it is not only lawful but
necessary, and (forsomuch as not only it needs not, but ought not to be
admitted) the omission of it is not only unnecessary but also unlawful.

Again, put the case, that the use of a thing indifferent be either against
or not according to the said rules, then (forsomuch as not only it may,
but ought to be admitted) the omission of it is not only lawful but
necessary, and (forsomuch as not only it needs not, but may not, neither
ought to be done) the doing of it is not only unnecessary but also
unlawful. For which it maketh, that the apostles in their decree, allege
no other ground for abstinence from blood and things strangled (which were
in their nature indifferent), but the necessity of abstaining caused and
induced by the foresaid rules, Acts xv. 28.

The Apostle showeth that that measure of liberality whereunto he exhorted
the Corinthians was not by any divine commandment necessary, yet he
adviseth it as a thing expedient, 2 Cor. viii. 8, 10. And were not the
Corinthians thereunto bound, because of this expediency of the matter,
though it was not necessary? _Juxta verbum_, &c.: “According to God’s word
(saith the Bishop of Salisbury(1213)) we are obliged to glorify God by our
good works, not only when necessity requireth, but also when ability
furnisheth, and opportunity occurreth,” Gal. vi. 10; Tit. ii. 14.

_Sect._ 10. As touching the scope of all this dispute, which is the
indifferency of the controverted ceremonies, we shall hear sundry reasons
against it afterward. For the present, I say no more but this: As in every
case, so most especially when we meddle with the worship of God, or any
appurtenance thereof, the rules of the word tie us so straitly, that that
which is in its own nature indifferent ought either to be done, or to be
left undone, according as it is either agreeable or not agreeable to these
rules; and so is never left free to us to be done or omitted at our
pleasure: for if at all we be (as certainly we are) abridged of our
liberty, chiefly it is in things pertaining to divine worship.

But I marvel why Dr Forbesse discourseth so much for the indifferency of
the ceremonies; for, lib. 1, cap. 7, he holdeth, that there were just
reasons in the things themselves why the pretended Assembly of Perth
should enjoin the five articles; some of which he calleth very convenient
and profitable, and others of them necessary in themselves. Sure, if he
stand to that which he hath there written, he cannot choose but say that
it is unlawful, both for us and for all Christians anywhere, to omit the
controverted ceremonies; and that all such as have at any time omitted
them, have thereby sinned, in leaving that undone which they ought to have
done—for the conveniency and necessity of them which he pretendeth is
perpetual and universal.

CHAPTER IV.

OF THE RULE BY WHICH WE ARE TO MEASURE AND TRY WHAT THINGS ARE
INDIFFERENT.

_Sect._ 1. That the word of God is the only rule whereby we must judge of
the indifferency of things, none of our opposites, we hope, will deny. “Of
things indifferent (saith Paybody(1214)) I lay down this ground, that they
be such, and they only, which God’s word hath left free unto us.”

Now these things which God’s word leaveth free and indifferent (in respect
of their nature and kind) are such things as it neither showeth to be good
nor evil. Where we are further to consider, that the word of God showeth
unto us the lawfulness or unlawfulness, goodness or badness of things, not
only by precepts and prohibitions, but sometimes also, and more plainly,
by examples. So that, not only from the precepts and prohibitions of the
word, but likewise from the examples recorded in the same, we may find out
that goodness or badness of human actions which taketh away the
indifferency of them.

And as for those who will have such things called indifferent as are
neither commanded nor forbidden in the word of God, I ask of them whether
they speak of plain and particular precepts and prohibitions, or of
general only? If they speak of particular precepts and prohibitions, then,
by their rule, the baptising of young children, the taking of water for
the element of baptism; a lecturer’s public reading of Scripture in the
church upon the Sabbath day; the assembling of synods for putting order to
the confusions of the church; the writing and publication of the decrees
of the same; and sundry other things which the word hath commended unto us
by examples,—should all be things indifferent, because there are not in
the word of God either particular precepts for them, or particular
prohibitions against them. But if they speak of general precepts and
prohibitions, then are those things commanded in the word of God for which
we have the allowed and commended examples of such as we ought to follow
(for, in the general, we are commanded to be followers of such examples,
Phil. iv. 8, 9; 1 Cor. xi. 1; Eph. v. 1), though there be no particular
precept for the things themselves thus exemplified.

_Sect._ 2. To come, therefore, to the ground which shall give us here some
footing, and whereupon we mind to rear up certain superstructions, we
hold, that not only we ought to obey the particular precepts of the word
of God, but that also “we are bound to imitate Christ, and the commendable
example of his apostles, in all things wherein it is not evident they had
special reasons moving them thereto, which do not concern us:” which
ground, as it hath been of a long time holden and confirmed by them of our
side, so never could, nor ever shall, our opposites subvert it. It is long
since the _Abridgement_ confirmed and strengthened it, out of those places
of Scripture: Eph. v. 1, “Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear
children;” 1 Cor. xi. 1, “Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of
Christ;” 1 Thess. i. 6, “And ye became followers of us and of the Lord;”
Phil. iii. 17, “Brethren, be followers together of me.”

This ground is also at length pressed by Cyprian, who showeth(1215) that,
in the holy supper of the Lord, Christ alone is to be followed by us; that
we are to do what he did; and that we ought not to take heed what any man
hath done before us, but what Christ did, who is before all.

_Sect._ 3. But Bishop Lindsey(1216) asketh of us, if we hold this rule,
what is the cause why, at the celebration of the sacrament, we bless not
the bread severally by itself, and the cup severally by itself, seeing
Christ did so, yet having no cause to move him which concerns not us.

_Ans._ 1. Beside the common blessing of the elements, in the beginning of
the action, we give thanks also in the several actions of distribution,
saying after this or the like manner: “The Lord Jesus, the same night he
was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks (as we also give
thanks to God who gave his Son to die for us) he brake it,” &c. “In like
manner also, after supper, he took the cup, and, when he had given thanks
(as we also give thanks to God who gave his Son to shed his blood for us),
he gave it,” &c. Which form (we conceive) may be construed to be an
imitation of the example of Christ.

2. Though we did not observe such a form; yet there were two reasons to
move Christ to give thanks severally, both at the giving of the bread, and
at the giving of the cup, neither of which concerneth us: 1. The
eucharistical supper was one continued action with the other supper which
went before it; for it is said, “That whilst they did eat, he took bread,”
&c. Wherefore, for more distinction of it from that supper which
immediately proceeded, it was fit that he should give thanks severally at
the giving of each element. 2. He had to do with the twelve apostles,
whose hearts being so greatly troubled with sorrow, John xvi. 6, and whose
minds not well comprehending that which they heard concerning the death of
Christ, John xvi. 12, much less those mystical symbols of it, especially
at the first hearing, seeing, and using of the same, it was needful for
their cause distinctly and severally to bless those elements, thereby to
help the weakness of their understanding, and to make them the more
capable of so heavenly mysteries.

_Sect._ 4. Now, having heard that which the Bishop had to say against our
rule, let us examine his own. He holdeth,(1217) That in the actions of
Christ’s apostles, or the customs of the church, there is nothing
exemplary and left to be imitated of us, but that which either being
moral, is generally commanded in the decalogue, or being ceremonial and
circumstantial, is particularly commanded by some constant precept in the
gospel.

_Ans._ 1. This rule is most false; for it followeth from it that the
example of the apostles’ making choice of the element of water in baptism,
and requiring a confession of faith from the person who was to be
baptised; the example also both of Christ and his apostles using the
elements of bread and wine in the holy supper, a table at which they did
communicate, and the breaking of the bread, are not left to be imitated of
us; because these things are ceremonial, but not particularly commanded in
the gospel. So that according to the rule which the Bishop holdeth, we sin
in imitating Christ and his apostles in those things, forasmuch as they
are not exemplary, nor left to be imitated of us.

2. His weapons fight against his own fellows, who allege (as we have
showed elsewhere) the custom of the church(1218) is a sufficient warrant
for certain ceremonies questioned betwixt them and us, which are not
particularly commanded by any precept in the gospel. These the Bishop doth
unwittingly strike at it whilst he holdeth that such customs of the church
are not exemplary, nor left to be imitated of us.

_Sect._ 5. Wherefore we hold still our own rule for sure and certain.
Christ’s actions are either _amanda_, as the works of redemption; or
_admiranda_, as his miracles; or _notanda_, as many things done by him for
some particular reason proper to that time and case, and not belonging to
us, which things, notwithstanding, are well worthy of our observation; or
_imitanda_, and such are all his actions which had no such special reason
moving him thereto as do not concern us.

Calvin, upon 1 Cor. xi. 1, saith well, that the Apostle there calls back
both himself and others to Christ, _Tanquam unicum recte agendi exemplar_;
and Polycarpus Lycerus, upon Matt. xvi. 24, under that command of
following Christ, comprehendeth the imitations of Christ’s actions.

Most certainly it is inexcusable presumption to leave the example of
Christ, and to do that which seemeth right in our own eyes, as if we were
wiser than he. And now, having laid down this ground, we are to build
certain positions upon it, us follows.

CHAPTER V.

THE FIRST POSITION WHICH WE BUILD UPON THE GROUND CONFIRMED IN THE FORMER
CHAPTER.

_Sect._ 1. From that which hath been said of following Christ, and the
commendable example of his apostles, in all things wherein it is not
evident that they had some such special reason moving them to do that
which they did, as doth not concern us, our first inference is this: That
it is not indifferent for a minister to give the sacramental elements of
bread and wine out of his own hand to every communicant; forasmuch as our
Lord commanded his apostles to divide the cup among them, that is, to
reach it one to another, Luke xxii. 17. Some of the interpreters are of
opinion, that the cup spoken of by the Evangelist in that place is not the
same whereof he speaketh after, ver. 20; but they are greatly mistaken;
for if it were as they think, then Christ did again drink before his death
of that fruit of the vine whereof we read ver. 18, which is manifestly
repugnant to his own words. Wherefore, as Maldonat observeth(1219) out of
Augustine and Euthimius, there was but one cup; whereof Luke speaketh,
first, by anticipation, and, afterward, in its own proper place.

_Sect._ 2. But Bishop Lindsey(1220) falleth here upon a very strange
speculation; and tells us, that if all the disciples did drink, howbeit
they did not deliver the cup one to another, but received it severally
from Christ’s own hand, they divided the same among them; because every
one takes his part of that which is parted, they divide the whole among
them. Alas! that I should blot paper with the confutation of such
fooleries. I believe, when his Majesty hath distributed and divided so
many lands and revenues among the prelates of Scotland, every one of them
takes his part, but dare not say, though, that they have divided these
lands and revenues among themselves. Can twenty or forty beggars, when an
alms is distributed among them, because every one of them getteth his
part, say, therefore, that they themselves have parted it among them?
What, then, shall be said of the distributor who giveth to every one his
part severally, and by himself? That man who required that his brother
should divide the inheritance with him, did not, I trow, desire Christ to
cause his brother to take his own part of the inheritance (there was no
fear that he would not take his part); but he desired that his brother
might give to him his part. So that, to divide anything among men, is not
to take it, but to give it. And who did ever confound parting and
partaking, dividing a cup and drinking a cup, which differ as much as
giving and receiving. Thus we conclude, that when Christ commanded the
apostles to divide the cup among them, the meaning of the words can be no
other than this, that they should give the cup one to another; which is so
plain that a Jesuit(1221) also maketh it to follow upon this command, that
Christ did reach the cup _non singulis sed uni, qui proximo, proximus
sequenti, et deinceps daret_. Hence it is that Hospinian(1222) thinks it
most likely that Christ brake the bread into two parts, _earumque alteram
dederit illi qui proximus ei ad dextram accumbebat, alteram vero ei qui ad
sinistram, ut isti deinceps proxime accumbentibus porrigerent, donec
singuli particulam sibi decerpsissent_.

CHAPTER VI.

ANOTHER POSITION BUILT UPON THE SAME GROUND.

_Sect._ 1. Our next position which we infer, is this: That it is not
indifferent to sit, stand, pass, or kneel, in the act of receiving the
sacramental elements of the Lord’s supper, because we are bound to follow
the example of Christ and his apostles, who used the gesture of sitting in
this holy action, as we prove from John xiii. 12; from Matt. xxvi. 20,
with 26; Mark xiv. 18, with 22.

Our opposites here bestir themselves, and move every stone against us.
Three answers they give us, which we will now consider.

First, They tell us that it is not certain that the apostles were sitting
when they received this sacrament from Christ, and that _adhuc sub judice
lis est_. Yet let us see what they have to say against the certainty
hereof.

Bishop Lindsey objecteth, that, between their eating of the paschal supper
and the administration of the sacrament to the disciples, five acts
intervened: 1. The taking of the bread; 2. The thanksgiving; 3. The
breaking; 4. The precept, “Take ye, eat ye;” 5. The word, whereby the
element was made the sacrament. In which time, saith he, the gesture of
sitting might have been changed.

_Ans._ It is first of all to be noted, that the apostles were sitting at
the instant when Christ took the bread, for it is said that he took bread
whilst they did eat; that is (as Maldonat(1223) rightly expoundeth it),
_Antequam surgerent, antequam mensae et ciborum reliquiae removerentur_;
and so we use to say that men are dining or supping so long as they sit at
table and the meat is not removed from before them. To Christ’s
ministering of the eucharistical supper together with the preceding
supper, Christians had respect when they celebrated the Lord’s supper
together with the love-feasts. _Probabile est eos ad Christi exemplum
respexisse, qui eucharistiam inter coenandum instituit_, saith
Pareus.(1224) But of this we need say no more; for the Bishop himself hath
here acknowledged no less than that they were sitting at that time when
Christ took the bread. Only he saith, that there were five acts which
intervened before the administration of the sacrament to the disciples
(whereof the taking of the bread was the first), and that in this while
the gesture of sitting might have been changed; which is as much as to
say, when he took the bread they were sitting, but they might have changed
this gesture, either in the time of taking the bread, or in the time of
thanksgiving, or in the time of breaking the bread, or whilst he said,
“Take ye, eat ye,” or lastly, in the time of pronouncing those words,
“This is my body” (for this is the word whereby, in the Bishop’s judgment,
the element was made the sacrament, as we shall see afterward).

Now but, by his leave, we will reduce his five acts to three; for thus
speaketh the text, “And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed it
and break it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat, this is
my body,” Matt. xxvi. 26; Mark xiv. 22. Whence it is manifest, that the
giving of the bread to the disciples, which no man, I suppose, will deny
to have been the administration of it, went before the two last acts which
the Bishop reckoneth out. Nothing, therefore, is left to him but to say,
that their gesture of sitting might have been changed, either in the
taking or in the blessing, or in the breaking, or else between the taking
and the blessing, or between the blessing and the breaking; yet doth the
text knit all the three together by such a contiguity and connection as
showeth unto us that they did all make up but one continued action, which
could not admit any interruption.

_Sect._ 2. I saw a prelate sit down to his breakfast, and, as he did eat,
he took some cups, and, having called for more, he said, he thanked God
that he was never given to his belly; and with that he made a promise to
one in the company, which he brake within two days after. Would any man
question whether or not the prelate was sitting when he made this promise,
forasmuch as between his sitting down to meat and the making of the
promise there intervened his taking of some cups, his calling for more,
and his pronouncing of these words, I thank God that I was never given to
my belly? Yet might one far more easily imagine a change of the prelate’s
gesture than any such change of the apostles’ gesture in that holy action
whereof we speak. Because the text setteth down such a continued, entire,
unbroken, and uninterrupted action, therefore Calvin gathereth out of the
text that the apostles did both take and eat the sacramental bread whilst
they were sitting. _Non legimus_, saith he,(1225) _prostratos adorasse,
sed ut erant discumbentes accepisse et manducasse. Christus_, saith
Martyr,(1226) _eucharistiam apostolis una secum sedentibus aut
discumbentibus distribuit_. G. J. Vossius(1227) puts it out of doubt that
Christ was still sitting at the giving of the bread to the apostles. And
that the apostles were still sitting when they received the bread,
Hospinian(1228) thinks it no less certain. They made no doubt of the
certainty hereof who composed that old verse which we find in
Aquinas:(1229)—

Rex sedet in coena, turba cinctus duodena;
Se tenet in manibus; se cibat ipse cibus.

Papists also put it out of controversy; for Bellarmine acknowledgeth(1230)
that the apostles could not externally adore Christ by prostrating
themselves in the last supper, _quando recumbere cum eo illis necesse
erat_; where we see he could guess nothing of the change of their gesture.
_Intelligendum est_, saith Jansenius,(1231) _dominum in novissima hac
coena, discubuisse et sedisse ante et post comestum agnum_. Dr Stella
sticketh not to say,(1232) _distribuit salvator mundi panem
discumbentibus_.

_Sect._ 3. But now having heard Bishop Lindsey, let us hear what
Paybody(1233) will say. He taketh him to another subterfuge, and tells us,
that though we read that Christ took bread whilst they did eat, yet can it
not be concluded hence that he took bread whilst they did sit; because,
saith he, “as they did eat,” is expounded by Luke (chap. xxii. 20) and
Paul (1 Cor. xi. 25) to be _after they had done eating_, or _after
supper_. Thus is their languages divided. Bishop Lindsey did yield to us,
that when Christ took bread they were sitting; and his conjecture was,
that this gesture of sitting might have been changed after the taking of
the bread. Paybody saw that he had done with the argument if he should
grant that they were sitting when Christ took bread, therefore he calleth
that in question. Vulcan’s own gimmers could not make his answer and the
Bishop’s to stick together.

But let us examine the ground which Paybody takes for his opinion. He
would prove from Luke and Paul, that when Matthew and Mark say, “As they
were eating, Jesus took bread,” the meaning is only this, _After supper,
Jesus took bread_; importing, that Christ’s taking of bread did not make
up one continued action with their eating, and that therefore their
gesture of sitting might have been changed between their eating of the
preceding supper and his taking of the sacramental bread.

Whereunto we answer, that there are two opinions touching the suppers
which Christ did eat with his disciples that night wherein he was
betrayed. And whichsoever the reader please to follow, it shall be most
easy to break all the strength of the argument which Paybody opposeth unto
us.

_Sect._ 4. First, then, some do think that Christ, having kept the
passover according to the law (which is not particularly related, but
supposed, by the evangelists), sat down to a common or ordinary supper, at
which he told the disciples that one of them should betray him. And of
this judgment are Calvin and Beza, upon Matt. xxvi. 21; Pareus, upon Matt.
xxvi. 21; Fulk and Cartwright, against the Rhemists, upon 1 Cor. xi. 23;
Tolet and Maldonat, upon John xiii. 2; Cornelius Jansenius, _Conc.
Evang._, cap. 131; Balthazar Meisnerus, _Tract, die Fest. Virid._, p. 256;
Johannes Forsterus, _Conc. 4, de Pass._, p. 538; Christophorus Pelargus,
in John xiii., quest. 2, and others. The reasons whereby their judgment is
confirmed are these:—

1. Many societies convened to the eating of the paschal supper by
twenties.(1234) And if twenty was often the number of them who convened to
the eating of the same (which also confirmeth their opinion who think that
other men and women in the inn did eat both the paschal and evangelical
supper together with the apostles in Christ’s company), it is not very
likely (say some) that all those were sufficiently satisfied and fed with
one lamb, which, after it was eight days old, was allowed to be offered
for the passover, as Godwin noteth.(1235) _Neque esus umus agni_, saith
Pareus, _toti familiae sedandae fami sufficere poterat._(1236)

2. The paschal supper was not for banquetting or filling of the belly, as
Josephus also writeth.(1237) _Non tam exsatiendae nutriendaeque naturae_,
saith Maldonat, _quam servandae legalis ceremoniae causa sumebatur_.(1238)
_Non ventri_, saith Pareus, _sed religionis causa fiebat_.(1239) But as
for that supper which Christ and his apostles did eat immediately before
the eucharistical, Cartwright doubts not to call it a carnal supper,(1240)
an earthly repast, a feast for the belly, which lets us know, that the
sacramental bread and wine was ordained, not for feeding their bodies,
which were already satisfied by the ordinary and daily supper, but for the
nourishment of the soul.

3. That beside the paschal and evangelical suppers, Christ and his
apostles had also that night another ordinary supper, Fulk proveth by the
broth wherein the sop was dipped,(1241) John xiii. 26. Whereas there was
no such broth ordained by the divine institution to be used in the paschal
supper.

4. That there were two suppers before the eucharistical they gather from
John xiii. For, first, the paschal supper was ended, ver. 2, after which
Christ washed his disciples’ feet. And thereafter we read, ver. 12,
_resumptis vestibus rursum ad caenam ordinariam consedisse._(1242) The
dividing of the passover into two services or two suppers had no warrant
at all from the first institution of that sacrament, for which cause they
think it not likely that Christ would have thus divided it according to
the device and custom of the Jews in latter times, for so much as in
marriage (and much more in the passover) he did not allow of that which
from the beginning was not so. Neither seemeth it to them any way
probable, that Christ would have interrupted the eating of the passover
with the washing of his disciples’ feet before the whole paschal supper
was ended, and they had done eating of it.

_Sect_. 5. But others (and those very judicious too) are of opinion, that
that second course whereunto Christ sat down after the washing of his
disciples’ feet, and at which he told them that one of them should betray
him, was not an ordinary or common supper (because the paschal supper was
enough of itself to satisfy them), but a part of the paschal supper. And
from the Jewish writers they prove that so the custom was to divide the
passover into two courses or services. As for that wherein Christ dipped
the sop, they take it to have been the sauce which was used in the paschal
supper, called _charoseth_, of which the Hebrews write, that it was made
of the palm tree branches, or of dry figs, or of raisins, which they
stamped and mixed with vinegar till it was thick as mustard, and made like
clay, in memory of the clay wherein they wrought in Egypt, and that they
used to dip both the unleavened bread and the bitter herbs into this
sauce. And as touching that place, John xiii., they expound it by the
custom of the Jews, which was to have two services or two suppers in the
passover; and take those words, ver. 2, “Supper being ended,” to be meant
of the first service, and sitting down again to supper, ver. 12, to be
meant of the second service.

_Sect._ 6. If those two opinions could be reconciled and drawn together
into one, by holding that that second course whereunto Christ sat down
after the washing of his disciples’ feet, was (for the substance of it) a
common supper, but yet it hath been and may be rightly called the second
service of the paschal supper, for that it was eaten the same night
wherein the paschal lamb was eaten, so should all the difference be taken
away; but if the maintainers of these opinions will not be thus agreed,
let the reader consider to which of them he will adhere.

If the first opinion be followed, then it will be most easily answered to
Paybody, that _inter coenandum instituta fuit eucharistia, cum jam rursum
mensoe accubuissent. Sed post coenam paschalem, et usum agni
legalis._(1243) When Matthew and Mark say, As they did eat, Jesus took
bread, they speak of the common or ordinary supper; but when Luke and Paul
say, that he took the cup after supper, they speak of the paschal supper,
which was eaten before the common supper.

Again, if the reader follow the other opinion, which holdeth that Christ
had no other supper that night before the evangelical except the paschal
only, yet still the answer to Paybody shall be easy; for whereas he would
prove from those words of Luke and Paul, “Likewise also the cup after
supper,” that when Matthew and Mark say, “As they did eat, Jesus took
bread,” their meaning is only this, “After supper Jesus took bread,” he
reasoneth very inconsiderately, forasmuch as Luke and Paul say not of the
bread, but of the cup only, that Jesus took it after supper. And will
Paybody say, that he took the cup so soon as he took the bread? If we will
speak with Scripture, we must say, that as they did eat the preceding
supper (to which we read they sat down) Jesus took bread; for nothing at
all intervened betwixt their eating of that other preceding supper, and
his taking of the eucharistical cup, there intervened the taking,
blessing, breaking, distributing, and eating of the bread.

Now, therefore, from that which hath been said, we may well conclude that
our opposites have no reason which they do or can object against the
certainty of that received tenet, that the apostles received from Christ
the sacramental bread and wine whilst they were sitting. Dr Forbesse
himself(1244) setteth down some testimonies of Musculus, Chamier, and the
professors of Leyden, all acknowledging that the apostles, when they
received the Lord’s supper, were still sitting.

_Sect._ 7. The second answer that our opposites hath given us, followeth:
They say, that though the apostles did not change their gesture of sitting
which they used in the former supper, when all this is granted to us, yet
there is as great difference betwixt our form of sitting and that form of
the Jews which the apostles used as there is betwixt _sedere_ and
_jacere_.

_Ans._ 1. Put the case it were so, yet it hath been often answered them,
that the apostles kept the table-gesture used in that nation, and so are
we bound herein to follow their example, by keeping the table-gesture used
in this nation. For this keeping of the usual table gesture of the nation
wherein we live is not a forsaking but a following of the commendable
example of the apostles, even as whereas they drank the wine which was
drunk in that place, and we drink the wine which is drunk in this place,
yet do we not hereby differ from that which they did.

2. The words used by the evangelists signify our form of sitting no less
than the Jewish, Calepine, Scapula, and Thomasius, in their dictionaries,
take ἀναπίπτω, ἀνακλίνω, ἀνακλίνομαι, ἀνάκειμαι, ποράκειμαι, κατάκειμαι,
and the Latin words _discumbo, recumbo, accumbo_ (used by Arias, Montanus,
Beza, Marlorat, Tremellius, &c., in their versions), not only for lying,
but also for such sitting as is opposed to lying, even for sitting upright
at table after our custom.

3. There is not so great a difference betwixt our form of sitting and that
which the Jews used as our opposites allege. For as Didoclavius showeth
out of Casaubon;(1245) their sitting at banquets was only with a leaning
upon the left arm, and so not lying, but sitting with a certain
inclination. When, therefore, we read of _lecti discubitorii tricliniares,
in quibus inter coenandum discumbebant_,(1246) we must understand them to
have been seats which compassed three sides of the table (the fourth side
being left open and void for them who served), and wherein they did sit
with some sort of inclination.

Yet Bishop Lindsey is bold to aver,(1247) that the usual table gesture of
the Jews was lying along, and this he would prove from Amos vi. 4, “They
lie upon beds of ivory, they stretch themselves out upon their couches.”

_Ans._ 1. If we should yield to this prelate his own meaning wherein he
taketh these words, yet how thinks he that the gesture of drunkards and
gluttons, which they used when they were pampering themselves in all
excess of riot, and for which also they are upbraided by the Spirit of
God, was either the ordinary table-gesture of the Jews, or the gesture
used by Christ and his apostles in their last supper?

2. If any gesture at all be touched in those words which the prelate
citeth, it was the gesture they used when they lay down to sleep, and not
their table-gesture when they did eat; for _mitta_ and _ngheres_ (the two
words which Amos useth) signify a bed or a couch wherein a man useth to
lay himself down to sleep. And in this sense we find both these words,
Psal. vi. 7, “All the night make I my bed (_mittathi_) to swim: I water my
couch (_ngharsi_) with my tears.” The Shunnamite prepared for Elisha a
chamber, and therein set for him a bed (_mitta_), and a table, and a
stool, and a candlestick, 2 Kings iv. 10. The stool or chair was for
sitting at table, but _mitta_, the bed, was for lying down to sleep. Now,
the prelate, I hope, will not say, that the _lecti tricliniares_, wherein
the Jews used to sit at table, and which compassed three sides of the same
(as hath been said), were their beds wherein they did lie and sleep all
night.

But, 3. The place must be yet more exactly opened up. That word which is
turned in our English books, _they lie_, cometh from the radix _schachav_,
which in Pagnin’s lexicon is turned _dormire_. We find, Ruth iii. 7,
_lischcav_, which Arias Montanus turned _ad dormiendum_, to sleep. Our own
English translation, 2 Sam. xi. 9, saith, “_Uriah slept_,” where the
original hath _vauschcav_; and the very same word is put most frequently
in the books of the Kings and the Chronicles, where they speak of the
death of the kings of Judah and Israel. Pagnin turneth it _et dormivit_;
and our English translators everywhere, “And he slept with his fathers,”
&c. These things being considered, we must, with Calvin, read the place of
Amos thus: _Qui decumbunt vel dormiunt in lectis._ The other word which
the prophet useth is _seruchim_. Our English version turneth it, “They
stretch themselves out;” but Pagnin, Buxtorff, Tremellius, and Tarnovius,
come nearer the sense, who read _redundantes, superfluentes_, or
_luxuriantes_; which sense the English translation also hath in the
margin. The Septuagints followed the same sense, for they read,
κατασπαταλὼντες, _i.e._, _living in pleasure_. So, 1 Tim. v. 6, _she that
lived in pleasure_, σπαταλῶσοι; and, James v. 5, _Ye have lived in
pleasure_, ἐσπαταλησατε. The radix is _sarach_, _redundavit_, or
_luxuriavit_. So, Exod. xxvi. 12, _sarach_, and, verse 13, _saruach_, is
put for a surplusage or superfluous remainder, _redundans superfluum_, as
Tremellius readeth. Now, then, it is evident that the thing which Amos
layeth to the charge of those who were at ease in Zion, in the words which
the prelate citeth against us, is, that they slept upon beds of ivory
(such was their softness and superfluity), and swimmed in excessive
pleasures upon their couches; and, incontinent, their filthy and muddy
stream of carnal delicacy and excessive voluptuousness which defiled their
beds, led him back to the unclean fountain out of which it issued, even
their riotous pampering of themselves at table; therefore he subjoineth,
“And eat the lambs out of the flock,” &c. For _ex mensis itur ad cubilia,
ex gula in venerem_, saith Cornelius à Lapide, commenting upon the same
text. Thus have I cleared the place in such sort, that the Bishop cannot
but shoot short of his aims; wherefore I go on to other replies.

4. If the apostles, when they received the Lord’s supper, or the Jews,
when they did eat at table, were lying all along, how could their mouths
receive drink unspilt? or how could they have the use of both their arms?
which the Bishop himself would not, I am sure, gainsay, if he would once
try the matter in his own person, and essay to eat and drink whilst lying
along.

5. The words used by Matthew, chap. xxvi. 10, and by Mark, chap. xiv. 18,
where they speak of Christ sitting down with the twelve, is also used by
John, chap. vi. 11, where he speaketh of the peoples’ sitting down upon
the grass to eat the loaves and fishes: and will any man think that the
people did eat lying along upon the grass, where they might far better sit
upright?

6. If our opposites like to speak with others, then let them look back
upon the testimonies which I have alleged before. Jansenius putteth
_discubuisse et sedisse_; Martyr, _sedentibus aut discumbentibus_. Pareus
useth the word _consedisse_; Meisnerus,(1248) _consedendo; Evangelista_,
saith Dr Stella,(1249) _dicit dominum discubuisse, id est sedisse ad
mensam_.

7. If they like to speak to themselves: Camero,(1250) speaking of John’s
leaning on Christ’s bosom at supper, saith, _Christus autem sedebat
medius_; Dr Morton saith,(1251) it cannot be denied that the gesture of
Christ and his apostles at the last supper was sitting,—only, saith he,
the evangelists leave it uncertain whether this sitting was upright, or
somewhat leaning.

_Sect._ 8. Their third answer is, that Christ’s sitting at the last supper
is no more exemplary and imitable than the upper chamber, or the night
season, or the sex and number of communicants, &c.

_Ans._ 1. As for the sex and number of communicants, Dr Fulk(1252) rightly
observeth, that it is not certain from Scripture that twelve men only, and
no women, did communicate (as Bishop Lindsey(1253) would have us certainly
to believe); but suppose it were certain,(1254) yet for this, and all the
other circumstances, which are not exemplary, there were special reasons
either in the urgency of the legal necessity, or in the exigency of
present and accidental occasions, which do not concern us: whereas the
gesture of sitting was freely and purposely chosen, and so intended to be
exemplary, especially since there was no such reason moving Christ to use
this gesture of sitting as doth not concern us.

The Bishop saith,(1255) that his sitting at the former supper might have
been the reason which moved him to sit at the eucharistical supper; but if
Christ had not purposely made choice of the gesture of sitting as the
fittest and most convenient for the eucharistical supper, his sitting at
the former supper could be no reason to move him, as may appear by this
example: There are some gentlemen standing in a nobleman’s waiting-room;
and after they have stood there a while, the nobleman cometh forth; they
begin to speak to him, and, as they speak, still they stand. Now, can any
man say that the reason which moveth them to stand when they speak to the
nobleman, is, because they were standing before he came to them? So doth
the Bishop come short of giving any special reason for Christ’s sitting
which concerneth not us. He can allege no more but Christ’s sitting at the
former supper, which could be no reason, else he should have also risen
from the eucharistical supper to wash the disciples’ feet, even as he rose
from the former supper for that effect. Wherefore, we conclude, that
Christ did voluntarily, and of set purpose, choose sitting as the fittest
and best beseeming gesture for that holy banquet.

Finally, Hooker’s(1256) verdict of the gesture of Christ and his apostles
in this holy supper is, “That our Lord himself did that which custom and
long usage had made fit; we, that which fitness and great decency hath
made usual.” In which words, because cause he importeth that they have
better warrants for their kneeling than Christ had for his sitting (which
is blasphemy), I leave them as not worthy of an answer. Howsoever, let it
be noted that he acknowledged, by kneeling they depart from the example of
Christ.

CHAPTER VII.

OTHER POSITIONS BUILT UPON THE FORMER GROUND.

_Sect._ 1. The third consequence which we infer upon our former rule of
following the example of Christ is, that it is not a thing indifferent to
omit the repetition of those words, “This is my body,” enunciatively and
demonstratively in the act of distributing the eucharistical bread; and
far less is it indifferent so to omit this demonstrative speech in the
distribution, as in place of it to surrogate a prayer to preserve the soul
and body of the communicant unto everlasting life. Our reason is, because
Christ (whose example herein we ought to follow) used no prayer in the
distribution, but that demonstrative enunciation, “This is my body.” But
we go forward.

_Sect._ 2. The fourth position we draw from the same rule is, that it is
not indifferent for a minister to omit the breaking of the bread at the
Lord’s table after the consecration and in the distribution of it, because
he ought to follow the example of Christ, who, after he had blessed the
bread, and when he was distributing it to them who were at table, brake
it,(1257) _manibus comminuendo panem acceptum in partes_, but had it not
carved in small pieces before it was brought to the table. Hence G. J.
Vossius(1258) doth rightly condemn those who, though they break the bread
_in multas minutias_, yet they break it not _in actu sacramentali_. Such a
breaking as this (he saith well) is not _mystica_, but _coquinaria_.

_Sect._ 3. The fifth position, drawn from the very same ground is, that it
is not indifferent for a minister, in the act of distribution, to speak in
the singular number, _Take thou, eat thou, drink thou_; because he should
follow the example of Christ, who, in the distribution, spake in the
plural number, _Take ye, eat ye, drink ye_; and he who followeth not
Christ’s example herein, by his speaking in the singular to one, he maketh
that to be a private action betwixt himself and the communicant, which
Christ made public and common by his speaking to all at one time.

_Sect._ 4. How idly Bishop Lindsey(1259) answereth to these things, it
cannot but appear to every one who considereth that we do not challenge
them for not breaking the bread at all,—for not pronouncing at all these
words, “This is my body,” or for never pronouncing at all these speeches
in the plural, _Take ye, eat ye, drink ye_,—but for not breaking the bread
in the very act of distribution,—for not pronouncing demonstratively those
words, “This is my body,” in the very act of distribution,—for not
speaking in the plural number, “Take ye,” &c.—in the very act of
distribution, as Christ did, having no other reasons to move him than such
as concern us. Why, then, did not the Bishop say something to the point
which we press him with? or shall we excuse him because he had nothing to
say to it?

_Sect._ 5. Now, last of all, we find yet another point, whereby the
Bishop(1260) departeth from the example and mind of Christ. He saith that,
by the sacramental word, “This is my body,” the bread is made the
sacrament, &c.; and that without this word, &c., all our prayers and
wishes should serve to no use. Where he will have the bread to be
otherwise consecrated by us than it was consecrated by Christ; for that
Christ did not consecrate the bread to be the sacrament of his body by
those words, “This is my body,” it is manifest, because the bread was
consecrated before his pronouncing of those words; or else what meaneth
the blessing of it before he brake it? It was both blessed and broken, and
he was also distributing it to the disciples, before ever he said, “This
is my body.” Beza saith, _Benedictionem expresse ad panis consecrationem
et quidem singularem, refert; et omnes nostri referunt, consecrationem
intelligentes, &c._ Pareus saith,(1261) _Qua ex communi cibo, in
spiritualis alimoniae sacramentum transmutetur._ Wherefore we must not
think to sanctify the bread by this prescript word, “This is my body,” but
by prayer and thanksgiving, as Christ did. Our divines hold against the
Papists,(1262) _Verba illa quoe in sacramento sunt consecrata, non esse
paucula quoedam proscripta; sed praecipue verba orationis, quoe non sunt
proescripta_; and that, “through use of the prayers of the church, there
is a change in the elements.”(1263) Dr Fulk objecteth(1264) against
Gregory Martin, “Your popish church doth not either as the Greek
liturgies, or as the churches in Ambrose and Augustine’s time, for they
hold that the elements are consecrated by prayer and thanksgiving.” I know
none who will speak with Bishop Lindsey in this point except Papists: yet
Cornelius à Lapide could also say, _Eucharistia conficitur et conditur
sacris precibus_.(1265)

_Sect._ 6. I say not that these words, “This is my body,” have no use at
all in making the bread to be a sacrament; but that which giveth us
dislike is,

1. That the Bishop maketh not the word and prayer together, but the word
alone, to sanctify the bread and wine. Now, if both the word and prayer be
necessary to sanctify the creatures for the food of our bodies, 1 Tim. iv.
5, much more are they necessary to sanctify them for the food of our
souls. _Neque enim solis domini verbis consecratio sit, sed etiam
precibus._(1266) The fathers, saith Trelcatius,(1267) had not only respect
to those five words, “For this is my body,” _dum eucharistiam fieri
dixerunt mystica precc, invocatione nominis divini, solemni benedictione,
gratiarum actione._ 2. That he makes not the whole word of the institution
to sanctify the bread, but only that one sentence, “This is my body;”
whereas Christ’s will is declared, and, consequently, the elements
sanctified by the whole words of the institution,(1268) “Jesus took the
bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat,
this is my body which is broken for you, this do in remembrance of me,”
&c.

That he acknowledged not the bread, though sanctified by prayer, to be the
sacrament, except that very word be pronounced, “This is my body.” Now,
when a minister hath, from Christ’s will and institution, declared that he
hath appointed bread and wine to be the elements of his body and blood,
when he hath also declared the essential rites of this sacrament.

And, lastly, when, by the prayer of consecration, he hath sanctified the
bread and wine which are present, put the case, that all this while those
prescript sentences, “This is my body,” “This cup is the New Testament in
my blood,” have not been pronounced, yet what hindereth the bread and wine
from being the sacramental elements of the Lord’s body and blood? It is
sounder divinity to say, that the consecration of a sacrament doth not
depend _ex certa aliqua formula verborum_.(1269) For it is evident that,
in baptism, there is not a certain form of words prescribed, as Bellarmine
also proveth;(1270) because Christ saith not, “Say, I baptise thee in the
name,” &c.: so that he prescribeth not what should be done. Aquinas
likewise holdeth,(1271) that the consecration of a sacrament is not
absolutely tied to a certain form of words. And so saith Conradus
Vorstius,(1272) speaking of the eucharist. Wherefore Vossius(1273) doth
rightly condemn the Papists, _quod consecrationem non aliis verbis fieri
putant, quam istis, hoc est corpus meum, et hic est sanguis meus_.

CHAPTER VIII.

THAT THE CEREMONIES ARE NOT THINGS INDIFFERENT TO THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND;
BECAUSE SHE DID ABJURE AND REPUDIATE THEM BY A MOST SOLEMN AND GENERAL
OATH.

_Sect._ 1. Having spoken of the nature of things indifferent, and showed
which things be such; also of the rule whereby to try the indifferency of
things: which rule we have applied to certain particular cases;—it
remaineth to say somewhat of the main and general purpose, which is
principally questioned in this last part of our dispute, viz., whether
cross, kneeling, holidays, bishopping, and the other controverted
ceremonies wherewith our church is pressed this day, be such things as we
may use freely and indifferently? The negative (which we hold) is strongly
confirmed by those arguments which, in the third part of this our dispute,
we have put in order against the lawfulness of those ceremonies.
Notwithstanding we have thought fit to add somewhat more in this place.
And, first, we say, whatsoever be the condition of the ceremonies in their
own nature, they cannot be indifferently embraced and used by the church
of Scotland, which hath not only once cast them forth, but also given her
great oath solemnly to the God of heaven, both witnessing her detestation
of the Roman Antichrist’s “five bastard sacraments, with all his rites,
ceremonies, and false doctrine, added to the ministration of the true
sacraments, without the word of God; all his vain allegories, rites,
signs, and traditions, brought in the kirk, without or against the word of
God;” and likewise “promising, and swearing to continue,” as well “in the
discipline and use of the holy sacraments,” as “in the doctrine,” of this
reformed church of Scotland, which then first she embraced and used after
she was truly reformed from Popery and popish abuses. And this which I say
may be seen in the general Confession of Faith, sworn and subscribed by
his Majesty’s father, of everlasting memory, anno 1580, and by the several
parochines in the land, at his Majesty’s strait command; which also was
renewed and sworn again, anno 1596, by the General Assembly, by provincial
assemblies, by presbyteries and particular parish churches.

_Sect._ 2. No reformed church in Europe is so strictly tied by the bond of
an oath and subscription, to hold fast her first discipline and use of the
sacraments, and to hold out popish rites, as is the church of Scotland.
And who knoweth not that an oath doth always oblige and bind, _quando est
factum de rebus certis et possibilibus, vere ac sine dolo præmeditate, ac
cum judicio, juste, ad gloriam Dei, et bonum proximi_?(1274) What one of
all those conditions was here wanting? Can we then say any less than a
pope said before us:(1275) _Non est tutum quemlibet contra juramentum suum
venire, nisi tale sit, quod servatum vergat in interitum salutis æternæ_?
O damnable impiety, which maketh so small account of the violation of the
aforesaid oath, which hath as great power to bind us as that oath of the
princes of Israel made to the Gibeonites, had to bind their posterity, 2
Sam. xxi. 1, 2; for it was made by the whole incorporation of this land,
and hath no term at which it may cease to bind. Nay (in some respects) it
bindeth more straitly than that oath of the princes of Israel. For, 1.
That was made by the princes only; this by prince, pastors, and people: 2.
That was made rashly (for the text showeth that they asked not counsel
from the mouth of the Lord); this with most religious and due
deliberation: 3. That was made to men; this to the great God: 4. That
sworn but once; this once and again.

_Sect._ 3. Some of our opposites go about to derogate somewhat from the
binding power of that oath of the princes of Israel. They are so nettled
therewith that they fitch hither and thither. Dr Forbesse(1276) speaketh
to the purpose thus: _Juramentum Gibeonitis praestitum contra ipsius Dei
mandatum, et inconsulta Deo, non potuissent Josuae et Israelitae opere
perficere nisi Deus, extraordinarie de suo mandato dispensasset,
compassione poenitentis illius populi Gibeonitei, et propter honorem sui
nominis, ut neque foedifragorum fautor, neque supplicium paenitentium
aspernator esse videretur._

_Ans._ 1. If the oath was against the commandment of God, what dishonour
had come to the name of God though he had not patronised the swearers of
it, but hindered them from fulfilling their oath? If a Christian swear to
kill a pagan, and hereafter repent of his oath, and not perform it, can
there any dishonour redound thereby to the name of Christ? The Doctor,
forsooth, must say so.

2. Where hath he read of the repentance of the Gibeonites, which God would
not despise?

3. If an oath made against the commandment of God (the breach of the
commandment being dispensed with) bindeth so strictly and inviolably as
that oath of the princes of Israel did, how much more ought we to think
ourselves strictly and inviolably bound, by the solemn oath of the church
of Scotland, which was not repugnant but most consonant to the word of
God, even our adversaries themselves being judges? for thus speaketh one
of them: _Quod antem jurarunt nostrates, __ non erat illicitum, sed a
nobis omnibus jure praesture potest ac debet_;(1277) so that the Doctor
hath gained nothing, but loosed much, by that which he saith of the
Israelites’ oath: he hath even fanged himself faster in the snare which he
thought to escape.

O but, saith the Doctor, that which they did, either in swearing or in
performing their oath, against the express commandment of God, we may not
draw into an ordinary example.

_Ans._ It was against the commandment of God; no man will say that we
should follow either their swearing or their performing of their oath.
Yet, in the meantime, the Doctor is pressed with this argument, that if
their unlawful oath (in the case of God’s dispensation) did bind their
posterity, much more doth that oath of the church of Scotland (which the
Doctor hath acknowledged lawful and commendable) bind us this day.

_Sect._ 4. But, 4. Albeit the Doctor hath hereby given us scope and
advantage enough against himself; nevertheless, for the truth’s sake, I
add, that it cannot be showed how that oath of the princes of Israel was
against the express commandment of God; but it rather appeareth that it
was agreeable to the same. For, as Tremellius(1278) hath it noted, that
commandment, Deut. xx., whereby the Israelites were commanded to save
alive nothing in the cities of the Canaanites, was to be only understood
of such cities among them as should make war with them, and be besieged by
them. But the Gibeonites were not of this sort; for they sought their
lives before the Israelites came to them. And by the same means Rahab and
her father’s house got their life, because they sought it, Josh. ii.
Calvin also serveth:(1279) _Jussos fuisse Israelitas pacem omnibus
offere._ And Junius, upon Deut. xx., distinguisheth well two laws of war
given to Israel.

The first law is concerning offering peace to all; which law is general
and common as well to the Canaanites as to foreign nations: “When thou
comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it.
And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, then it shall be that
all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and
they shall serve thee.” Which commandment was afterward observed by
Israel; of whom we read, “That when Israel was strong, they put the
Canaanites to tribute, and did not utterly drive them out,” Josh. xvii.
13; Judges i. 28: by Solomon also, who did not cut off the people that
were left of the Hittites and the Amorites, but only made them to pay
tribute, 2 Chron. viii. 7, 8. That which I say is further confirmed by
another place, Josh. xi. 19, 20, where it is said, “There was not a city
that made peace with the children of Israel save the Hivites, the
inhabitants of Gibeon; all other they took in battle. For it was of the
Lord to harden their hearts, that they should come against Israel in
battle, that he might destroy them utterly, and that they might have no
favour; but that he might destroy them, as the Lord commanded Moses.” From
which words it appeareth, that if the Canaanites had made peace with the
children of Israel, they were to show them favour; and that they were
bound by the commandment of the Lord to destroy them, then only, and in
that case, if they would not accept peace, but make war; whence it cometh,
that the cause of the destruction of the Canaanites is imputed to their
own hardness and contumacy in not accepting of peace, and not to any
commandment which God had given to Israel for destroying them. In a word,
it was _voluntas signi_, which, in one place, Deut. xx. 10, showed the
Israelites what was their duty, namely, to offer peace to all, even to the
Canaanites, and not to cut them off if they should accept the peace; but
it was _voluntas beneplaciti_, which, as we read in another place, Deut.
vii. 2, decreed to deliver the Canaanites before the Israelites, that is,
to harden their hearts to come against them in battle, and so to overrule
the matter, by a secret and inscrutable providence, that the Israelites
might lawfully and should certainly destroy them and show them no mercy.
Even as that same God who, by one word, showed unto Abraham what was his
duty, bidding him offer up his son Isaac, Gen. xxii. 2, by another word
signified unto him what he had decreed to be done, forbidding him to lay
his hand upon the lad, or to do anything unto him, ver. 12. But this, I
know, will be very unsavoury language to many Arminianised conformitants.

The other law of war which Junius, upon Deut. xx., observeth, prescribed
to the Israelites how they should deal with them who refused their peace.
And here only was the difference made betwixt the cities which were very
far off and the cities of the Canaanites, Deut. xx. 15, 16; but the first
law was common, as hath been proven.

Joseph Hall seemeth to deny that the oath of the princes of Israel had any
power to bind, but upon another ground than Dr Forbesse took to himself.
“It would seem very questionable (saith Hall(1280)) whether Joshua needed
to hold himself bound to this oath; for fraudulent conventions oblige not;
and Israel had put in a direct caveat of their vicinity.”

_Ans._ I marvel how it could enter in his mind to think this matter
questionable, since the violation of that oath was afterwards punished
with three years’ famine, 2 Sam. xxi. 1, 2. Yet let us hearken to his
reasons. One of them is forged; for the princes of Israel who sware unto
them put in no caveat at all. The text saith only in the general, that
they sware unto them, Josh. ix. 15. As touching his other reason, it is
answered by Calvin,(1281) _Juris jurandi religio_, saith he, _eousque
sancta apud nos esse debet, ne erroris praetextu à pactis discedemus,
etiam in quibus fuimus decepti_. Which, that it may be made more plain
unto us, let us, with the Casuists, distinguish a twofold error in
swearing.(1282) For if the error be about the very substance of the thing
(as when a man contracts marriage with one particular person, taking her
to be another person) the oath bindeth not; but if the error be only about
some extrinsical or accidental circumstance (such as was the error of the
Israelites’ taking the Gibeonites to dwell afar off when they dwelt at
hand), the oath ceaseth not to bind.

_Sect._ 6. This much being said for the binding power of that oath of the
church of Scotland, let us now consider what shifts our opposites use to
elude our argument which we draw from the same; where, first, there
occurreth to us one ground which the Bishop of Edinburgh doth everywhere
beat upon in the trace of this argument, taken out of the 21st article of
the Confession of Faith, wherein we find these words: “Not that we think
that any policy and an order in ceremonies can be appointed for all ages,
times, and places; for as ceremonies, such as men have devised, are but
temporal, so may and ought they to be changed when they foster rather
superstition than that they edify the kirk using the same: ‘whereupon the
Bishop concludeth,(1283) that none who sware the aforesaid article could,
without breach of this oath, swear that the ceremony of sitting at the
receiving of the sacrament could be appointed for all ages, times, and
places.’ ”

_Ans._ None of us denieth that article: we all stand to it. For that which
it pronounceth of ceremonies must be understood of alterable
circumstances, unto which the name of ceremonies is but generally and
improperly applied, as we have showed elsewhere;(1284) neither can we, for
professing ourselves bound by an oath ever to retain sitting at the
receiving of the sacrament in this national church of Scotland, be
therefore thought to transgress the said article.

For, 1. The article speaketh of ceremonies devised by men, whereof sitting
at the sacrament is none, being warranted (as hath been showed) by
Christ’s own example, and not by man’s device.

2. The article speaketh of such ceremonies as rather foster superstition
than edify the church using the same; whereas it is well known that
sitting at the communion did never yet foster superstition in this church;
so that the Bishop did very unadvisedly reckon sitting at the communion
among those ceremonies whereof the article speaketh.

_Sect._ 7. But the Bishop hath a further aim, and attempteth no less than
both to put the blot of perjury off himself and his fellows, and likewise
to rub it upon us, telling us,(1285) “That no man did by the oath oblige
himself to obey and defend that part of discipline which concerneth these
alterable things all the days of his life, but only that discipline which
is unchangeable and commanded in the word. Yea (saith he), we further
affirm, that every man who sware to the discipline of the church in
general, by virtue of the oath standeth obliged, not only to obey and
defend the constitution of the church that was in force at the time of
making his oath, but also to obey and defend whatsoever the church
thereafter hath ordained, or shall ordain, &c., whether thereby the former
constitution be established or altered,” &c. The same answer doth Dr
Forbesse also return us.(1286)

_Ans._ 1. Here is a manifest contradiction; for the Bishop saith that
every man did, by this oath, oblige himself only to obey and defend that
discipline which is unchangeable and commanded in the word. And yet again
he seemeth to import (that which Dr Forbesse plainly avoucheth(1287)),
that every man obliged himself by the same oath to obey and defend all
that the church should afterwards ordain, though thereby the former
constitutions be altered. The Bishop doth, therefore, apparently
contradict himself; or, at the best, he contradicteth his fellow-pleader
for the ceremonies.

2. That ancient discipline and policy of this church which is contrary to
the articles of Perth, and whereunto we are bound by the oath, was well
grounded upon God’s word, and therefore should not have been ranked among
other alterable things.

3. Whereas the Bishop is of opinion that a man may, by his oath, tie
himself to things which a church shall afterwards ordain, he may consider,
that such an oath were unlawful, because not sworn in judgment, Jer. iv.
2. Now this judgment which is required as one of the inseparable
companions of a lawful oath, is not _executio justitiae_, but _judicium
discretionis_, as Thomas teacheth;(1288) whom Bullinger and Zanchius(1289)
do herein follow. But there is no judgment of discretion in his oath who
swears to that he knows not what, even to that which may fall out as
readily wrong as right.

4. Whereas the Bishop and the Doctor allege that every man who sware to
the discipline of this church standeth obliged to obey all that the church
ordained afterward, they greatly deceive themselves.

For, 1. The discipline spoken of in the promissory part of the oath must
be the same which was spoken of in the assertory part. Now that which is
mentioned in the assertory part cannot be imagined to be any other but
that which was then presently used in this church at the time of giving
the oath; for an assertory oath(1290) is either of that which is past or
of that which is present: and the assertory part of the oath whereof we
speak was not of any discipline past and away, therefore of that which was
present. Moreover, Thomas(1291) doth rightly put this difference betwixt
an assertory and a promissory oath, that the matter of a promissory oath
is a thing to come, which is alterable, as concerning the event. _Materia
autem juramenti assertorii, quod est de praeterito vel praesenti, in
quandam necessitatem jam transiit, et immutabilis facta est._ Since, then,
the discipline spoken of in the assertory part was no other than that
which was used in this church when the oath was sworn; and since the
promissory part is illative upon, and relative unto the matter of the
assertory part; therefore we conclude the discipline spoken of in the
promissory part could be no other than that which was then presently used
in this church at the swearing of the oath.

2. Since the doctrine mentioned in that oath is said to have been
professed openly by the King’s Majesty, and the whole body of this realm,
before the swearing of the same, why should we not likewise understand the
discipline mentioned in the oath to be that which was practised in this
realm before the swearing of the same?

3. This is further proved by the word _continuing_. We are sworn to
continue in the obedience of the doctrine and discipline of this church;
but how can men be said to continue in the obedience of any other
discipline than that which they have already begun to obey? This the
Bishop seems to have perceived, for he speaks only of defending and
obeying, but not of continuing to obey, which is the word of the oath, and
which proveth the discipline there spoken of and sworn to to be no other
than that which was practised in the church when the oath was sworn. 4.
Whilst we hold that he who sweareth to the present discipline of a church,
is not by virtue of this oath obliged to obey all which that church shall
ordain afterward, both the school and the canon law do speak for us. The
school teacheth, that _canonicus qui jurat se servaturum statuta edita in
aliquo collegio, non tenetur ex juramenta ad servandum futura_;(1292) the
canon law judgeth, that _qui jurat servare statuta edita, &c., non tenetur
ex juramento ad novitur edita._(1293)

_Sect._ 8. But we are more fully to consider that ground whereby the
Bishop thinketh to purge himself, and those of his sect, of the breach of
the oath. He still allegeth,(1294) that the points of discipline for which
we contend are not contained in the matter of the oath. Now, as touching
the discipline of this church which is spoken of in the oath, he
questioneth what is meant by it.(1295)

_Ans._ 1. Put the case, it were doubtful and questionable what is meant by
the word discipline in the oath; yet _pars tutior_ were to be chosen. The
Bishop nor no man among us can certainly know, that the discipline meant
and spoken of in the oath by those that swear it, comprehendeth not under
it those points of discipline which we now contend, and which this church
had in use at the swearing of the oath. Shall we, then, put the breach of
the oath in a fair hazard? God forbid; for, as Joseph Hall(1296) noteth
from the example of Joshua and the princes, men may not trust to shifts
for the eluding of an oath. Surely the fear of God’s name should make us
tremble at an oath, and to be far from adventuring upon any such shifts.

2. The Bishop doth but needlessly question what is meant by the discipline
whereof the oath speaketh; for howsoever in ecclesiastical use it signify
oftentimes that policy which standeth in the censuring of manners, yet in
the oath it must be taken in the largest sense, namely, for the whole
policy of the church; for, 1. The whole policy of this church did at that
time go under the name of discipline;(1297) and those two books wherein
this policy is contained were called The Books of Discipline. And, without
all doubt, they who sware the oath meant by _discipline_ that whole policy
of the church which is contained in those books. Howbeit (as the preface
of them showeth) discipline doth also comprehend other ecclesiastical
ordinances and constitutions which are not inserted in them. 2. Doctrine
and discipline, in the oath, do comprehend all that to which the church
required, and we promised, to perform obedience; therefore the whole
policy of the church was meant by _discipline_, forasmuch as it was not
comprehended under doctrine.

_Sect._ 9. The Bishop(1298) objecteth three limitations, whereby he
thinketh to seclude from the matter of the oath that policy and discipline
which we plead for.

First, he saith, that the matter of the oath is the doctrine and
discipline revealed to the world by the gospel, and that this limitation
excludeth all ecclesiastical constitutions which are not expressly or by a
necessary consequence contained in the written word.

2. That the matter of the oath is the doctrine and discipline which is
received, believed and defended, by many notable churches, &c., and that
this limitation excludeth all these things wherein the church of Scotland
hath not the consent of many notable churches, &c.

3. That the doctrine and discipline which is the matter of the oath, is
particularly expressed in the Confession of Faith, &c., and that in this
confession of faith, established by parliament, there is no mention made
of the articles controverted, &c.

_Ans._ I might here show how he confoundeth the preaching of the evangel
with the written word; likewise how falsely he affirmeth, that the points
of discipline for which we plead, are neither warranted by the Scripture
nor by the consent of many notable churches. But to the point: These words
of the oath, “We believe, &c., that this is the only true Christian faith
and religion, pleasing God, and bringing salvation to man, which now is by
the mercy of God revealed to the world by the preaching of the blessed
evangel, and received, believed and defended, by many and sundry notable
kirks and realms, but chiefly by the kirk of Scotland, the King’s Majesty,
and three Estates, &c., as more particularly expressed in the Confession
of our Faith, &c.,” are altogether perverted by the Bishop; for there is
no discipline spoken of in these words, but afterward. Why, then, talks he
of a discipline revealed to the world by the gospel, having the consent of
many notable churches, and expressed in the Confession of Faith? And if
the Bishop will have any discipline to be meant of in these words, he must
comprehend it under the Christian faith and religion, which bringeth
salvation unto man. But this he cannot do with so much as the least show
of reason. Thus put we an end to the argument taken from the oath of God,
wishing every man amongst us, out of the fear of God’s glorious and
fearful name, duly to regard and ponder the same.

CHAPTER IX.

A RECAPITULATION OF SUNDRY OTHER REASONS AGAINST THE INDIFFERENCY OF THE
CEREMONIES.

_Sect._ 1. That the ceremonies are not indifferent to us, or such things
as we may freely practise, we prove yet by other reasons:

For, 1. They who plead for the indifferency of the ceremonies must tell us
whether they call them indifferent _in actu signato_, or _in actu
exercito_; or in both these respects. Now, we have proven,(1299) that
there is no action deliberated upon, and wherein we proceed with the
advice of reason, which can be indifferent _in actu exercito_, and that
because it cannot choose, but either have all the circumstances which it
should have (and so be good), or else want some of them, one or more (and
so be evil). And for the indifferency of the ceremonies _in actu signato_,
though we should acknowledge it (which we do not), yet it could be no
warrant for the practice of them, or else the believing Gentiles might
have freely eaten of all meats, notwithstanding of the scandal of the
Jews, for the eating of all meats freely was still a thing indifferent,
_in actu signato_.

_Sect._ 2. The ceremonies are not indifferent _eo ipso_, that they are
prescribed and commended unto us as indifferent; for, as Aquinas(1300)
resolveth out of Isidore, every human or positive law must be both
_necessaria ad remotionem malorum_ and _utilis ad consecutionem bonorum_.
The guides of God’s church have not power to prescribe any other thing
than that which is good and profitable for edifying; for they are set not
as lords over Christ’s inheritance, but as ministers for their good: “It
seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, (say the apostles and elders to
the churches,) to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary
things,” Acts xv. 28. They would not, you see, have enacted a canon about
those things, howbeit indifferent in their own nature, had they not found
them necessary for the eschewing of scandal. And as for the civil
magistrate, he also hath not power to prescribe any thing which he
pleaseth, though it be in itself indifferent; “for he is the minister of
God unto thee for good,” saith the Apostle, Rom. xiii. 4. Mark that word,
_for good_,—it lets us see that the magistrate hath not power given him to
enjoin any other thing than that which may be for our good. _Non enim sua
causa dominantur_, saith Calvin;(1301) _sed publico bono; neque effroeni
potentia proediti sunt, sed quoe subditorum saluti sit obstricta_. Now,
the first and chief good which the magistrate is bound to see for unto the
subjects, is (as Pareus showeth(1302)), _bonum spirituale_. Let us, then,
either see the good of the ceremonies, or else we must account them to be
such things as God never gave princes nor pastors power to enjoin; for
howsoever they have power to prescribe many things which are indifferent,
that is to say, neither good nor evil in their general nature, yet they
may not command us to practise any thing which in the particular use of it
is not necessary or expedient for some good end.

3. The ceremonies are not indifferent, because, notwithstanding that they
are prescribed and commended unto us as things in themselves indifferent,
yet we are by the will and authority of men compelled and necessitated to
use them. _Si vero ad res suo natura medius accedat coactio_, &c., then,
say the Magdeburgians.(1303) Paul teacheth, Col. ii., that it is not
lawful to use them freely: “If ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments
of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to
ordinances (touch not, taste not, handle not, which are all to perish with
the using), after the commandments and doctrines of men.” Hence is
Tertullian taxed(1304) for inducing a necessity in things indifferent.
Now, with how great necessity and co-action the ceremonies are imposed
upon us, we have made it evident elsewhere.(1305)

_Sect._ 4. 4. Whatever be the quality of the ceremonies in their own
nature, they are not indifferent to us; neither may we freely practice
them, because Papists make advantage of them, and take occasion from them
to confirm sundry of their errors and superstitions, as we have likewise
elsewhere made evident.(1306) Now, _cum adiaphora rapiuntur __ ad
confessionem, libera esse desinunt_, saith the Harmony of
Confessions.(1307) Mark _rapiuntur_. Though they get no just occasion,
yet, if they take occasion, though unjustly, that is enough to make us
abstain from things indifferent. _Etiam ea_, saith Balduine,(1308) _quoe
natura sunt sua liberoe observationis, in statu confessionis, cum ab
adversariis eorum mutatio postulatur, fiunt necessaria._

_Sect._ 5. 5. Things which are most indifferent in themselves become evil
in the case of scandal, and so may not be used. So hold the Century
writers;(1309) so Pareus;(1310) so Zanchius;(1311) so Chemnitius;(1312) so
Augustine;(1313) and so hath the Apostle taught.(1314) But that out of the
practice of the ceremonies there groweth active scandal unto the weak, we
have most clearly proven.(1315) Wherefore, let them be in their own nature
as indifferent as anything can be, yet they are not indifferent to be used
and practised by us; and whosoever swalloweth this scandal of Christ’s
little ones, and repenteth not, the heavy millstone of God’s dreadful
wrath shall be hanged about his neck, to sink him down in the bottomless
lake; and then shall he feel that which before he would not understand.

_Sect._ 6. 6. It is not enough for warrant of our practice that we do
those things which are indifferent or lawful in themselves, except they be
also expedient to be done by us according to the Apostle’s rule, 1 Cor.
vi. 12. But I have proven that many and weighty inconveniences do follow
upon the ceremonies,(1316) as namely, that they make way and are the
ushers for greater evils; that they hinder edification, and in their
fleshly show and outward splendour, obscure and prejudice the life and
power of godliness; that they are the unhappy occasions of much injury and
cruelty against the faithful servants of Christ, that they were bellows to
blow up, and are still fuel to increase the church-consuming fire of
woeful dissentions amongst us, &c. Where also we show,(1317) that some of
our opposites themselves acknowledge the inconveniency of the ceremonies;
wherefore we cannot freely nor indifferently practise them.

_Sect._ 7. 7. These ceremonies are the accursed monuments of popish
superstition, and have been both dedicated unto and employed in the public
and solemn worship of idols, and therefore (having no necessary use for
which we should still retain them) they ought to be utterly abolished, and
are not left free nor indifferent to us, which argument I have also made
good elsewhere,(1318) and in this place I only add, that both
Jerome,(1319) Zanchius, and Amandus Polanus,(1320) do apply this argument
to the surplice, holding, that though it be in itself indifferent, yet
_quia in cultu idololatrico veste linea utuntur clerici papaxi, et in ea
non parum sanctimoniae ponunt superstitiosi homines; valedicendum est, non
solum cultui idololatrico, sed etiam omnibus idololatriae monumentis,
instrumentis et adminiculis_. Yea, Joseph Hall himself, doth herein give
testimony unto us, for upon Hezekiah’s pulling down of the brazen serpent,
because of the idolatrous abuse of it, thus he noteth:(1321) “God
commanded the raising of it, God commanded the abolishing of it.
Superstitious use can mar the very institutions of God, how much more the
most wise and well-grounded devices of men!” And further, in the end of
this treatise, entitled, _The Honour of the Married Clergy_, he adjoineth
a passage taken out of the epistle of Erasmus Roterodamus to Christopher,
Bishop of Basil, which passage beginneth thus: “For those things which are
altogether of human constitution must (like to remedies in diseases) be
attempered to the present estate of matters and times. Those things which
were once religiously instituted, afterwards, according to occasion, and
the changed quality of manners and times, may be with more religion and
piety abrogated.” Finally, If Hezekiah be praised for breaking down the
brazen serpent (though instituted by God) when the Israelites began to
abuse it against the honour of God, how much more (saith Zanchius(1322))
are our reformers to be praised, for that they did thus with rites
instituted by men, being found full of superstitious abuse, though in
themselves they had not been evil!

_Sect._ 8. 8. The ceremonies are not indifferent, because they depart too
far from the example of Christ and his apostles, and the purer times of
the church; for instead of that ancient Christian-like and soul-edifying
simplicity, religion is now by their means busked with the vain trumpery
of Babylonish trinkets, and her face covered with the whorish and
eye-bewitching fairding of fleshly show and splendour; and I have also
showed particularly(1323) how sundry of the ceremonies are flat contrary
to the example of Christ and his apostles and the best times.

_Sect._ 9. 9. The ceremonies make us also to conform, and like the
idolatrous Papists, whereas it is not lawful to symbolise with idolaters,
or to be like them in a ceremony of man’s devising, or anything which hath
no necessary use in religion; such a distance and a dissimilitude there is
required to be betwixt the church of Christ and the synagogue of Satan;
betwixt the temple of God and the kingdom of the beast; betwixt the
company of sound believers and the conventicles of heretics who are
without; betwixt the true worshippers of God and the worshippers of idols,
that we cannot, without being accessory to their superstitious and false
religion, and partaking with the same, appear conform unto them in their
unnecessary rites and ceremonies. Durandus tells us,(1324) that they call
Easter by the Greek and not by the Hebrew name, and that they keep not
that feast upon the same day with the Jews, and all for this cause, lest
they should seem to Judaise. How much more reason have we to abstain from
the ceremonies of the church of Rome lest we seem to Romanise! But I say
no more in this place, because I have heretofore confirmed this argument
at length.(1325)

_Sect._ 10. 10. The ceremonies, as urged upon us, are also full of
superstition; holiness and worship are placed in them, as we have proven
by unanswerable grounds,(1326) and by testimonies of our opposites
themselves. Therefore were they never so indifferent in their own general
nature, this placing of them in the state of worship maketh them cease to
be indifferent.

_Sect._ 11. 11. The ceremonies against which we dispute are more than
matters of mere order, forasmuch as sacred and mysterious significations
are given unto them, and by their significations they are thought to teach
men effectually sundry mysteries and duties of piety. Therefore they are
not free nor indifferent, but more than men have power to institute; for
except circumstances and matters of mere order there is nothing which
concerneth the worship of God left to the determination of men, and this
argument also hath been in all the parts of it fully explained and
strengthened by us,(1327) which strongly proveth that the ceremonies are
not indifferent, so much as _quo ad speciem_. _Quare doctrina à nobis
tradita_ (these be Zanchius’ words(1328)) _non licere nobis, aliis externi
cultus ceremoniis Deum colere, quam quas ipse in sacris literis per
apostolis proescripsit, firma ac certa manet_.

_Sect._ 12. 12. Whatsoever indifferency the ceremonies could be thought to
have in their own nature, yet if it be considered how the church of
Scotland hath once been purged from them, and hath spued them out with
detestation, and hath enjoyed the comfortable light and sweet beams of the
glorious and bright shining gospel of Christ, without shadows and figures,
then shall it appear that there is no indifferency in turning back to weak
and beggarly elements, Gal. v. 9. And thus saith Calvin(1329) of the
ceremonies of the _interim_, that granting they were things in themselves
indifferent, yet the restitution of them in those churches which were once
purged from them, is no indifferent thing. Wherefore, O Scotland!
“strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die,” Rev. iii. 2.
Remember also from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first
works; or else thy candlestick will be quickly removed out of his place,
except thou repent, Rev. ii. 5.

THE END.

A BROTHERLY EXAMINATION OF SOME PASSAGES OF MR COLEMAN’S LATE SERMON UPON
JOB XI. 20.

A BROTHERLY EXAMINATION

OF SOME PASSAGES OF

MR COLEMAN’S LATE SERMON UPON JOB XI. 20,

AS IT IS NOW PRINTED AND PUBLISHED:

BY WHICH HE HATH,

TO THE GREAT OFFENCE OF VERY MANY,

ENDEAVOURED TO STRIKE AT THE VERY ROOT OF ALL SPIRITUAL AND ECCLESIASTICAL
GOVERNMENT,

CONTRARY TO

THE WORD OF GOD, THE SOLEMN LEAGUE AND COVENANT, OTHER REFORMED CHURCHES,

AND THE VOTES OF THE HONOURABLE HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT,

AFTER ADVICE HAD WITH THE REVEREND AND LEARNED

ASSEMBLY OF DIVINES.

BY GEORGE GILLESPIE,

MINISTER AT EDINBURGH, 1642.

EDINBURGH:

ROBERT OGLE, AND OLIVER & BOYD.

M. OGLE & SON, AND WILLIAM COLLINS, GLASGOW.

J. DEWAR, PERTH. W. MIDDLETON, DUNDEE. G. & R. KING, ABERDEEN.

W. M’COMB, BELFAST.

HAMILTON, ADAMS & CO., AND JAMES NISBET & CO., LONDON.

1645.

REPRINTED BY A. W. MURRAY, MILNE SQUARE, EDINBURGH.

1844.

NOTICE.

In order to render the following controversial writings of Gillespie
intelligible to the general reader, we have judged it expedient to prefix
to the “Brotherly Examination” that portion of Coleman’s sermon on which
Gillespie thought it his duty to animadvert. And as a tolerably full
account of the whole controversy between Coleman and Gillespie will be
found in the Memoir of Gillespie’s Life, we refrain from occupying space
with any additional remarks here.

EXTRACT FROM COLEMAN’S SERMON.

“All eyes are upon government, they look upon it as the only help. If
anywhere, here let wisdom be used. To prescribe is above me, only let me
offer two or three rules, which may either be helpful to the work, or
useful to the workmen.

“1. _Establish as few things by divine right as can well be._ Hold out the
practice but not the ground: it will gather more, nay all, that hold it
not unlawful; men differently principled may meet in one practice. _It may
be_, will be of larger extent than _it must be_. This (the divine right)
was the only thing that hindered union in the Assembly. Two parties came
biassed, the one with a national determination, the other with a
congregational engagement. The reverend Commissioners from Scotland were
for the divine right of the presbyterial, the Independents for the
congregational government. How should either move? where should both meet?
Here was the great bar, which, if you can avoid, you may do much.

“2. _Let all precepts, held out as divine institutions, have clear
scriptures._ I could never yet see how two co-ordinate governments, exempt
from superiority and inferiority, can be in one state; and in Scripture no
such thing is found, that I know of. That place, 1 Cor. v., takes not hold
of my conscience for excommunication, and I admire that Matt. xviii. so
should upon any; yet these two are the common places on which are erected
the chiefest acts of ruling. And when I see not an institution, nor any
one act of government in the whole Bible performed, how can it be evinced
that a ruling elder is an instituted officer? Let the Scripture speak
expressly, and institutions appear institutions, and all must bow.

“3. _Lay no more burden of government upon the shoulders of ministers than
Christ hath plainly laid upon them._ The ministers have other work to do,
and such as will take up the whole man, might I measure others by myself.
It was the king of Sodom’s speech to Abraham, ‘Give me the persons; take
thou the goods:’ so say I, Give us doctrine; take you the government. As
is said, Right Honourable, give me leave to make this request in the
behalf of the ministry, Give us two things, and we shall do well—learning
and a competency.

“4. _A Christian magistrate, as a Christian magistrate, is a governor in
the church._ Christ has placed government in his church, 1 Cor. xii. 28.
Of other governments, beside magistracy, I find no institution; of them I
do, Rom. xii. 1, 2. I find all government given to Christ, and to Christ
as Mediator, Eph. i. 22, 23. I desire all to consider it. To rob the
kingdom of Christ of the magistrate, and his governing power, I cannot
excuse, no not from a kind of sacrilege, if the magistrate be His.”

A BROTHERLY EXAMINATION, &c.

I have before touched this purpose in the third branch of the third
application of my second doctrine; and did, in my sermon in the Abbey
church, express my thoughts of it at some length. But as I was then
unwilling to fall upon such a controversy so publicly, and especially in a
Fast sermon, if that which I intend to examine had not been as publicly
and upon the like occasion delivered; so now, in the publishing, I have
thought good to open my mind concerning this thing distinctly, and by
itself. That which had been too late to be preached after sermon is not
too late to be printed after sermon. Others (upon occasion offered) have
given their testimony against his doctrine; and I should think myself
unfaithful in the trust put upon me, if, upon such an occasion, I should
be silent in this business; and I believe no man will think it strange
that a piece of this nature and strain get an answer; and I go about it
without any disrespect either to the person or parts of my reverend
brother. Only I must give a testimony to the truth when I hear it spoken
against; and I hope his objections have made no such impression in any
man’s mind as to make him unwilling to hear an answer. Come we therefore
to the particulars.

Four rules were offered by the reverend brother, as tending to unity, and
to the healing of the present controversies about church government. But
in truth his cure is worse than the disease; and, instead of making any
agreement, he is like to have his hand against every man, and every man’s
hand against him.

The first rule was this, “Establish as few things _jure divino_ as can
well be;” which is, by interpretation, as little fine gold, and as much
dross as can well be. “The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver
tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times,” Psal. xii, 6. What you
take from the word of God is fine “gold tried in the fire” (Rev. iii. 18);
but an holy thing of man’s devising is the dross of silver. Can he not be
content to have the dross purged from the silver except the silver itself
be cast away? The very contrary rule is more sure and safe; which I prove
thus:—

If it be a sin to diminish or take aught from the word of God, insomuch
that it is forbidden under pain of taking away a man’s part out of the
book of life, and out of the holy city; then as many things are to be
established _jure divino_ as can well be. But it is a sin to diminish or
take aught from the word of God, insomuch that it is forbidden under pain
of taking away a man’s part out of the book of life, and out of the holy
city; therefore as many things are to be established _jure divino_ as can
well be.

It must be remembered, withal, 1. That the question is not now, Whether
this or that form of church government be _jure divino_; but, Whether a
church government be _jure divino_; whether Jesus Christ hath thus far
revealed his will in his word, that there are to be church-censures, and
those to be dispensed by church-officers. The brother is for the negative
of this question. 2. Neither is it stood upon by any, so far as I know,
that what the Parliament shall establish concerning church government must
be established by them _jure divino_ If the Parliament shall, in a
parliamentary and legislative way, establish that thing which really, and
in itself, is agreeable to the word of God, though they do not declare it
to be the will of Jesus Christ, I am satisfied, and, I am confident, so
are others. This I confess, That it is incumbent to parliament-men, to
ministers, and to all other Christians, according to their vocation and
interest, to search the Scriptures, and thereby to inform their own and
other men’s consciences, so as they may do in faith what they do in point
of church government, that is, that they may know they are not sinning,
but doing the will of God. And it ought to be no prejudice nor exception
against a form of church government that many learned and godly divines do
assert it from Scripture to be the will of God. And why should _jus
divinum_ be such a _noli me tangere_? The reason was given. “This was the
only thing that hindered union in the Assembly (saith he). Two parties
came biassed. The reverend commissioners from Scotland were for the _jus
divinum_ of the presbyterial, the Independents for the congregational
government. How should either move? where should both meet?” If it was
thus, how shall he make himself blameless, who made union in the Assembly
yet more difficult, because he came biassed a third way, with the Erastian
tenets? And where he asketh where the Independents and we should meet, I
answer, In holding a church government _jure divino_, that is, that the
pastors and elders ought to suspend or excommunicate (according to the
degree of the offence) scandalous sinners. Who can tell but the purging of
the church from scandals, and the keeping of the ordinances pure (when it
shall be actually seen to be the great thing endeavoured on both sides),
may make union between us and the Independents more easy than many
imagine. As for his exceptions against us who are commissioners from the
church of Scotland, I thank God it is but such, yea, not so much, as the
Arminians did object(1330) against the foreign divines who came to the
Synod of Dort. They complained that those divines were pre-engaged and
biassed, in regard of the judgment of those churches from which they came;
and that therefore they did not help, but hinder, union in that assembly.
And might not the Arians have thus excepted against Alexander, who was
engaged against them before he came to the Council of Nice? Might not the
Nestorians have made the same exception against Cyril, because he was
under an engagement against them before he came to the Council of Ephesus?
Nay, had not the Jewish zealots the very same objection to make against
Paul and Barnabas, who were engaged, not in the behalf of one nation, but
of all the churches of the Gentiles, against the imposition of the
Mosaical rites, and had so declared themselves at Antioch before they came
to the synod at Jerusalem? Acts xv. 2. It is not faulty to be engaged for
the truth, but against the truth. It is not blameworthy, but praiseworthy,
to hold fast so much as we have already attained unto. Notwithstanding we,
for our part, have also from the beginning professed, “That we are most
willing to hear and learn from the word of God what needeth further to be
reformed in the church of Scotland.”(1331)

The second rule which was offered in that sermon was this: “Let all
precepts, held out as divine institutions, have clear scriptures,” &c.;
“Let the Scripture speak expressly,” saith he. I answer: The Scripture
speaks in that manner which seemed fittest to the wisdom of God; that is,
so as it must cost us much searching of the Scripture, as men search for a
hid treasure, before we find out what is the good, and acceptable, and
perfect will of God concerning the government of his church. Will any
divine in the world deny that it is a divine truth which, by necessary
consequence, is drawn from Scripture, as well as that which, in express
words and syllables, is written in Scripture? Are not divers articles of
our profession,—for instance, the baptism of infants,—necessarily and
certainly proved from Scripture, although it makes no express mention
thereof in words and syllables? But let us hear what he hath said
concerning some scriptures (for he names but two of them) upon which the
acts of spiritual or ecclesiastical government have been grounded. “That
place, 1 Cor. v., takes not hold (saith he) on my conscience for
excommunication, and I admire that Matt. xviii. so should upon any.” It is
strange that he should superciliously pass them over without respect to so
great a cloud of witnesses in all the reformed churches, or without so
much as offering any answer at all to the arguments which so many learned
and godly divines of old and of late have drawn from these places for
excommunication; which, if he had done, he should not want a reply. In the
meantime, he intermixeth a politic consideration into this debate of
divine right. “I could never yet see (saith he) how two co-ordinate
governments, exempt from superiority and inferiority, can be in one
state.” I suppose he hath seen the co-ordinate governments of a general
and of an admiral; or, if we shall come lower, the government of parents
over their children, and masters over their servants, though it fall often
out, that he who is subject to one man as his master, is subject to
another man as his father. In one ship there may be two co-ordinate
governments, the captain governing the soldiers, the master governing the
mariners. In these and such like cases you have two co-ordinate
governments, when the one governor is not subordinate to the other. There
is more subordination in the ministers and other church-officers towards
the civil magistrate. For the minister of Christ must be in subjection to
the magistrate; and if he be not, he is punishable by the law of the land
as well as any other subject. The persons and estates of church-officers,
and all that they have in this world, are subject to civil authority. But
that which is Christ’s, and not ours, the royal prerogative of the King of
saints, in governing of his church according to his own will, is not
subject to the pleasure of any man living. But the reverend brother might
well have spared this. It is not the independency of the church government
upon the civil government which he intended to speak against, it is the
very thing itself, a church government, as is manifest by his other two
rules.

I come therefore to his next, which is the third rule: “Lay no more burden
of government upon the shoulders of ministers than Christ hath plainly
laid upon them.” He means none at all, as is manifest not only by his
fourth rule, where he saith that he finds no institution of other
governments beside magistracy, but also by the next words, “The ministers
have other work to do (saith he), and such as will take up the whole man.”
He might have added this one word more, that without the power of church
government, when ministers have done all that ever they can, they shall
not keep themselves nor the ordinances from pollution. Before I proceed
any farther, let it be remembered, when he excludes ministers from
government: First, It is from spiritual or ecclesiastical government, for
the question is not of civil government. Secondly, He excludes ruling
elders too, and therefore ought to have mentioned them with the ministers
as those who are to draw the same yoke together, rather than to tell us of
an “innate enmity between the clergy and the laity.” The keeping up of the
names of the clergy and laity savoureth more of a domineering power than
anything the brother can charge upon presbyteries. It is a point of
controversy between Bellarmine(1332) and those that write against him; he
holding up, and they crying down those names, because the Christian people
are the κλῆρος, the heritage of the Lord as well as the ministers. Thus
much by the way of that distinction of names; and, for the thing itself,
to object an innate enmity between the ministers of the gospel and those
that are not ministers, is no less than a dishonouring and aspersing of
the Christian religion. To return, you see his words tend to the taking
away of all church government out of the hands of church-officers. Now may
we know his reasons? He fetcheth the ground of an argument out of his own
heart: “I have a heart (saith he) that knows better how to be governed
than govern.” I wish his words might hold true in a sense of pliableness
and yielding to government. How he knows to govern I know not; but it
should seem in this particular he knows not how to be governed; for after
both houses of parliament have concluded “that many particular
congregations shall be under one presbyterial government,” he still
acknowledgeth no such thing as presbyterial government. I dare be bold to
say he is the first divine, in all the Christian world, that ever advised
a state to give no government to church-officers, after the state had
resolved to establish presbyterian government; but let us take the
strength of his argument as he pretendeth it. He means not of an humble
pliableness and subjection (for that should ease him from his fear of an
ambitious ensnarement, and so were contrary to his intention), but of a
sinful infirmity and ambition in the heart, which makes it fitter for him
and others to be kept under the yoke than to govern. And thus his
argumentation runs: “Might I measure others by myself, and I know not why
I may not (God fashions men’s hearts alike; and as in water face answers
face, so the heart of man to man), I ingenuously profess I have a heart
that knows better how to be governed than govern,—I fear an ambitious
ensnarement, and I have cause,—I see what raised Prelacy and Papacy to
such a height,” &c. The two scriptures will not prove what he would. The
first of them, Psal. xxxiii. 15, “He fashioneth their hearts alike,” gives
him no ground at all, except it be the homonomy of the English word
_alike_, which in this place noteth nothing else but τὸ καθόλου,—all men’s
hearts are alike in this, that God fashioneth them all, and therefore
knoweth them all _æque_ or alike (that is the scope of the place). The
Hebrew _jachad_ is used in the same sense, Ezra iv. 3, “We ourselves
together will build;”(1333) they mean not they will all build in the like
fashion, or in the same manner, but that they will build all of them
together, one as well as another; so Psal. ii. 2, “The rulers take counsel
together;” Jer. xlvi. 12, “They are fallen both together.” The other
place, Prov. xxvii. 19, if you take it word by word as it is in the
Hebrew, is thus: “As in water faces to faces; so the heart of man to man.”
Our translators add the word _answereth_, but the Hebrew will suffer the
negative reading, _As in water faces answer not to faces_. The Septuagint
reads: “As faces are not like faces, so neither are the hearts of men
alike.” The Chaldee paraphrase thus: “As waters and as countenances, which
are not like one another, so the hearts of the sons of men are not alike.”
Thus doth Mr Cartwright, in his judicious commentary, give the sense: “As
in the water face doth not answer fully to face, but in some sort, so
there may be a conjecture, but no certain knowledge of the heart of man.”
But let the text be read affirmatively, not negatively, what shall be the
sense? Some take it thus:(1334) A man’s heart may be someway seen in his
countenance as a face in the water. Others(1335) thus: As a face in the
water is various and changeable to him that looketh upon it, so is the
heart of man inconstant to a friend that trusteth in him. Others(1336)
thus: As a man seeth his own face in the water, so he may see himself in
his own heart or conscience. Others(1337) thus: As face answereth face in
the water, so he that looketh for a friendly affection from others, must
show it in himself. It will never be proved that any such thing is
intended in that place as may warrant this argumentation. There is a
particular corruption in one man’s heart—for instance, ambition—which
makes him unfit to be trusted with government; therefore the same
corruption is in all other men’s hearts; even as the face in the water
answereth the face out of the water so just, that there is not a spot or
blemish in the one but it is in the other. I am sure Paul taught us not so
when he said, “In lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than
themselves,” Phil. ii. 3. Nay, the brother himself hath taken off the edge
of his own argument (if it had any) in his epistle printed before his
sermon, where, speaking of his brethren, from whose judgment he dissenteth
in point of government, he hath these words: “Whose wisdom and humility (I
speak it confidently) may safely be trusted with as large a share of
government as they themselves desire.” Well, but suppose now the same
corruption to be in other men’s hearts, that they are in great danger of
an ambitious ensnarement if they be trusted with government, is this
corruption only in the hearts of ministers, or is it in the hearts of all
other men? I suppose he will say, in all men’s hearts, and then his
argument will conclude against all civil government. Last of all, Admit
that there be just fears of abusing the power and government
ecclesiastical,—let the persons to be intrusted with it be examined, and
the power itself bounded according to the strictest rules of Christ. Let
abuses be prevented, reformed, corrected. The abuse cannot take away the
use where the thing itself is necessary. Why might he not have satisfied
himself without speaking against the thing itself? Once, indeed, he
seemeth to recoil, and saith, “Only I would have it so bounded, that it
might be said, Hitherto shalt thou come, and here shalt thou stay thy
proud waves,” yet by and by he passeth his own bounds, and totally
renounceth the government to the civil power, which I shall speak to anon.
But I must first ask, Whence is this fear of the proud swelling waves of
presbyterial government? Where have they done hurt? Was it upon the coast
of France, or upon the coast of Holland, or upon the coast of Scotland, or
where was it? Or was it the dashing upon _terra in cognita_? He that would
forewarn men to beware of presbyterial usurpations (for so the brother
speaking to the present controversy about church government must be
apprehended), and to make good what he saith falls upon the stories of
Pope Paul V., and of the Bishop of Canterbury, is not a little wide from
the mark. I should have expected some examples of evils and mischiefs
which presbyterial government hath brought upon other reformed churches.

Well, the reverend brother hath not done, but he proceedeth thus: “It was
the king of Sodom’s speech to Abraham, ‘Give me the persons, take thou the
goods;’ so say I, Give us doctrine, take you the government: as is said,
Right Honourable, give me leave to make this request in the behalf of the
ministry. Give us two things and we shall do well: 1. Give us learning;
and, 2. Give us a competency.”

This calls to mind a story which Clemens Alexandrinus tells us:(1338) When
one had painted Helena with much gold, Apolles, looking upon it, “Friend
(saith he), when you could not make her fair, you have made her rich.”
Learning and competency do enrich. The Jesuits have enough of both, but
that which maketh a visible ministerial church to be “beautiful as Tizrah,
comely as Jerusalem,” that which maketh fair the outward face of a church,
is _government_ and _discipline_, the removing of scandals, the preserving
of the ordinances from pollution. He had spoken more for the honour of God
and for the power of godliness, if he had said this in the behalf of the
ministry: It were better for us to want competency and helps to learning,
than to partake with other men’s sins, by admitting the scandalous and
profane to the Lord’s table. His way, which he adviseth, will perhaps “get
us an able ministry, and procure us honour enough,” as he speaketh; but,
sure, it can neither preserve the purity, nor advance the power of
religion, because it putteth no black mark upon profaneness and scandal in
church-members more than in any others. The king of Sodom’s speech cannot
serve his turn except it be turned over, and then it will serve him as
just as anything, thus: Give us the goods, take you the persons (or _the
souls_, as the Hebrew and the Chaldee hath it); “Give us a competency,”
saith he,—here he asketh the goods,—“take you the government,”—here he
quitteth the persons or souls to be governed only by the civil power.
However, as at that time Abraham would take nothing that was not his own,
insomuch as he answereth the king of Sodom: “I will not take from a thread
even to a shoe-latchet, and that I will not take anything that is thine,”
Gen. xiv. 23; so this Parliament, I trust, shall be so counselled and
guided of the Lord, that they will leave to the church what is the
church’s, or rather to Christ what is Christ’s. And as Abraham had lift up
his hand to the most high God to do that (ver. 32), so have the Honourable
Houses, with hands lift up to the most high God, promised to do this.

And now, seeing I have touched upon the covenant, I wish the reverend
brother may seriously consider whether he hath not violated the oath of
God in advising the Parliament to lay no burden of government upon
church-officers, but to take the government of the church wholly into
their own hands. In the first article of the solemn league and covenant,
there is thrice mention made of the government of the church; and namely,
That we shall endeavour the reformation of religion in the kingdoms of
England and Ireland, in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government,
according to the word of God, and the example of the best reformed
churches. Where observe,

1. The extirpation of church government is not the reformation of it. The
second article is indeed of things to be extirpated; but this of things to
be preserved and reformed. Therefore as by the covenant Prelacy was not to
be reformed, but to be abolished, so, by the same covenant, church
government was not to be abolished, but to be reformed.

2. Church government is mentioned in the covenant as a spiritual, not a
civil thing. The matters of religion are put together—doctrine, worship,
discipline, and government; the privileges of Parliament come after, in
the third article.

3. That clause, “According to the word of God,” implieth, that the word of
God holdeth forth such light unto us as may guide and direct us in the
reformation of church government.

4. And will the brother say that the example of the best reformed churches
leadeth us his way; that is, to have no church government at all distinct
from the civil government?

And so much concerning his third rule.

The fourth was this: “A Christian magistrate, as a Christian magistrate,
is a governor in the church.” And who denieth this? The question is,
Whether there ought to be no other government in the church beside that of
the Christian magistrate. That which he driveth at is, That the Christian
magistrate should leave no power of spiritual censures to the elderships.
He would have the magistrate to do like the rich man in the parable, who
had exceeding many flocks and herds, and yet did take away the little
ewe-lamb from the poor man, who had nothing save that. The brother saith,
“Of other governments besides magistracy, I find no institution; of them I
do, Rom. xiii. 1, 2.” I am sorry he sought no better, else he had found
more. Subjection and obedience is commanded, as due not only to civil but
to spiritual governors, to those that are over us in the Lord, 1 Thess. v.
12; so, 1 Tim. v. 17, “Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of
double honour;” Heb. xiii. 7, “Remember them which have the rule over you,
who have spoken unto you the word of God;” ver. 17, “Obey them that have
the rule over you, and submit yourselves; for they watch for your souls.”
And what understandeth he by “he that ruleth,” Rom. xii. 8? If the
judgment of Gualther and Bullinger have any weight with him (as I suppose
it hath) they do not there exclude, but take in, under that word, the
ruling officers of the church.

But now, in the close, let the reverend brother take heed he hath not
split upon a rock, and taken from the magistrate more than he hath given
him. He saith, “Christian magistrates are to manage their office under
Christ, and for Christ. Christ hath placed governments in his church, 1
Cor. xii. 28, &c. I find all government given to Christ, and to Christ as
Mediator (I desire all to consider it), Eph. i. 3, 23, and Christ, as Head
of these, given to the church.” If this be good divinity, then I am sure
it will be the hardest task which ever he took in hand to uphold and
assert the authority either of pagan or Christian magistrates.

First, He lets the pagan or infidel magistrate fall to the ground, as an
usurper who hath no just title to reign, because all government is given
to Christ, and to him as Mediator. But which way was the authority of
government derived from Christ, and from him as Mediator, to a pagan
prince or emperor?

Next, He will make it to fare little better with the Christian magistrate.
For if the Christian magistrate be the vicegerent of Christ, and of Christ
as Mediator; and if he be to manage his office under, and for Christ,—then
the reverend brother must either prove from Scripture, that Christ, as
Mediator, hath given such a commission of vicegerentship and deputyship to
the Christian magistrate; or otherwise, acknowledge that he hath given a
most dangerous wound to magistracy, and made it an empty title, claiming
that power which it hath no warrant to assume.

God and nature hath made magistrates, and given them great authority; but
from Christ as Mediator they have it not.

I find in Scripture, that church-officers have their power from Christ as
Mediator; and they are to manage their office under and for Christ; and in
the name of the Lord Jesus Christ do we assemble ourselves together, Matt.
xviii. 20; in his name do we preach, Luke xxiv. 47; Acts iv. 17, 18; v.
28, 41; ix. 27; in his name do we baptise, Acts ii. 38; iv. 12, 16; xix.
5; in his name do we excommunicate, 1 Cor. v. 5. But I do not find in
Scripture that the magistrate is to rule, or to make laws, or to manage
any part of his office in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. And as the
Mediator hath not anywhere given such a commission and power to the
magistrate, so, as Mediator, he had it not to give; for he was not made a
judge in civil affairs, Luke xii. 14, and his kingdom is not of this
world, John xviii. 36. How can that power which Christ as Mediator hath
not received of the Father be derived from Christ to the Christian
magistrate? I know that Christ, as he is the eternal Son of God, and
“thought it no robbery to be equal with God,” doth, with the Father and
the Holy Ghost, reign and rule over all the kingdoms of the sons of men.
He that is Mediator, being God, hath, as God, all power in heaven and
earth (and this power was given to him, Matt. xxviii. 18, both by the
eternal generation, and by the declaration of him to be the Son of God
with power, when he was raised from the dead, Rom. i. 4, even as he is
said to be begotten, when he was raised again, Acts xiii. 33: he had
relinquished and laid aside his divine dominion and power when he had made
himself in the form of a servant, but after his resurrection it is
gloriously manifested), and so he that is Mediator, being God, hath power
to subdue his and his church’s enemies, and to make his foes his
footstool. But as Mediator he is only the church’s King, Head, and
Governor, and hath no other kingdom. The Photinians have defined the
kingly office of Christ thus: “It is an office committed to him by God, to
govern, with the highest authority and power, all creatures endued with
understanding, and especially men, and the church gathered of them.”(1339)
But those that have written against them have corrected their definition
in this particular, because Christ is properly King of his church only.

As for those two scriptures which the brother citeth, they are extremely
misapplied. He citeth 1 Cor. xii. 28 to prove that Christ hath placed
civil governments in his church. If by the governments or governors there
mentioned he understood the civil magistrates, yet that place saith not
that Christ hath placed them, but that God hath done it.

Next, The Apostle speaks of such governors as the church had at that time;
but at that time the church had no godly nor Christian magistrates. This
is Calvin’s argument, whereby he proves that ecclesiastical, not civil
governors, are there meant.

Thirdly, I ask, How can we conceive that civil government can come into
the catalogue of ecclesiastical and spiritual administrations? for such
are all the rest there reckoned forth.

Lastly, The brother, after second thoughts, may think he hath done another
disservice to the magistrate, in making the magistracy to be below and
behind the ministry. The Apostle puts them in this order: “God hath set
some in the church, first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly teachers,
after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments,” &c. How
makes the brother this to agree with his interpretation.

Next, He citeth Eph. i. 21-23, to prove that all government is given to
Christ, and to him as Mediator; and Christ, as Head of these, given to the
church. But this place maketh more against him than for him; for the
Apostle saith not that Christ is given to the church as the Head of all
principalities and powers. The brother saith so; and, in saying so, he
makes Christ a head to those that are not of his body.

The Apostle saith far otherwise: That God gave Christ “to be the head over
all things to the church, which is his body;” which the Syriac readeth
more plainly,—“And him who is over all he gave to be the head to the
church.” He is a head to none but the church; but He who is head to the
church “is over all, God blessed for ever,” Rom. ix. 5; yea, even as a
man, he is over or above all. The very human nature of Christ which was
raised from the dead, being set at the right hand of the Majesty of God,
is exalted to a higher degree of honour and glory than either man or angel
ever was, or ever shall he; so that He that is head of the church is over
all, because he doth not only excel his own members, but excel all
creatures that ever God made. It is one thing to say that Christ is
exalted to a dignity, excellency, pre-eminence, majesty, and glory, far
above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion; another thing
to say that Christ is head of all principalities and governments, and, as
Mediator, exerciseth his kingly office over these. The Apostle saith the
former, but not the latter.

Shall I need to illustrate this distinction? Is there anything more known
in the world? Will any say that he who excels other men in dignity,
splendour, honour, and glory, must therefore reign and rule over all those
whom he thus excels?

The Apostle saith indeed, in another sense, that Christ “is the head of
all principality and power,” Col. ii. 10. But that is spoken of Christ not
as he is Mediator, but only as he is God; and the Apostle’s meaning in
those words is nothing but this: That Christ is true God, saith Tossanus;
that he is omnipotent, saith Gualther; that he, being the natural Son of
God, is together with the Father, Lord of all things, saith Bullinger.

That this is the meaning will soon appear:—

1. From the scope of the place, which is to teach the Colossians not to
worship angels, because they are but servants, and the Son of God is their
Lord and Head.

2. The Apostle expounds himself how Christ is the head of all principality
and power: Col. i. 15-17, “Who is the image of the invisible God, the
first-born of every creature: for by him were all things created that are
in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be
thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers; all things were
created by him, and for him: and he is before all things, and by him all
things consist.” Now all this is, without controversy, to be understood
not of the office, but of the person of Jesus Christ; not of his governing
and kingly office, as he is Mediator, but to prove that he is true and
very God; therefore Beza, Zanchius, Gualther, Bullinger, Tossanus, M.
Bayne, and divers other interpreters upon the place, do generally agree
that the Apostle (ver. 15-17) speaks of the dignity and excellency of the
person of Jesus Christ, proving him to be true God; and that (ver. 18) he
cometh to speak of his office, as he is Mediator: “And he is the head of
the body, the church,” &c. So that we may distinguish a twofold headship
of Jesus Christ: One, in regard of his Godhead,—and so he is head of all
principality and power; another, in regard of his office of
Mediatorship,—and so he is head of the church only. The present question
is of the latter, not of the former. The former is common to the Son of
God with the Father and the Holy Ghost; the latter is proper to Christ as
God and man. The former shall continue for ever; the latter shall not
continue for ever. The former doth not necessarily suppose the latter; but
the latter doth necessarily suppose the former. Christ can reign as God,
though he reign not as Mediator; but he cannot reign as Mediator and not
reign as God. The object of the former is every creature; the object of
the latter is the church gathered out of the world.

This digression concerning the headship of Jesus Christ may for the future
prevent divers objections, so I shall return.

And now (I desire all to consider it) there is not one word in those three
last verses of Eph. i. which will give any ground for that which the
brother with so much confidence averreth. Ver. 21 affordeth this argument
against him: The honour and dignity of Jesus Christ there spoken of hath
place “not only in this world, but also in that which is to come.” But the
kingdom and government which is given to Christ, as Mediator, shall not
continue in the world to come (for when Christ hath put his enemies under
his feet, he shall deliver up the kingdom to the Father, and reign no
longer as Mediator, 1 Cor. xv. 24, 25); therefore the government given to
Christ, as he is Mediator, cannot be meant in that place, but the
dignifying, honouring, preferring, and exalting of Christ to a higher
degree of glory than either man or angel.

Come on now and see whether ver. 22 maketh any whit more for him: He “hath
put all things under his feet;” that is, saith Zanchius, all things but
the church, which is his body. But this must be meant in respect of the
decree and foreknowledge of God, as Jerome expounds the place; and so doth
the Scripture expound itself: Heb. ii. 8, “But now we see not yet all
things put under him;” 1 Cor. xv. 25, “He must reign, till he hath put all
enemies under his feet;” Acts ii. 34, 35, “Sit thou on my right hand,
until I make thy foes thy footstool.” Now, when Christ shall have put down
all rule, and all authority, and power, and shall put his enemies under
his feet, then he shall cease to reign any more as Mediator (which I have
even now proved); but before that be done he reigns as Mediator. So that
it can never be proved that the meaning of these words, “He hath put all
things under his feet,” is, that all government in this world is given to
Christ as Mediator; and whoever saith so, must needs acknowledge that
Christ’s exercising of government, as he is Mediator, over all
principalities and powers, shall continue after all things shall be put
under his feet; or that Christ shall not govern as Mediator, “till all
things be put under his feet,” which is so contrary to the Apostle’s
meaning, that Christ shall then cease to reign as Mediator.

The next words, “And he gave him to be the head over all things to the
church,” do furnish another argument against him. Christ’s headship, and
his government as Mediator, are commensurable, and of an equal extent.
Christ is a head to none but to his church; therefore no government is
given to him as Mediator but the government of his church.

The last verse doth further confirm that which I say; for the Apostle,
continuing his speech of the church, saith, “Which is his body, the
fulness of him that filleth all in all.” He calls the church Christ’s
fulness, in reference to his headship, that which makes him full and
complete so far as he is a head or king. Having his church fully gathered,
he hath his complete kingdom, his perfect body; and this being done, he
wants nothing, so far as he is Mediator: so that the Holy Ghost doth here,
as it were on purpose, anticipate this opinion, lest any should think all
civil government is given to Christ as Mediator. Though, as God, he
filleth heaven and earth, yet, as Mediator, his filling of all in all
extends no further than his body, his church, which is therefore called
his fulness.

Finally, To avoid the mistake of this place, and upon the whole matter,
let these three things be well distinguished in the Mediator Jesus Christ.
1. His ὑπεροχὴ or δυχα, his eminence and highness in respect of the glory
and majesty he is exalted to, far above whatsoever is highest among all
the creatures. 2. His δύναμις, the power by which he can, and doth by
degrees, and will more and more subdue his and his church’s enemies, and
dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel, and break them with a rod of
iron. 3. His βασιλεία, his kingly power, by which he exerciseth acts of
government. These three are distinguished in an earthly king, the first
two being of a larger extent than the third. The conclusion of that prayer
which our Lord taught his disciples doth distinguish the same three in
God: “Thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory.” Now these being
distinguished in the Mediator Jesus Christ, I conclude with these three
distinct assertions (the truth whereof I hope I have made to appear): 1.
As Mediator, he is exalted and dignified above all creatures, and his
glory is above all the earth; 2. As Mediator, he exerciseth acts of divine
power and omnipotence over all creatures, in the behalf of, and for the
good of his church, and restraineth, or diverteth, or destroyeth all his
church’s enemies; 3. As Mediator, he is king, head, and governor to none
but his church: neither was all government put in his hand, but that of
the church only.

I could enlarge myself further against that most dangerous principle,
“That all government, even that which is civil, is given to Christ, and to
him as Mediator;” but let these things suffice for the present. The
reverend brother’s opinion will find better entertainment among the Jews,
who expect a temporal monarchy of the Messiah; and among Papists, who
desire to uphold the Pope’s temporal authority over kings, as Christ’s
vicegerent upon earth.

NIHIL RESPONDES: OR A DISCOVERY OF THE EXTREME UNSATISFACTORINESS OF MR
COLEMAN’S PIECE.

NIHIL RESPONDES:

A DISCOVERY

OF THE

EXTREME UNSATISFACTORINESS OF MR COLEMAN’S PIECE,

PUBLISHED LAST WEEK UNDER THE TITLE OF

“A BROTHERLY EXAMINATION RE-EXAMINED.”

WHEREIN HIS SELF CONTRADICTIONS;

HIS YIELDING OF SOME THINGS, AND NOT ANSWERING TO OTHER THINGS OBJECTED
AGAINST HIM;

HIS ABUSING OF SCRIPTURE; HIS ERRORS IN DIVINITY;

HIS ABUSING OF THE PARLIAMENT, AND ENDANGERING THEIR AUTHORITY; HIS
ABUSING OF THE ASSEMBLY;

HIS CALUMNIES, NAMELY, AGAINST THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND AND AGAINST MYSELF;

THE REPUGNANCY OF HIS DOCTRINE TO THE SOLEMN LEAGUE AND COVENANT;—

ARE PLAINLY DEMONSTRATED.

BY GEORGE GILLESPIE,

MINISTER AT EDINBURGH, 1642.

“Understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.”—1 TIM. i.
7.

EDINBURGH:

ROBERT OGLE, AND OLIVER & BOYD.

M. OGLE & SON, AND WILLIAM COLLINS, GLASGOW.

J. DEWAR, PERTH. W. MIDDLETON, DUNDEE. G. & R. KING, ABERDEEN.

W. M’COMB, BELFAST.

HAMILTON, ADAMS & CO., AND JAMES NISBET & CO., LONDON.

1645.

REPRINTED BY A. W. MURRAY, MILNE SQUARE, EDINBURGH.

1844.

After that Mr Coleman had preached and printed such doctrine as I was, in
my conscience, fully persuaded was contrary to the covenant of the three
kingdoms, and destructive (if it were put in practice) to the reformation
of religion, he having also flatly and publicly imputed to the
Commissioners from the church of Scotland a great part of the fault of
hindering union in the Assembly here, I thought myself obliged in duty,
and in the trust which I bear, to give a public testimony against his
doctrine (which others did also) upon occasion not sought, but by divine
providence, and a public calling then offered, first for preaching, and
after for printing, in either of which I think there did not appear the
least disrespect or bitterness towards the reverend brother. The Lord
knows my intention was to speak to the matter, to vindicate the truth, and
to remove that impediment of reformation by him cast in; and if he, or any
man else had, in meekness of spirit, gravely and rationally, for clearing
of truth, endeavoured to confute me, I ought not, I should not, have taken
it ill; but now, when this piece of his against me, called “A Brotherly
Examination Re-examined” (I think he would or should have said _examined_,
for this is the first examination of it), I find it more full of _railing_
than of _reasoning_, of _gibing_ than of _gravity_; and when polemics do
so degenerate, the world is abused not edified. He tells me if I have not
work enough I shall have more. I confess the answering of this piece is no
great work; and the truth is, I am ashamed I have so little to make answer
unto; yet I shall do my best to improve even this work to edification.
When other work comes I wish it be work indeed, and not words. _Res cum
re, ratio cum ratione concertet_, as the father said: Arguments, Sir,
arguments, arguments, if there be any: you have affirmed great things, and
new things, which you have not proved. The assertions of such as are for a
church government _in genere_, and for the presbyterial government _in
specie_, are known; their arguments are known, but your solutions are not
yet known. If Mr Prynne’s book against the suspension of scandalous
persons from the sacrament be the work for the present which he means, I
hope it shall be in due time most satisfactorily spoken unto, both by
others and by myself. I desire rather solid than subitane lucubrations. In
the meanwhile, “Let not him that putteth on his armour boast as he that
putteth it off.” And let the brother that puts me in mind of other work
remember that himself hath other work to do which he hath not yet done.

I have, for better method and clearness, divided this following discourse
into certain heads, taking in under every head such particulars in his
reply as I conceive to be most proper to that point.

THAT MR COLEMAN DOTH NOT ONLY PREVARICATE, BUT CONTRADICT HIMSELF,
CONCERNING THE STATE OF THE QUESTION.

He tells us often that he doth not deny to church officers all power of
church government, but only the corrective part of government; that the
doctrinal and declarative power is in the ministry; see p. 11, 14. He
denieth that he did “advise the Parliament to take church government
wholly into their own hands: I never had it in my thoughts (saith he) that
the Parliament had power of dispensing the word and sacraments.” I must
confess it is to me new language, which I never heard before, that the
dispensing of the word and sacraments is a part of church government; sure
the word _government_ is not, nor never was, so understood in the
controversies concerning church government. But if it be, why did the
brother in his sermon oppose doctrine and government? “Give us doctrine
(said he); take you the government.”

But behold now how he doth most palpably contradict himself, in one and
the same page; it is the 11th. “I know no such distinction of government
(saith he), ecclesiastical and civil, in the sense I take government for
the corrective part thereof; all ecclesiastical (improperly called)
government being merely doctrinal; the corrective or punitive part being
civil or temporal.” Again, within a few lines, “I do acknowledge a
presbyterian government; I said so expressly in my epistle; and do
heartily subscribe to the votes of the house.” If he heartily subscribe to
the votes and ordinances of Parliament, then he heartily subscribeth that
elderships suspend men from the sacrament for any of the scandals
enumerate, it being proved by witnesses upon oath: this power is
corrective, not merely doctrinal. He must also subscribe to the
subordination of congregational, classical, and synodical assemblies in
the government of the church, and to appeals from the lesser to the
greater, as likewise to ordination by presbyteries. And, I pray, is all
this merely doctrinal? And will he now subscribe heartily to all this? How
will that stand with the other passages before cited? or with p. 17, where
it being objected to him, that he takes away from elderships all power of
spiritual censures, his reply neither yieldeth excommunication nor
suspension, but admonition alone, and that by the ministers who are a part
of the elderships, not by the whole eldership consistorially. Again, p.
14, he confesseth: “I advised the Parliament to lay no burden of
government upon them, whom he, this commissioner, thinks church officers,
pastors and ruling elders.” Now I argue thus: He that adviseth the
Parliament to lay no burden of government upon ministers and ruling
elders, he adviseth the Parliament to do contrary to their own votes and
ordinances, and so is far from subscribing heartily thereunto. But Mr
Coleman, by his own confession, adviseth the Parliament to lay no burden
of government upon ministers and ruling elders; therefore, &c. How he will
reconcile himself with himself let him look to it.

Page 11. He takes it ill that one, while I make him an enemy to all church
government, then only to the presbyterial. _Only_ is his own addition. But
I had reason to make him an enemy to both, for so he hath made himself;
yea, in opposing all church government, he cannot choose but oppose
presbyterial government, for the consequence is necessary, _a genere ad
speciem_,—negatively though not affirmatively. If no church government,
then no presbyterial government.

THE PARTICULARS IN MY BRIEF EXAMINATION, WHICH MR COLEMAN EITHER GRANTETH
EXPRESSLY, OR ELSE DOTH NOT REPLY UNTO.

My argument, p. 32, proving that as many things ought to be established
_jure divino_ as can well be, because he cannot answer it, therefore he
granteth it.

Page 5. He had in his sermon called for plain and clear institutions, and
let Scripture speak expressly. Now, p. 7, he yieldeth that it is not only
a divine truth (as I called it) but clear scripture, which is drawn by
necessary consequence from Scripture.

He hath not yet, though put in mind, produced the least exception against
the known arguments for excommunication and church government drawn from
Matt, xviii. and 1 Cor. v. He tells the affirmer is to prove; but the
affirmers have proved, and their arguments are known (yea he himself, p.
1, saith, “I have had the opportunity to hear almost what man can say in
either side,” speaking of the controversy of church government); therefore
he should have made a better answer than to say that those places did not
take hold of his conscience; yet if he have not heard enough of those
places, he shall, I trust, ere long hear more.

He had said, I could never yet see how two co-ordinate governments, exempt
from superiority and inferiority, can be in one state, p. 35. I gave him
three instances: A general and an admiral; a father and a master; a
captain and a master of a ship. This, p. 8, he doth not deny, nor saith
one word against it; only he endeavoureth to make those similes to run
upon four feet, and to resemble the General Assembly and the Parliament in
every circumstance. But I did not at all apply them to the General
Assembly and the Parliament; only I brought them to overthrow that general
thesis of his concerning the inconsistency of two co-ordinate governments,
which, if he could defend, why hath not he done it?

His keeping up of the names of clergy and laity being challenged by me, p.
36, he hath not said one word in his _Re-examination_ to justify it.

I having, p. 37, 38, confuted his argument drawn from the measuring of
others by himself, whereby he did endeavour to prove that he had cause to
fear an ambitious ensnarement in others as well as in himself, God having
fashioned all men’s hearts alike, now he quitteth his ground, and saith
nothing for vindicating that argument from my exceptions.

I showed, p. 40, his misapplying of the king of Sodom’s speech, but
neither in this doth he vindicate himself.

That which I had at length excepted against his fourth rule concerning the
magistrate, and his confirmation thereof, he hath not answered, nor so
much as touched anything which I had said against him, from the end of p.
42 to the end of p. 48, except only a part of p. 43, and of p. 44,
concerning 1 Cor. xii. 28. Some contrary argumentations he hath, p. 21, of
which after, but no answer to mine.

Page 10, He digresseth to other objections of his own framing, instead of
taking off what I had said.

HIS ABUSING OF THE SCRIPTURES.

Mr Coleman did ground an argument upon Psal. xxxiii. 15; Prov. xxvii. 29,
which cannot stand with the intent of the Holy Ghost, because contrary to
other scriptures and to the truth, as I proved, p. 38. He answereth, in
his _Re-examination_, that my sense may stand, and his may stand too. But
if my sense may stand, which is contrary to his, then his argument had no
sure ground for it; yea, that which I said was to prove that his
consequence, drawn from those scriptures, did contradict both the apostle
Paul’s doctrine and his own profession, which still lieth upon him since
it is not answered.

Page 14, He citeth 1 Cor. x. 32, “Give none offence, neither to the Jews,
nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God,” to prove that all
government is either a Jewish government, or a church government, or a
heathenish government, and that _there is no third._ Yes, Sir, yourself
hath given a third (for you have told three), but _transeat cum cæteris
erroribus_. To the matter. This is a perverting of scripture to prove an
untruth; for the government of generals, admirals, majors, sheriffs, is
neither a Jewish government nor a church government, nor a heathenish
government. Neither doth the Apostle speak anything of government in that
place. He maketh a distribution of all men who are in danger to be
scandalised—not of governments; and if he had applied the place rightly to
the Parliament of England, he had said, They are either of the Jews, or of
the Gentiles, or of the church of God: and this needeth not an answer. But
when he saith, “The English Parliament is either a Jewish government, or a
church government, or a heathenish government,” I answer, It is none of
these, but it is a civil government.

Page 15, Declaring his opinion of church government he citeth Rom. xiii.
4, “To execute wrath upon him that doeth evil,” to prove that the punitive
part belongs to the Christian magistrate. But what is this to the punitive
part which is in controversy,—spiritual censures, suspension from the
sacraments, deposition from the ministry, excommunication? The punitive
part spoken of, Rom. xiii., belongeth to all civil magistrates, whether
Christian or infidel.

Page 18. He maketh this reply to 1 Thess. v. 12; 1 Tim. xvii.; Heb. xiii.
7, 17: “Why, man, I have found these an hundred and an hundred times twice
told, and yet am I as I was.” Why, Sir, was the argument so ridiculous? I
had brought those places to prove another government (and, if you will,
the institution of another government) beside magistracy, which he said he
did not find in Scripture. Here are some who are no civil magistrates set
over the Thessalonians in the Lord, 1 Thess. v. 12; Paul writeth to
Timothy of elders that rule well, 1 Tim. v. 17; the churches of the
Hebrews had some rulers who had spoken to them the word of God, Heb. xiii.
7; rulers that watched for their souls as they that must give an account,
ver. 17. Now let the reverend brother speak out, What can he answer? Were
these rulers civil magistrates? Did the civil magistrate speak to them the
word of God? If these rulers were not magistrates but ministers, I ask
next. Is it a matter of indifferency, and no institution, to have a
ministry in a church or not? I hope, though he do not acknowledge ruling
elders _jure divino_, yet he will acknowledge that the ministers of the
word are _jure divino_; yet these were some of the rulers mentioned in the
scriptures quoted. Let him loose the knot, and laugh when he hath done.

Page 19, 20, He laboureth to prove from 1 Cor. xii. 28, that Christ hath
placed civil government in his church; and whereas it is said, that though
it were granted that civil governments are meant in that place, yet it
proves not that Christ hath placed them in the church. He replieth, “I am
sure the Commissioner will not stand to this: he that placed governors was
the same that placed teachers.” But his assurance deceiveth him; for upon
supposition that civil governments are there meant (which is his sense), I
deny it, and he doth but _petere principium_. God placed civil
governments, Christ placed teachers; God placed all whom Christ placed,
but Christ did not place all whom God placed. Next, whereas it was said,
that governments in that place cannot be meant of Christian magistrates,
because at that time the church had no Christian magistrates, he replieth,
That Paul speaks of governments that the church had not, because in the
enumeration, ver. 29, 30, he omits none but _helps_ and _governments_. I
answer, The reason of that omission is not because these two were not then
in being (for God had set them as well as the rest in the church, ver.
28), but to make ruling elders and deacons contented with their station,
though they be not prophets, teachers, &c. Thirdly, I asked, How comes
civil government into the catalogue of ecclesiastical and spiritual
administrations? His reply is nothing but an affirmation, that Christian
magistracy is an ecclesiastical administration, and a query whether
working of miracles and gifts of healings be ecclesiastical. _Ans._ Hence
followeth, 1. That if the magistrate cease to be Christian he loseth his
administration; 2. That though a worker of miracles cease to be Christian,
yet it is a question whether he may not still work miracles. Lastly, Where
I objected that he puts magistracy behind ministry, he makes no answer,
but only that he may do this as well as my rule puts the nobility of
Scotland behind the ministry. No, Sir, we put but ruling elders behind
ministers in the order of their administrations because the Apostle doth
so. It is accidental to the ruling elder to be of the nobility, or to
nobles to be ruling elders: there are but some so, and many otherwise.
That of placing deacons before elders, 1 Cor. xii. 28, is no great matter;
sure the Apostle, Rom. xii., placeth elders before deacons.

HIS ERRORS IN DIVINITY.

1. Page 21, He admitteth no church government distinct from civil, except
that which is merely doctrinal; and, p. 14, he adviseth the Parliament to
take the corrective power wholly into their own hands, and exempteth
nothing of ecclesiastical power from their hands but the dispensing of the
word and sacraments. Hence it followeth that there ought to be neither
suspension from the sacrament, nor excommunication, nor ordination, nor
deposition of ministers, nor receiving of appeals, except all these things
be done by the civil magistrate. If he say the magistrate gives leave to
do these things, I answer, 1. So doth he give leave to preach the word and
minister the sacraments in his dominions. 2. Why doth he then, in his
sermon, and doth still, in his _Re-examination_, p. 14, advise the
Parliament to lay no burden of corrective government upon ministers, but
keep it wholly in their own hands? It must needs be far contrary to his
mind that the magistrate gives leave to do the things above mentioned,
they being most of them corrective, and all of them more than doctrinal.
3. He gives no more power to ministers in church government than in civil
government; for, p. 11, he ascribeth to them a ministerial, doctrinal and
declarative power, both in civil and ecclesiastical government.

2. Page 11, 14, He holds that the corrective or punitive part of church
government is civil or temporal, and is wholly to be kept in the
magistrate’s own hands; and, in his sermon, p. 25, he told us he sees not
in the whole Bible any one act of that church government in controversy
performed. All which how erroneous it is appeareth easily from 1 Cor. v.
13, “Put away from among yourselves that wicked person” (which Mr Prynne
himself, in his _Vindication_, p. 2, acknowledged to be a warrant for
excommunication); 2 Cor. ii. 6, There is a “punishment,” or censure,
“inflicted of many;” 1 Tim. v. 19, “Against an elder receive not an
accusation, but before two or three witnesses.” Where acts of church
government or censures were neglected it is extremely blamed; Rev. ii. 14,
15, 20. Was not all this corrective? yet not civil or temporal.

3. Page 9, Whereas I had said, That without church government ministers
shall not keep themselves nor the ordinances from pollution, he replieth,
That he understands neither this keeping of themselves from pollution, nor
what this pollution of the ordinances is. I am sorry for it, that any
minister of the gospel is found unclear in such a point. I will not give
my own, but scriptural answers to both. The former is answered, 1 Tim. v.
22, Be not “partaker of other men’s sins: keep thyself pure.” It is sin to
dispense ordinances to the unworthy, whether ordination, or communion in
the sacrament. For the other, the pollution of ordinances is the Scripture
language. I hope he means not to quarrel at the Holy Ghost’s language:
Ezek. xxii. 26, “Her priests have violated my law, and have profaned mine
holy things: they have put no difference between the holy and profane;”
Mal. i. 7, “Ye offer polluted bread upon mine altar;” ver. 12, “Ye have
profaned it;” Matt. xxi. 13, “Ye have made it a den of thieves;” Matt.
vii. 6, “Neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them
under their feet.”

4. Page 11, Whereas I had objected to him, that he excludeth ruling elders
as well as ministers from government, he answers, That ruling elders are
either the same, for office and ordination, with the minister (which, as
he thinks, the Independents own, but not I), or they are the Christian
magistrate; and so he saith he doth not exclude them. Mark here, he
excludeth all ruling elders from a share in church government who are not
either the same, for office and ordination, with the minister, or else the
Christian magistrate; and so, upon the matter, he holdeth that ruling
elders are to have no hand in church government. Those ruling elders which
are in the votes of the Assembly, and in the reformed churches, have
neither the power of civil magistracy (_qua_ elders, and many of them not
at all, being no magistrates), nor yet are they the same, for office and
ordination, with the minister; for their office, and, consequently, their
ordination to that office, is distinct from that of the minister among all
that I know. And so, excluding all ruling elders from government who are
neither magistrates, nor the same with ministers, he must needs take upon
him that which I charged him with.

5. Page 21, Where he makes reply to what I said against his argument from
Eph. i. 19-21, he saith, He will blow away all my discourse with this
clear demonstration, “That which is given to Christ he hath it not as God,
and Christ as God cannot be given. But this place (Eph. i. 19-21) speaketh
both of dignity given to Christ, and of Christ as a gift given; therefore
Christ cannot be here understood as God.” This is in opposition to what I
said, p. 45, concerning the headship and dignity of Christ, as the natural
son of God, “the image of the invisible God,” Col. i. 15; and, p. 43, of
the dominion of Christ, as he is the “eternal Son of God.” This being
premised, the brother’s demonstration is so strong as to blow himself into
a blasphemous heresy. I will take the proposition from himself, and the
assumption from Scripture, thus: That which is given to Christ he hath it
not as God. But all power in heaven and in earth is given to Christ, Matt.
xxviii. 18; life is given to Christ, John v. 26; authority to execute
judgment is given to Christ, ver. 27; all things are given into Christ’s
hands, John iii. 35; the Father hath given him power over all flesh, John
xvii. 2; He hath given him glory, John xvii. 22: therefore, by Mr
Coleman’s principles, Christ hath neither life, nor glory, nor authority
to execute judgment, nor power over all flesh, as he is the eternal Son of
God, consubstantial with the Father, but only as he is Mediator, God and
man. As for the giving of Christ as God, what if I argue thus? If Christ,
as he is the eternal Son of God, or Second Person of the ever-blessed
Trinity, could not be given, then the incarnation itself, or the sending
of the Son of God to take on our flesh, cannot be called a giving of a
gift to us. But this were impious to say; therefore, again, if Christ, as
he is the Second Person of the blessed Trinity, could not be given, then
the Holy Ghost, as the Third Person, cannot be given (for they are
co-essential; and that which were a dishonour to God the Son were a
dishonour to God the Holy Ghost); but to say that the Holy Ghost cannot be
given as the Third Person, were to say that he cannot be given as the Holy
Ghost. And what will he then say to all those scriptures that speak of the
giving of the Holy Ghost, Acts xv. 8; Rom. v. 5; 1 John iv. 13, &c.?

Finally, As Mr Coleman’s demonstration hath blown away itself, so it could
not hurt me were it solid and good (as it is not); for he should have
taken notice, that, in my examination, I did not restrict the dignity
given to Christ, Eph. i. 21, nor the giving of Christ, ver. 22, to the
Divine nature only. Nay, I told, p. 44, 46, that these words of the
Apostle hold true even of the human nature of Christ.

6. Page 21, He concludeth with a syllogism, which he calleth the scope of
my discourse (I know not by what logic, the proposition being forged by
himself, and contrary to my discourse); thus it is:—

Whosoever do not manage their office and authority under Christ, and for
Christ, they manage it under the devil, and for the devil; for there is no
middle—either Christ or Belial: he that is not with me is against me.

But, according to the opinion of the Commissioner, Christian magistracy
doth not manage the office and authority thereof under Christ, and for
Christ.

Therefore,—

He believes I shall be hard put to it to give the kingdom a clear and
satisfactory answer. It is well that this is the hardest task he could set
me.

The truth is, his syllogism hath _quatuor terminos_, and is therefore
worthy to be exploded by all that know the laws of disputation. Those
words in the proposition, “under Christ, and for Christ,” can have no
other sense but to be serviceable to Christ, to take part with him, and to
be for the glory of Christ, as is clear by the confirmation added, “He
that is not with me is against me.” But the same words in the assumption
must needs have another sense, “Under Christ, and for Christ;” that is,
_vice Christi_, in Christ’s stead. For that which I denied was, That
magistracy is derived from Christ as Mediator, or that Christ as Mediator
hath given a commission of vicegerentship and deputyship to the Christian
magistrate to manage his office and authority under, and for him, and in
his name; as is clear in my examination, p. 42. Nay, Mr Coleman himself, a
little before his syllogism, p. 19, takes notice of so much. His words are
these: “The Commissioner saith, Magistracy is not derived from Christ: I
say, Magistracy is given to Christ to be serviceable in his kingdom; so
that, though the Commissioners assertion be sound (which in due place will
be discussed), yet it infringeth nothing that I said.” Now then, _qua
fide_ could he, in his argument against me, confound these two things
which he himself had but just now carefully distinguished? If he will make
anything of his syllogism he must hold at one of these two senses. In the
first sense it is true that all are either for Christ or against Christ;
and it is as true that his assumption must be distinguished. For, _de
facto_, the Christian magistrate is for Christ when he doth his duty
faithfully, and is against Christ if he be unfaithful. But, _de jure_, it
holds true universally, that the Christian magistrate manageth his office
under and for Christ; that is, so as to be serviceable for the kingdom and
glory of Christ. In the second sense (which only concerneth me) taking
“under and for Christ,” to be in Christ’s stead, as his deputies or
vicegerents, so his assumption is lame and imperfect, because it doth not
hold forth my opinion clearly. That which I did, and still do hold, is
this: That the civil magistrate, whether Christian or pagan, is God’s
vicegerent, who, by virtue of his vicegerentship, is to manage his office
and authority under God, and for God; that is, in God’s stead, and as God
upon earth: but he is not the vicegerent of Christ as Mediator, neither is
he, by virtue of any such vicegerentship, to manage his office and
authority under Christ, and for Christ; that is, in Christ’s stead, and as
Christ Mediator upon earth. This was and is my plain opinion (not mine
alone, but of others more learned), and Mr Coleman hath not said so much
as yoυ to confute it. So much for the assumption. But in the same sense I
utterly deny his proposition, as being a great untruth in divinity; for
the sense of it can be no other than this: Whosoever do not manage their
office and authority in Christ’s stead, or as deputies and vicegerents of
Christ, as he is Mediator, they manage it in the devil’s stead, as the
devil’s deputies and vicegerents. Now I assume pagan magistrates do not
manage their office as the deputies and vicegerents of Jesus Christ, as he
is Mediator, therefore as the devil’s deputies. Which way was the
authority derived to them from Christ as Mediator? Mr Coleman, p. 19,
saith in answer to this particular, formerly objected, that Christ is
rightful king of the whole earth, and all nations ought to receive Christ,
though as yet they do not. But this helpeth him not. That which he had to
show was, that the pagan magistrate, even while continuing pagan and not
Christian, doth manage his office as Christ’s deputy and vicegerent; if
not, then I conclude by his principles, a pagan magistrate is the devil’s
deputy and vicegerent, which is contrary to Paul’s doctrine, who will have
us to be subject for conscience’ sake, even to heathen magistrates, as the
ministers of God for good, Rom. xiii. 1-7. By the same argument Mr Coleman
must grant that generals, admirals, majors, sheriffs, constables,
captains, masters, yea, every man that hath an office, is either Christ’s
vicegerent, or the devil’s vicegerent, than which what can be more absurd?
I might, beside all these, show some other flaws in his divinity, as,
namely, p. 9 and 13, he doth not agree to this proposition, that “the
admitting of the scandalous and profane to the Lord’s table, makes
ministers to partake of their sins;” and he supposeth that ministers may
do their duty, though they admit the scandalous; but of this elsewhere.

HIS ABUSING OF THE HONOURABLE HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.

Most honourable senators, I humbly beseech you to look about you, and take
notice how far you are abused by Mr Coleman.

1. While he pretendeth to give you more than his brethren, he taketh a
great deal more from you, and, so far as in him lieth, even shaketh the
foundation of your authority. The known tenure of magistracy is from God.
He is the minister of God (for good, and the powers that are, are ordained
of God, saith the Apostle). The magistrate is God’s vicegerent; but now
this brother seeketh a new tenure and derivation of magistracy, which
takes away the old. He told in his sermon, p. 27: “Christ hath placed
governments in his church, 1 Cor. xii. 28; of other governments besides
magistracy I find no institution, of them I do, Rom. xiii. 1, 2. I find
all government given to Christ, and to Christ as Mediator (I desire all to
consider it), Eph. i. 21-23; and Christ as head of those given to the
church.” Here you have these three in subordination, God, Christ, and the
Christian magistrate. God gives once all government, even civil, to
Christ, and to him as Mediator. Well, but how comes it then to the
magistrate? Not straight by a deputation from God. Mr Coleman’s doctrine
makes an interception of the power. He holds that God hath put it in
Christ’s hands as Mediator. How then? The brother holdeth that Christ, as
Mediator, hath instituted and placed the Christian magistrate, yea, and no
other government, in his church. This was the ground of my answer, p. 42,
that he “must either prove from Scripture, that Christ, as Mediator, hath
given such a commission of vicegerentship and deputyship to the Christian
magistrate, or otherwise acknowledge that he hath given a most dangerous
wound to magistracy, and made it an empty title, claiming that power which
it hath no warrant to assume.” I added: “As the Mediator hath not anywhere
given such a commission and power to the magistrate, so, as Mediator, he
had it not to give; for he was not made a judge in civil affairs, Luke
xii. 14; ‘And his kingdom is not of this world,’ John xviii. 36.” Now, but
what reply hath he made to all this? Page 19, he saith, Granting it all to
be true and sound, yet it infringeth not what he said. “The commissioner
(saith he) saith magistracy is not derived from Christ.” I say,
“Magistracy is given to Christ to be serviceable in his kingdom.” But by
his good leave and favour, he said a great deal more than this, for he
spake of Christ’s being head of all civil governments, and his placing
these in his church as he is Mediator. Yea, that fourth rule delivered by
him in his sermon, did hold forth these assertions: 1. That God gave all
government, even civil, to Christ, and to him as Mediator; 2. That Christ,
as Mediator, hath power and authority to place, and substitute under and
for him, the Christian magistrate; 3. That Christ hath placed and
instituted civil governments in his church, to be under and for him, as he
is Mediator; 4. That the Christian magistrate doth, and all magistrates
should, manage their office under and for Christ (that is, as his
vicegerents), he being, as Mediator, head of all civil government. Now
instead of defending his doctrine from my just exceptions made against it,
he resileth, and having brought the magistrate in a snare, leaves him
there. He endeavours to vindicate no more but this, That magistracy is
given to Christ to be serviceable in his kingdom. But if he had said so at
first, I had said with him, and not against him, in that point; and if he
will yet hold at that, why doth he, p. 19, refer my assertion to further
discussion?

Secondly, He hath abused the Parliament in holding forth that rule to them
in his sermon, “Establish as few things _jure divino_ as can well be.” And
yet now he is made, by strength of argument, to acknowledge, p. 5, that
this is a good rule, “Establish as many things _jure divino_ as can well
be.”

Thirdly, I having stated the question to be not whether this or that form
of church government be _jure divino_, but whether a church government be
_jure divino_; whether Christ hath thus far revealed his will in his word,
that there are to be church censures, and those to be dispensed by
church-officers. I said the brother is for the negative of this question,
p. 32. This he flatly denieth, p. 5, 6, whereby he acknowledgeth the
affirmative, that there is a church government _jure divino_, and that
Jesus Christ hath so far revealed his will in his word, that there are to
be church censures, and those to be dispensed by church-officers. But how
doth this agree with his sermon? “Christ hath placed governments in his
church. Of other governments (said he) beside magistracy I find no
institution, of them I do.” Is magistracy church government? Are
magistrates church officers? Are the civil punishments church censures? Is
this the mystery? Yes, that it is. He will tell us anon that the Houses of
Parliament are church officers; but if that bolt do any hurt I am much
mistaken.

Fourthly, He professeth to subscribe to the votes of Parliament concerning
church government, p. 11; and yet he still pleadeth that all
ecclesiastical government is merely doctrinal, p. 11, the Parliament
having voted that power to church-officers which is not doctrinal (as I
showed before). And he adviseth the Parliament to keep wholly in their own
hands the corrective part of church government, p. 14, though the
Parliament hath put into the hands of elderships a power of suspension
from the sacrament, which is corrective.

Fifthly, He did deliver, in that sermon before the honourable House of
Commons, divers particulars, which being justly excepted against, and he
undertaking a vindication, yet he hath receded from them, or not been able
to defend them, as that concerning two co-ordinate governments in one
kingdom; and his argument concerning the fear of an ambitious ensnarement
in ministers, these being by me infringed, he hath not so much as offered
to make them good.

Sixthly, Having acknowledged, under his own hand, that he was sorry he had
given offence to the reverend Assembly, and to the Commissioners from
Scotland, he now appealeth to the Parliament, and tells us they are able
to judge of a scandalous sermon, and they thought not so of it, p. 3. I
know they are able to judge of a scandalous sermon: that they thought not
so of it, it is more than I know or believe. However I know they have a
tender respect to the offence of others, even when themselves are not
offended, and so they, and all men, ought to do according to the rule of
Christ. For his part, after he had acknowledged he had given offence, it
is a disservice to the Parliament to lay over the thing upon them. For my
part, I think I do better service to the Parliament in interpreting
otherwise that second order of the House, not only desiring, but enjoining
Mr Coleman to print that sermon,—as near as he could,—as he preached it.
This was not, as he takes it, one portion of approbation above all its
brethren (for I shall not believe that so wise an auditory was not at all
scandalised at the hearing of that which was contrary both to the covenant
and to their own votes concerning church government, nor at that which he
told them out of the Jewish records, that “Hezekiah was the first man that
was ever sick in the world, and did recover”); but, as I humbly conceive
it was a real censure put upon him, his sermon being so much excepted
against and stumbled at, the honourable House of Commons did wisely enjoin
him to print his sermon, that it might abide trial in the light of the
world, and lie open to any just exceptions which could be made against it
abroad, and that he might stand or fall to himself.

Seventhly, He abuseth the Parliament by arrogating so much to himself, as
that his sermon “will, in the end, take away all difference, and settle
union,” p. 3; and that his _Model_ will be, when he is dead, “the model of
England’s church government,” as he saith in his postscript. Whether this
be _prophesying_ or _presuming_ I hope we are free to judge. And what if
the wisdom and authority of the honourable Houses, upon advice from the
reverend and learned Assembly, choose another way than this? Must all the
synodical debates, and all the grave parliamentary consultations, resolve
themselves into Mr Coleman’s way, like Jordan into _Mare Mortuum_.

Eighthly, He doth extremely wound the authority of Parliament in making
their office to be a church office, and of the same kind with the
minister’s office. P. 14, “Do not I hold ministers church officers?” And a
little after, “I desire the Parliament to consider another presbyterian
principle that excludes your honourable Assembly from being church
officers.” If so, then the offices of the magistrate and of the minister
must stand and fall together; that is, if the nation were not Christian
the office of magistracy should cease as well as that of the ministry. And
if he make the magistrate a church officer, he must also give him
ordination, except, with the Socinians, he deny the necessity of
ordination.

HIS ABUSING THE REVEREND ASSEMBLY OF DIVINES.

Whereas I had objected that his sermon had given no small scandal and
offence, he replieth, p. 3, “But hath it given offence? To whom? I appeal
to the honourable audience.” Is this candid or fair dealing, when he
himself knew both that he had given offence, and to whom? I shall give him
no other answer but his own declaration which he gave under his hand after
he had preached that sermon:—

“For much of what is reported of my sermon I utterly deny; and refer
myself to the sermon itself. For what I have acknowledged to be delivered
by me, although it is my judgment, yet, because I see it hath given a
great deal of offence to this Assembly and the reverend Commissioners of
Scotland, I am sorry I have given offence in the delivery thereof. And for
the printing, although I have an order, I will forbear, except I be
further commanded.—THO. COLEMAN.”

Page 33, I had this passage: “And where he asketh where the Independents
and we should meet,” I answer, “In holding a church government _jure
divino_; that is, that the pastors and elders ought to suspend or
excommunicate (according to the degree of the offence) scandalous sinners.
Who can tell but the purging of the church from scandals, and the keeping
of the ordinances pure (when it shall be actually seen to be the great
work endeavoured on both sides), may make union between us and the
Independents more easy than many imagine.” What reply hath he made to
this? P. 6, “Sure I dream (awake then); but I will tell you news: The
Presbyterians and Independents are (he should have said _may be_) united;
nay, more, the Lutherans and Calvinists; nay, more yet, the Papist and
Protestant; nay, more than so, the Turk and Christian.” But wherein? “In
holding that there is a religion wherein men ought to walk.” No, Sir. They
must be united upon the like terms; that is, you must first have Turks to
be Christians, and Papists to be Protestants; and then you must have them
as willing to purge the church of scandals, and to keep the ordinances
pure. We will never despair of an union with such as are sound in the
faith, holy in life, and willing to a church-refining and sin-censuring
government in the hands of church officers. In the meanwhile, it is no
light imputation upon the Assembly to hint this much, that the harmony and
concord among the members thereof, for such a government as I have now
named (though in some other particulars dissenting), can no more unite
them than Turks and Christians, Papists and Protestants, can be united.
And now I will tell you my news: The Presbyterians and Independents are
both equally interested against the Erastian principles.

He reflecteth also upon the Assembly in the point of _jus divinum_, p. 6.
But what his part hath been, in reference to the proceedings in the
Assembly, is more fully, and in divers particulars, expressed in the
_Brief View of Mr Coleman’s New Model_, unto which he hath offered no
answer.

HIS CALUMNIES.

Page 3, He desireth me, with wisdom and humility, to mind what
church-refining and sin-censuring work this church government, with all
its activity, hath made in Scotland, in the point of promiscuous
communicating. I shall desire him, with wisdom and humility, to mind what
charity or conscience there is in such an aspersion. I dare say divers
thousands have been kept off from the sacrament in Scotland, as unworthy
to be admitted. Where I myself have exercised my ministry there have been
some hundreds kept off; partly for ignorance, and partly for scandal. The
order of the church of Scotland, and the acts of General Assemblies, are
for keeping off all scandalous persons; which every godly and faithful
minister doth conscientiously and effectually endeavour. And if, here or
there, it be too much neglected by some Archippus, who takes not heed to
fulfil the ministry which he hath received of the Lord, let him and his
eldership bear the blame, and answer for it.

Page 4, I having professed my unwillingness to fall upon such a
controversy in a Fast sermon, he replieth, “How can you say you were
unwilling?” But how can you, in brotherly charity, doubt of it after I had
seriously professed it? My doing it at two several Fasts (the only
opportunities I then had to give a testimony to that presently
controverted truth) is no argument of the contrary. May not a man do a
thing twenty times over, and yet do it unwillingly?

Page 5, He slandereth those that did, in their sermons, give a public
testimony against his doctrine; the occasion (as he gives out) not being
offered, but taken. But had they not a public calling and employment to
preach as well as himself? And if a Fast was not an occasion offered to
them, how was a Fast an occasion offered to him to fall upon the same
controversy first, and when none had dons the like before him.

A fourth calumny is this: He had first blamed two parties that they came
biassed to the Assembly; I answered, How then shall he make himself
blameless who came biassed a third way; which was the Erastian way; and
that, for our part, we came no more biassed to this Assembly than the
foreign divines came to the Synod of Dort, Alexander to the Council of
Nice, Cyril to that of Ephesus, and Paul to the synod at Jerusalem. But
now, p. 6, 7, instead of doing us right he doth us greater injury; for now
he makes us biassed, not only by our own judgments, but by something
adventitious from without; which he denieth himself to be (but how truly I
take not on me to judge: beholders do often perceive the biassing better
than the bowlers); yea, he saith that I have acknowledged the bias, and
justify it. Where, Sir? where? I deny it. It is no bias for a man to be
settled, resolved and engaged in his judgment for the truth, especially
when willing to receive more light, and to learn what needeth to be
further reformed. Hath he forgotten his own definition of the bias which
he had but just now given? But he will needs make it more than probable,
by the instances which I brought, that the Commissioners from Scotland
came not to this Assembly as divines, by dispute and disquisition, to find
out truth, but as judges, to censure all different opinions as errors; for
so came foreign divines to Dort, Alexander to the Council of Nice, Cyril
to Ephesus. Is it not enough that he slander us, though he do not, for our
sakes, slander those worthy divines that came to the Synod of Dort,
Alexander also, and Cyril, prime witnesses for the truth in their days?
Could no less content him than to approve the objections of the Arminians
against the Synod of Dort, which I had mentioned, p. 33? But he gets not
away so. The strongest instance which I had given he hath not once
touched: it was concerning Paul and Barnabas, who were engaged (not in the
behalf of one nation, but of all the churches of the Gentiles) against the
imposition of the Mosaical rites, and had so declared themselves at
Antioch, before they came to Jerusalem. Finally, Whereas he doubts, though
not of our willingness to learn more, yet of our permission to receive
more: That very paper, first given in by us (which I had cited, and unto
which he makes this reply), did speak not only of our learning, but of the
church of Scotland’s receiving, and, which is more, there is an actual
experiment of it, the last General Assembly having ordered the laying
aside of some particular customs in that church, and that for the nearer
uniformity with this church of England, as was expressed in their own
letter to the reverend Assembly of Divines.

A fifth calumny there is, p. 9, 6. “The Commissioner is content that _jus
divinum_ should be a _noli me tangere_ to the Parliament, yet blames what
himself grants.” I was never content it should be a _noli me tangere_ to
the Parliament, but at most a _non necesse est tangere_, for so I
explained myself, p. 32, 33. If the Parliament establish that thing which
is agreeable to the word of God, though they do not establish it as _jure
divino_, I acquiesce; in the meantime, both they and all Christians, but
especially ministers, ought to search the Scriptures, that what they do in
matters of church government, they may do it in faith and assurance, that
it is acceptable to God. It was not of parliamentary sanction, but of
divines doctrinal asserting of the will of God that I said, Why should
_jus divinum_ be such a _noli me tangere_?

6. It seems strange to him that I did at all give instance of the
usefulness of church government in the preservation of purity in the
ordinances and in church-members. He saith, For an Independent to have
given this instance had been something; but it seems strange to him that
“I should have given an instance of the power and efficacy of government,
as it is presbyterial, and contradistinct to congregational.” This is a
calumny against presbyterial government, which is neither privative nor
contradistinct, but cumulative to congregational government; and the
congregational is a part of that government which is comprehended under
the name of presbyterial. But in cases of common concernment, difficulty,
appeals, and the like, the preserving of the ordinances and church-members
from pollution, doth belong to presbyteries and synods.

7. He saith of me, p. 9, “He ascribeth this power of purifying men, and
means of advancing the power of godliness afterward, to government.” A
calumny. It was only a _sine quo non_ which I ascribed to government thus
far, that without it, ministers “shall not keep themselves nor the
ordinances from pollution,” p. 23. But that church government hath power
to purify men, I never thought it, nor said it. That which I said of the
power (which he pointeth at) was, that his way can neither preserve the
purity, nor advance the power of religion, p. 40, and the reason is,
because his way provideth no ecclesiastical effectual remedy for removing
and purging away the most gross scandalous sins, which are destructive to
the power of godliness. God must, by his word and Spirit, purify men, and
work in them the power of godliness. The church government which I plead
for against him, is a means subservient and helpful, so far as _removere
prohibens_, to remove that which apparently is impeditive and destructive
to that purity and power.

8. Having told us of the proud swelling waves of presbyterial government,
I asked upon what coast had those waves done any hurt, France, or
Scotland, or Holland, or _terra incognita_? He replieth, p. 12, “I confess
I have had no great experience of the presbyterial government.” Why make
you bold then to slander it, when you can give no sure ground for that you
say? He tells us, His fears arise from Scotland and from London. The
reverend and worthy ministers of London can speak for themselves _oetatem
habent_, for my part, though I know not the particulars, I am bound in
charity not to believe those aspersions put upon them by a discontented
brother. But what from Scotland? “I myself (saith he) did hear the
presbytery of Edinburgh censure a woman to be banished out of the gates of
the city. Was not this an encroachment?” It had been an encroachment
indeed, if it had been so. But he will excuse me if I answer him in his
own language (which I use not), p. 3 and 5: “It is, at the best, a most
uncharitable slander,” and “There was either ignorance or mindlessness in
him that sets it down.”

There is no banishment in Scotland but by the civil magistrate, who so far
aideth and assisteth church discipline, that profane and scandalous
persons, when they are found unruly and incorrigible, are punished with
banishment or otherwise. A stranger coming at a time into one of our
presbyteries, and hearing of somewhat which was represented to or reported
from the magistrate, ought to have had so much, both circumspection and
charity, as not to make such a rash and untrue report. He might have at
least inquired when he was in Scotland, and informed himself better,
whether presbyteries or the civil magistrate do banish. If he made no such
inquiry, he was rash in judging; if he did, his offence is greater, when,
after information, he will not understand.

9. He makes this to be a position of mine, p. 13, That “a learned ministry
puts no black mark upon profaneness more than upon others.” A calumny.
For, first, He makes me to speak nonsense; Secondly, I did not speak it of
a learned ministry, but of “his way,” p. 40. How long ago since a learned
ministry was known by the name of Mr Coleman’s way! His way is a ministry
without power of government or church censures. Of this his way I said,
that “it putteth no black mark upon profaneness and scandal in church
members more than in any other;” and the reason is, because the corrective
or punitive part of government he will have to be only civil or temporal,
which striketh against those that are without, as well as those within.
But the Apostle tells us of such a corrective government as is a judging
of those that are within, and of those only, 1 Cor. v. 12; and this way
(which is not only ours, but the apostolical way) puts a black mark upon
profaneness and scandalous sins in church members more than in any others.

10. He saith of me, p. 17, “The Commissioner is the only man that we shall
meet with, that, forsaking the words, judgeth of the intentions.” A
calumny. I judged nothing but _ex ore tuo_; but in this thing he himself
hath trespassed. I will instance but in two particulars: In that very
place he saith, “Admonition is a spiritual censure in the Commissioner’s
opinion.” Whence knows he that to be my opinion? Consistorial or
presbyterial admonition given to the unruly may be called a censure; and
if this were his meaning, then, ascribing to elderships power of
admonition, he gives them some power of spiritual censures, and so
something of the corrective part of government, which were contrary to his
own principles. But he speaketh it of the ministers’ admonishing, who are
but a part of the elderships, as himself there granteth. Now, where did I
ever say or write, that admonition, by a minister, is a spiritual censure?
Again, p. 4, he so judgeth me, that he not only forsaketh, but
contradicteth my words, “How can you say you were unwilling?”

11. He saith, p. 16, “Now the Commissioner speaks out, &c. What! Not the
Parliament of England meddle with religion?” A horrid calumny! Where have
I said it? _Dic sodes._ I never preached before them but I exhorted them
to meddle with religion, and that in the first place, and above all other
things. I shall sooner prove that Mr Coleman will not have the Parliament
of England to meddle with civil affairs, because he makes them church
officers. It is a _non sequitur_. Their power is civil, therefore they are
not to meddle with religion. It will be a better consequence: They are
church officers: so he makes them, p. 14; and “Christian magistracy is an
ecclesiastical administration,” so he saith, p. 20, therefore they are not
to meddle with civil government.

THE REPUGNANCY OF HIS DOCTRINE TO THE SOLEMN LEAGUE AND COVENANT.

Mr Coleman, p. 13, acknowledgeth, that to assert anything contrary to the
solemn league and covenant, is a great fault in any, in himself more than
in divers others, if made out; he having, for his own part, taken it with
the first, and not only so, but having administered it to divers others.
Yes; and take this one circumstance more: In his sermon upon Jer. xxx. 21,
at the taking of the covenant, Sept. 29, 1643, he answereth this objection
against the extirpation of Prelacy: “But what if the exorbitances be
purged away, may not I, notwithstanding my oath, admit of a regulated
Prelacy?” For satisfaction to this objection he answereth thus: “First, We
swear not against a government that is not; Secondly, We swear against the
evils of every government, and doubtless many materials of Prelacy must of
necessity be retained as absolutely necessary; Thirdly, Taking away the
exorbitances, the remaining will be a new government and no Prelacy.” Let
the brother now deal ingenuously. What did he understand by those
materials of Prelacy absolutely necessary to be retained? Did he
understand the dispensing of the word and sacraments, which is common to
all pastors? Or did he understand the privileges of Parliament? Were
either of those two materials of Prelacy? And if he had meant either of
these, was this the way to satisfy that scruple concerning the extirpation
of Prelacy? Again, What was that new government which he promised them
after the taking away of the exorbitances of the old? Was it the
minister’s doctrinal part? That is no new thing in England. Was it the
Parliament’s assuming of the corrective part of church government, as he
improperly distinguisheth, wholly and solely into their own hands,
excluding the ministry from having any hand therein? This were a new
government, I confess. But, sure, he could not, in any reason, intend this
as a satisfaction to the scruples of such as desired a regulated Prelacy,
whose scruples he then spoke to, for this had been the way to dissuade
them from, not to persuade them to, the covenant.

But I go along with his _Re-examination_. P. 14, He explaineth himself and
me thus: “He should have said that I advised the Parliament to lay no
burden of government upon them whom he, this Commissioner, thinks church
officers, then had he spoken true.” I thank him for his explanation. And,
I pray, who were the church officers whom I said he excluded from church
government? Were they not pastors and ruling elders? And doth not himself
think these to be church officers? Yes; of the ministers he thinks so, but
of ruling elders he seems to doubt, except they be magistrates. Well, but
excluding those church officers from church government he takes with the
charge. Why seeks he a knot in the rush? But now how doth he explain
himself? He will have the Parliament to be church officers (of which
before), and such church officers as shall take the corrective part of
church government wholly into their own hands; yet not to dispense the
word and sacraments, but to leave the doctrinal part to the ministry, and
their power to be merely doctrinal, as he saith, p. 11. Thus you have his
explanation. But doth this solve the violating of the covenant? Nay, it
makes it more apparent; for the government of the church, which the first
article of the covenant speaks of, is distinguished from the doctrinal
part: “That we shall endeavour the reformation of religion in the kingdoms
of England and Ireland, in doctrine, worship, discipline and government.”
So that, excluding pastors and ruling elders from the corrective part of
government, and from all power which is not merely doctrinal, he thereby
excludeth them from that discipline and government which the covenant
speaks of as one special part of the reformation of religion. Come on to
the reasons.

I had given four reasons; he takes notice but of three. This is the second
time he hath told three for four, yet even these three will do the
business.

1. “The extirpation of church government is not the reformation of it.”
Here the brother addeth these words following as mine, which are not mine:
“Therefore he that finds no church government breaks his covenant.” His
reply is, “We must reform it according to the word of God, if that hold
out none, here is no tailing.” He addeth a simile of a jury sworn to
inquire into the felony of an accused person, but finds not guilty; and of
three men taking an oath to deliver in their opinions of church government
(where, by the way, he lets fall that I hold the national synod to be
above all courts in the kingdom; which, if he means of ecclesiastical
courts, why did he speak so generally? If he mean, above all or any civil
courts, it is a gross calumny.) But now, if this be the sense which he
gives of that first article in the covenant, then, 1. All that is in the
second article might have been put into the first article: for instance,
we might, in Mr Coleman’s sense, have sworn “to endeavour the reformation
of Prelacy, and even of Popery itself, according to the word of God, and
the example of the best reformed churches;” that is, taking an oath to
deliver in our opinions of these things according to the word of God, and
to inquire into the evils of church government by archbishops, bishops,
deans, &c., whether guilty or not guilty. I strengthened my argument by
the different nature of the first and second article. I said, “The second
article is of things to be extirpated, but this of things to be preserved
and reformed.” Why did he not take the strength of my argument and make a
reply? 2. By the same principle of his we are not tied by the first
article of our covenant to have any, either doctrine or worship, but only
to search the Scriptures whether the word hold out any; for doctrine,
worship, discipline and government, go hand in hand in the covenant. 3.
His own simile hath this much in it against him. If a jury, sworn to
inquire into the felony of an accused person, should, after such an oath,
not only find the person not guilty, but further take upon them to
maintain that there is no such thing as felony, surely this were
inconsistent with their oath, so he that swears to endeavour the
reformation of religion in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government,
and yet will not only dislike this or that form of government, but also
hold that there is no such thing as church government, he holds that which
cannot agree with his oath. 4. This answer of Mr Coleman, leaving it free
to debate whether there be such as church government, being his only
answer to my first argument from the covenant, must needs suppose that the
government mentioned in the covenant, the reformation whereof we have
sworn to endeavour, is understood even by himself of church officers’
power of corrective government, it being the corrective part only, and not
the doctrinal part, which he casts upon an uncertainty whether the world
hold out any such thing.

2. “Church government as mentioned in the covenant is a spiritual, not a
civil thing. The matters of religion are put together,—doctrine, worship,
discipline and government. The privileges of Parliament come after in the
third article.” The reverend brother replies, “What if it be? therefore
the Parliament is not to meddle with it, and why?” And here he runs out
against me, as if I held that the Parliament is not to meddle with
religion, an assertion which I abominate. Princes and magistrates’ putting
off themselves all care of the matters of religion, was one of the great
causes of the church’s mischief, and of popish and prelatical tyranny. But
is this just and fair, Sir, to give out for my opinion that for which you
are not able to show the least colour or shadow of consequence from any
thing that ever I said? That which was to be replied unto was, Whether do
not the materials of the first article of the covenant differ from the
materials of the third article of the covenant? or whether are they the
same? Whether doth the privilege of Parliament belong to the first article
of the covenant? Whether is that government mentioned in the first article
a civil thing or a spiritual? If civil, why is discipline and government
ranked with doctrine and worship, and all these mentioned as parts of the
reformation of religion? If spiritual, then why doth the brother make it
“civil or temporal?” p. 11. To all this nothing is answered, but, “What if
it be?” Then is my argument granted.

And to put it yet further out of question, I add other two arguments from
that same first article of the covenant. One is this: In the first part of
that first article we swear all of us to endeavour “the preservation of
the reformed religion in the church of Scotland, in doctrine, worship,
discipline, and government,” where all know that the words “discipline”
and “government” (especially being mentioned as two of the principal
things in which the reformed religion in that church doth consist) signify
church government and church discipline distinct both from doctrine and
worship (which, by the way, how Mr Coleman endeavoureth to preserve, I
will not now say, but leave it to others to judge), therefore, in that
which immediately followeth,—our endeavouring “the reformation of religion
in the kingdoms of England and Ireland, in doctrine, worship, discipline
and government,”—the words “discipline” and “government” must needs have
the same sense thus far, that it is a church discipline and a church
government distinct from the civil power of the magistrate, and distinct
also from doctrine and worship in the church; for we cannot make these
words, “discipline” and “government,” in one and the same article of a
solemn oath and covenant, to suffer two senses differing _toto genere_
(especially considering that the civil government is put by itself in
another article, which is the third), unless we make it to speak so as
none may understand it.

The other argument which I now add is this. In the third part of that
first article we swear that we “shall endeavour to bring the churches of
God in the three kingdoms to the nearest conjunction and uniformity in
religion, confession of faith, form of church government, directory for
worship and catechising,” where, 1. Church government doth agree
generically with a confession of faith, directory of worship, and
catechising. I mean all these are matters of religion, none of them civil
matters. 2. It is supposed there is such a thing as church government
distinct from civil government, and therefore it is put out of all
question, that so far there shall be an uniformity between the churches of
God in the three kingdoms (and otherwise it were an unswearing of what was
sworn in the first part of that article), but it tieth us to endeavour the
nearest conjunction and uniformity “in a form of church government;” which
were a vain and rash oath, if we were not tied to a church government in
general, and that as a matter of religion. 3. The uniformity in a form of
church government which we swear to endeavour must needs be meant of
corrective government; it being clearly distinguished from the confession
of faith and directory of worship. So that Mr Coleman’s distinction of the
doctrinal part, and of the dispensing of the word and sacraments, cannot
here help him.

From these two arguments (beside all was said before) I conclude that the
covenant doth undeniably suppose, and plainly hold forth this thing as
most necessary and uncontrovertible, that there ought to be a church
government which is both distinct from the civil government, and yet not
merely doctrinal. And if so, what Apollo can reconcile Mr Coleman’s
doctrine with the covenant? And now I go on.

My last reason formerly brought was this: “Will the brother say that the
example of the best reformed churches leadeth his way?” For the covenant
tieth us to a reformation of the government of the church both according
to the word of God and the example of the best reformed churches: that as
_regula regulans_; this as _regula regulata_.

The reverend brother replieth: 1. “The best reformed church that ever was
went this way; I mean the church of Israel.”

_Ans._ 1. Is the church of Israel one of the reformed churches which the
covenant speaks of? 2. Was the church of Israel better reformed than the
apostolical churches? Why then calls he it the best reformed church that
ever was? 3. That in the Jewish church there was a church government
distinct from civil government, and church censures distinct from civil
punishments, is the opinion of many who have taken great pains in the
searching of the Jewish antiquities; and it may be he shall hear it ere
long further proved, both from Scripture and from the very Talmudical
writers.

2. “I desire (saith he) the Commissioner to give an instance in the New
Testament of such a distinction (civil and church government) where the
state was Christian.”

_Ans._ I desire him to give an instance in the New Testament of these
three things, and then he will answer himself. 1. Where was the state
Christian? 2. Where had the ministry a doctrinal power in a Christian
state? 3. Where doth the New Testament hold out that a church government
distinct from civil government may be where the state is not Christian,
and yet may not be where the state is Christian? Shall the church’s
liberties be diminished, or rather increased, where the state is
Christian?

In the third and fourth place, the brother tells us of the opinions of
Gualther, Bulhager, Erastus, Aretius. The question is of the examples of
churches, not of the opinions of men. But what of the men? As for that
pestilence that walketh in darkness through London and Westminster,
Liastus’ book against Beza, let him make of it what he can, it shall have
an antidote by and by. In the meanwhile, he may take notice, that, in the
close of the sixth book, Erastus casts down that which he hath built, just
as Bellarmine did, in the close of his five books of justification. But as
for the other three named by the brother, they are ours, not his, in this
present controversy. Gualther(1340) expounds 1 Cor. v. all along of
excommunication, and of the necessity of church discipline; insomuch that
he expounds the very delivering to Satan (the phrase most controverted by
Erastus and his followers) of excommunication, and the not eating with the
scandalous (ver 9-11) he takes also to import excommunication. He thinks
also that ministers shall labour to little purpose except they have a
power of government. Bullinger is most plain for excommunication, as a
spiritual censure ordained by Christ, and so he understands Matt. xviv.
17.

Aretius holds(1341) that God was the author of excommunication in the Old
Testament, and Christ in the New. And now are these three Mr Coleman’s
way? Or doth not his doctrine flatly contradict theirs? Peradventure he
will say, Yet there is no excommunication in the church of Zurich, where
those divines lived, nor any suspension of scandalous sinners from the
sacrament. I answer, This cannot infringe what I hold, that the example of
the best reformed churches maketh for us and against him; for, 1. The book
written by Lavater, another of the Zurich divines, _de Ritibus et
Institutis Ecclesioe Tigurinoe_, tells us of divers things in that church
which will make the brother easily to acknowledge that it is not the best
reformed church, such as festival days, cap. 8, that upon the Lord’s days,
before the third bell, it is published and made known to the people, if
there be any houses, fields, or lands, to be sold, cap. 9. They have no
fasts indicted, cap. 9, nor psalms sung in the church, cap. 10.
Responsories in their Litany at the sacrament, the deacon upon the right
hand saith one thing, the deacon upon the left hand saith another thing,
the pastor a third thing, cap. 13. 2. Yet the church of Zurich hath some
corrective church government besides that which is civil or temporal, for
the same book, cap. 23, tells us, that in their synods, any minister who
is found scandalous or profane in his life, is censured with deposition
from his office, _ab oficio deponitur_. Then follows, _finita censura,
singuli decani, &c._ Here is a synodical censure, which I find also in
Wolphius,(1342) a professor of Zurich, and the book before cited, cap.
24,(1343) tells us of some corrective power committed to pastors and
elders, which elders are distinguished from the magistrates. 3. The Zurich
divines themselves looked upon excommunication as that which was wanting
through the injury of the times; the thing having been so horribly abused
in Popery, and the present licentiousness abounding among people, did
hinder the erecting of that part of the church discipline at that time.
But they still pleaded the thing to be held forth in Scripture, and were
but expecting better times for restoring and settling of excommunication,
which they did approve in Geneva, and in other reformed churches, who had
received it. I give you their own words for the warrant of what I
say.(1344)

I have been the longer upon this point as being the chief objection which
can be made by Mr Coleman concerning that clause in the covenant, “The
example of the best reformed churches.”

He hath only one thing more, which may well pass for a paradox. He will
take an instance, forsooth, from Geneva itself, though presbyterian in
practice. And why? Because in the Geneva Annotations upon Matt. ix. 16, it
said, that “the external discipline is to be fitted to the capacity of the
church.” “This is no Scotland presbytery,” saith the brother. Nay, Sir,
nor yet Geneva presbytery; for it doth not at all concern presbytery. It
is spoken in reference to the choosing of fit and convenient times for
fasting and humiliation,—that as Christ did not, at that time, tie his
disciples to fasting, it being unsuitable to that present time; so other
like circumstances of God’s worship, which are not at all determined to
the word, are to be accommodated to emergent occasions, and to the
church’s condition for the time, which both Scotland and Geneva, and other
reformed churches do.

If I have now more fully and convincingly spoken to that point of the
covenant, let the brother blame himself that put me to it.

The Lord guide his people in a right way, and rebuke the spirit of error
and division, and give us all more of his Spirit, to lead us into all
truth, and into all self-denial, and grant that none of his servants be
found unwilling to have the Lord Jesus Christ to reign over them in all
his ordinances!

THE END.

MALE AUDIS; OR, AN ANSWER TO MR COLEMAN’S MALE DICIS.

MALE AUDIS;

AN ANSWER TO MR COLEMAN’S MALE DICIS:

WHEREIN

THE REPUGNANCY OF HIS ERASTIAN DOCTRINE TO THE WORD OF GOD,

TO THE SOLEMN LEAGUE AND COVENANT, AND TO THE ORDINANCES OF PARLIAMENT;

ALSO HIS CONTRADICTIONS, TERGIVERSATIONS, HETERODOXIES, CALUMNIES,

AND PERVERTING OF TESTIMONIES,

ARE MADE MORE APPARENT THAN FORMERLY.

TOGETHER WITH

SOME ANIMADVERSIONS UPON MR HUSSEY’S PLEA FOR CHRISTIAN MAGISTRACY:

SHOWING,

THAT IN DIVERS OF THE AFORE-MENTIONED PARTICULARS HE HATH MISCARRIED AS
MUCH AS,

AND IN SOME PARTICULARS MORE THAN, MR COLEMAN.

BY GEORGE GILLESPIE,

MINISTER AT EDINBURGH, 1649.

EDINBURGH:

ROBERT OGLE, AND OLIVER & BOYD.

M. OGLE & SON, AND WILLIAM COLLINS, GLASGOW.

J. DEWAR, PERTH. W. MIDDLETON, DUNDEE. G. & R. KING, ABERDEEN.

W. M’COMB, BELFAST.

HAMILTON, ADAMS & CO., AND JAMES NISBET & CO., LONDON.

1649.

REPRINTED BY A. W. MURRAY, MILNE SQUARE, EDINBURGH

1844.

PREFACE TO THE READER.

As I did not begin this present controversy, so I do not desire to hold up
the ball of contention, yet having appeared in it (neither alone, nor
without a calling and opportunity offered), I hold it my duty to vindicate
the truth of Christ, the solemn league and covenant, the ordinances of
Parliament, the church of Scotland, and myself. For this end was I born,
and for this end came I into the world, that I might bear witness to the
truth, whereunto I am so much the more encouraged, because it appeareth
already in this debate, that _magna est vis veritatis_,—great is the force
of truth, and so great, that my antagonists, though men of parts, and such
as could do much for the truth, yet, while they have gone about to do
somewhat against the truth, they have mired themselves in foul errors;
yea, so far is in them lieth, have most dangerously shaken and endangered
the authority of magistrates, who are God’s vicegerents, and particularly
the authority of Parliament, and of parliamentary ordinances. They have
stumbled and fallen, and shall not be able to rise but by the
acknowledgment of the truth.

In this following reply, I have not touched much of the argumentative part
in Mr Hussey’s _Plea for Christian Magistracy_, reserving most of it to
another work, unto which this is a _prodromus_ (howbeit much of what he
saith is the same with what I did confute in my _Nihil Respondes_, and his
book, coming forth a month after, takes no notice of that second piece of
mine, but speaketh only to the first). Meanwhile, let him not believe that
his big looking title can, like Gorgon’s head, blockify or stonify
rational men, so as they shall not perceive the want or weakness of
argument. It hath ever been a trick of adversaries to calumniate the way
of God and his servants, as being against authority, but I will, by God’s
assistance, make it appear to any intelligent man, that the reverend
brother hath pleaded very much against magistracy, and so hath fallen
himself into the ditch which he hath digged for others, whilst I withal
escape.(1345)

But, now, what may be the meaning of Mr Coleman’s cabalistical title,
_Male Dicis Maledicis_? Great philologists will tell him that _maledico_
is taken in a good sense as well as in a bad, according to the difference
of matter and circumstances. If any kind of malediction be justifiable, it
is _male dicere maledicis_,—to speak evil to evil speakers, for “as he
loved cursing, so let it come unto him as he delighted not in blessing, so
let it be far from him.” But he doth worse, and his title, with a
transposition of letters, will more fitly reflect upon himself _male dicis
de amicus_. You, Sir, speak evil of your friends, and of those that never
wronged you. For my part, I have not shared with him in evil speaking, nor
rendered revilings for revilings. I am sorry that he is so extremely ill
of hearing, as to take reason to be railing, and good sayings to be evil
sayings. He applieth to himself the Apostle’s words, “Being reviled, we
bless.” But where to find these blessings of his, those unwritten
verities, I know not. I am sure he had spoken more truly if he had said,
“Being not reviled, we do revile.”

For the matter and substance of his reply, there are divers particulars in
it which serve rather to be matter of mirth than of argument, as that a
Parliament parasite cannot be called an abuser of the Parliament, and that
passage, “How can a clause delivered in a postscript, concerning my
opinion of my way, be abusive to the Parliament?” A great privilege either
of postscripts or of his opinions, that they cannot be abusive to the
Parliament. Many passages are full of acrimony, many extravagant, and not
to the point in hand, many void of matter. Concerning such
Lactantius(1346) gives me a good rule, Otiosum est persequi singula,—it is
an idle and unprofitable thing to persecute every particular. And much
more I have in my eye the Apostle’s rule, “Let all things be done to
edifying.” 1 Cor. xiv. 26. I have accordingly endeavoured to avoid such
jangling, and such debates as are unprofitable and unedifying, making
choice of such purposes as may edify, and not abuse the reader.

Peradventure some will think I might have wholly saved myself this labour.
I confess I do not look upon that which I make reply unto, as if it were
like to weigh much with knowing men, yet the Apostle tells me that some
men’s mouths must be stopped, and Jerome tells me(1347) there is nothing
written without skill, which will not find a reader with as little skill
to judge, and some men grow too wise in their own eyes when they pass
unanswered. Besides all this, a vindication and clearing of such things as
I mentioned in the beginning, may, by God’s blessing, anticipate future
and further mistakes. Read therefore and consider, and when thou hast
done, I trust thou shalt not think that I have lost my labour. I pray the
Lord that all our controversies may end in a more cordial union for
prosecuting the ends expressed in the covenant and especially the
reformation of religion, according to the word of God and the example of
the best reformed churches, and more particularly the practical part of
reformation, that the ordinances of Jesus Christ may be kept from
pollution, profaneness and scandals shamed away, and piety commended and
magnified.

CHAPTER I.

THAT MR COLEMAN DOTH STILL CONTRADICT HIMSELF IN THE STATING OF THIS
PRESENT CONTROVERSY ABOUT CHURCH GOVERNMENT.

It was before both denied and yielded by Mr Coleman, that there is a
church government which is distinct from the civil, and yet not merely
doctrinal. He did profess to subscribe heartily to the votes of
Parliament, and yet advised the Parliament to do contrary to their votes,
as I proved in _Nihil Respondes_, p. 3. He answereth now, in his _Male
Dicis_, p. 4, “I deny an institution; I assent to prudence; Where is the
self-contradiction now?” and, p. 5, “The advice looks to _jus divinum_;
the Parliament votes to prudence.” Sir, you have spoken evil for yourself;
you have made the self-contradiction worse. Will you acknowledge your own
words, in your sermon, p. 25, “Lay no more burden of government upon the
shoulders of ministers than Christ hath plainly laid upon them; have no
more hand therein than the Holy Ghost clearly gives them. The ministers
have other work to do, and such as will take up the whole man,” &c.; “I
fear an ambitious ensnarement,” &c.; and, in your _Re-examination_, p. 14,
“He should have said, I advised the Parliament to lay no burden of
government upon them whom he (this Commissioner) thinks church officers,
then had he spoken true.” Now let the reverend brother take heed to
checkmate, and that three several ways (but let him not grow angry, as bad
players use to do). For, 1. _Eo ipso_ that he denies the institution, by
his principles he denies the prudence; for he that denieth the
institution, and adviseth the Parliament to lay no more burden of
government upon ministers than Christ hath plainly laid upon them, is
against the settling of the thing in a prudential way, because it is not
instituted. But Mr Coleman denies the institution, and adviseth the
Parliament to lay no more burden of government upon ministers than Christ
hath plainly laid upon them; therefore Mr Coleman is against the settling
of the thing in a prudential way, because it is not instituted. And how to
reconcile this with his denying of the institution and yielding of the
prudence, will require a more reconciling head than Manasseh Ben Israel
Conciliator himself. 2. He that adviseth the Parliament to lay no burden
of government upon ministers, because they have other work to do which
will take up the whole man, and because of the fear of an ambitious
ensnarement, is against the laying of any burden of corrective government
upon ministers, so much as in a prudential way. But Mr Coleman adviseth
the Parliament, &c.; therefore the consequence in the proposition is
necessary, unless he will say that it is agreeable to the rules of
prudence to lay upon them more work besides that which will take up the
whole man, or to commit that power unto them which is like to prove an
ambitious ensnarement. 3. He that adviseth the Parliament to lay no burden
at all of corrective government upon ministers and other officers joined
with them in elderships, but to keep that power _wholly_ in their own
hands, is against the prudence of the thing, as well as against the
institution of it. But Mr Coleman adviseth the Parliament to lay no burden
at all of corrective government upon these, but to keep that power
_wholly_ in their own hands; therefore the proposition is proved by that
which himself saith, The Parliament votes look to prudence. So that the
Parliament, having voted a power of suspension from the sacrament unto
elderships, for so many scandals as are enumerate in the ordinance (which
power is a part of that which he calls _corrective_), he that is against
this power in elderships is both against the prudence and against the
ordinance of Parliament. The assumption I prove from his _Re-examination_,
p. 14, where, after his denial of the power to those whom we think church
officers, being charged with advising the Parliament to take church
government _wholly_ into their own hands, his answer was, “If you mean the
corrective power, I do so.”

And now, after all this, I must tell the reverend brother that he might
have saved himself much labour had he, in his sermon to the Parliament,
declared himself (as now he doth) that he was only against the _jus
divinum_, but not against their settling of the thing in a parliamentary
and prudential way. Did I not, in my very first examination of his sermon,
p. 32, remove this stumbling block?

And, withal, seeing he professeth to deny the _jus divinum_ of a church
government differing from magistracy, why doth he hold, p. 19, that the
Independents are not so much interested against his principles as the
Presbyterians? Did he imagine that the Independents are not so much for
the _jus divinum_ of a church government and church censures as the
Presbyterians? But, saith he, “The Independents’ church power seems to me
to be but doctrinal.” But is their excommunication doctrinal? and do they
not hold excommunication to be _jure divino_? Either he had little skill
in being persuaded, or some others had great skill in persuading him that
the Independents’ church power is but doctrinal, and that they are not so
much interested against the Erastian principles as the Presbyterians are;
as if, forsooth, the ordinance of excommunication (the thing which the
Erastian way mainly opposeth) and a church government distinct from
magistracy, were not common to them both.

Lastly, If the reverend brother deny the institution of church censures,
but assent to the prudence, why doth he allege the Zurich divines to be so
much for him? _Male Dicis_, p. 23; for it was upon prudential grounds, and
because of the difficulty and (as they conceived) impossibility of the
thing, that they were against it, still acknowledging the scriptural
warrants for excommunication, as I shall show, yea, have showed already;
so that, if Mr Coleman will follow them, he must rather say, “I assent to
an institution; I deny a prudence.”

CHAPTER II.

A CONFUTATION OF THAT WHICH MR COLEMAN HATH SAID AGAINST CHURCH
GOVERNMENT; SHOWING ALSO THAT HIS LAST REPLY IS NOT MORE, BUT LESS
SATISFACTORY THAN THE FORMER, AND FOR THE MOST PART IS BUT A
TERGIVERSATION AND FLEEING FROM ARGUMENTS BROUGHT AGAINST HIM, AND FROM
MAKING GOOD HIS OWN ASSERTIONS AND ARGUMENTS CONCERNING THE DISTINCTION OF
CIVIL AND CHURCH GOVERNMENT.

The reverend brother said in his sermon, “I could never yet see how two
coordinate governments, exempt from superiority and inferiority, can be in
one state.” To overthrow this general thesis, I brought some instances to
the contrary; such as the governments of a general and an admiral, of a
master and a father, of a captain and a master in a ship. He being thus
put to his vindication, replieth, “The Commissioner acknowledgeth he did
not apply them to the Assembly (I said the General Assembly) and
Parliament; yet that was the controversy in hand,” _Male Dicis_, p. 5.
But, by his favour, that was not the controversy; for he was not speaking
particularly against the distinction of the government of the General
Assembly and of the government of the Parliament (neither had he one
syllable to that purpose), but generally against the distinction of church
government and civil government, and particularly against excommunication;
in all which he excluded presbyteries as well as General Assemblies.
Wherefore he doth now recede not only from defending his thesis, but from
applying it against the power of presbyteries. And so far we are agreed.

2. I having confuted his argument grounded on Psal. xxxiii. 15; Prov.
xxvii. 19, he shifteth the vindication of it, and still tells me he
grounded no argument on those places, but spake “by way of allusion,”
_Male Dicis_, p. 6. Now let the reader judge. His words to the Parliament
were these: “Might I measure others by myself, and I know not why I may
not (God fashions men’s hearts alike; and as in water face answers face,
so the heart of man to man), I ingenuously profess I have a heart that
knows better how to be governed than govern; I fear an ambitious
ensnarement,” &c. This argument, there largely prosecuted, hath no other
ground but the parenthesis using the words (though not quoting the places)
of Scripture. And now, forsooth, he hath served the Parliament well, when,
being put to make good the sole confirmation of his argument, he tells it
was but an allusion. But this is not all. I confuted the whole argument
drawn from his own heart to the hearts of others, and gave several
answers: but neither before, nor now, hath he offered to make good his
argument.

3. The reverend brother cited 1 Cor. x. 33, to prove that all government
is either a heathenish government, or a Jewish government, or a church
government. This I denied: “Because the government of generals, admirals,
mayors, sheriffs, is neither a Jewish government, nor a church government,
nor a heathenish government.” What saith he to this? “I deny it; a Jewish
general is a Jewish government,” &c., _Male Dicis_, p. 6. Deny it? No,
Sir, you must prove (because you are the affirmer) that a Christian
general, a Christian admiral, are church governments. For I deny it. You
tell us, p. 7, you are persuaded it will trouble the whole world to bound
civil and ecclesiastical jurisdiction, the one from the other. You shall
have them bounded and distinguished ere long, and the world not troubled
neither. Meanwhile you have not made out your assertion from 1 Cor. x. 33.

4. The reverend brother had cited Rom. xiii. 4, to prove that the
corrective part of church government belongs to the Christian magistrate.
And now he brings in my reply thus: that I said he abuseth the place,
“Because spiritual censures belong not to the civil magistrate;” which,
saith he, begs the question, _Male Dicis_, p. 7. I replied no such thing
upon this argument. Look at my words again. How can the brother answer
it,—to shape answers of his own devising as if they were mine? My answer
was, That the punitive part, Rom. xiii. 4, belongs to all magistrates,
whether Christian or infidel; which he takes notice of in the second
place, and bids me prove “that Scripture-commands belong to infidels;” not
observing that the question is not of Scripture-commands, but whether a
duty mentioned in this or that scripture may not belong to infidels. There
are two sorts of duties in Scripture; some which are duties by the law of
God, written in man’s heart at his creation, some principles and notions
whereof remain in the hearts of all nations, even infidels by nature;
other duties are such, by virtue of special commands given to the church,
which are not contained in the law of nature. The first sort (of which the
punishing of evil doers, mentioned Rom. xiii. 4, is one) belongs to those
that are without the church as well as those within. The other only to
those that are within.

5. The reverend brother had said in his sermon, “Of other governments
besides magistracy I find no institution.” I cited 1 Thess. v. 12; 1 Tim.
v. 17; Heb. xiii. 7, 17, to prove another government (yea, the institution
of another government) besides magistracy. And, in my _Nihil Respondes_, I
told he had laughed, but had not yet loosed the knot. Now hear his two
answers: _Male Dicis_, p. 8, “First, for the institution; for the
Commissioner affirms so much. Had he said that these texts hold out an
office or officer already instituted, the words would have borne him out,”
&c. “But the institution in this place I cannot see.” See the like in Mr
Hussey, p. 19, 22. I thank them both. That Scripture which supposeth an
institution, and holds out an office already instituted, shall to me (and,
I am confident, to others also) prove an institution; for no text of
Scripture can suppose or hold out that which is not true. Nay, hath Mr
Coleman forgotten that himself proved an institution of magistracy from
Rom. xiii. 1, 2? Yet that text doth but hold out the office of magistracy
already instituted: but the institution itself is not in that place.

Secondly, Mr Coleman answereth to all these three texts. To that, 1 Thess.
v. 12, “Them which are over you in the Lord,” he saith that these words
prove not that it is not meant of magistracy. But he takes not the
strength of the argument. My words were, “Here are some who are no civil
magistrates set over the Thessalonians in the Lord.” This the reverend
brother must admit to be a good proof, or otherwise say that the civil
magistrates set over the Thessalonians, though they were heathens, yet
were set over them in the Lord.

For that of 1 Tim. v. 17, he saith it doth not hold out ruling elders.
Whether it doth hold ruling elders or not, doth not at all belong to the
present question. It is easy to answer something, so that a man will not
tie himself to the point. The place was brought by me to prove “another
government beside magistracy,” which he denied. Now suppose the place to
be meant only of preaching elders, yet here is a rule or government:
“Elders that rule well;” and these are no civil magistrates, but such as
“labour in the word and doctrine.” Come on now. “But I will deal clearly
(saith the brother): These officers are ministers which are instituted not
here, but elsewhere,—and these are the rulers here mentioned. And so have
I loosed the knot.” Now, Sir, you shall see I will not _male dicere_, but
_bene dicere_. My blessing on you for it. You have at last loosed the knot
so perfectly, that you are come to an agreement with me in this great
point, which I thus demonstrate: He that acknowledgeth ministers to be
instituted rulers, acknowledgeth another instituted government beside
magistracy. But Mr Coleman acknowledgeth ministers to be instituted
rulers, therefore Mr Coleman acknowledgeth another instituted government
beside magistracy.

To the other texts, Heb. xiii. 7, 17, he saith nothing against my
argument, only expounds the rulers to be guides, as Mr Hussey also doth,
of which more elsewhere; meanwhile it is certain that ὁ ἡγουμένοις is
usually taken for a name of highest authority, yea, given to emperors; for
which see learned Salmasius in his _Walo Messalinus_, p. 219, 220. It is
Joseph’s highest title to express his government of Egypt, Acts vii. 10.
It must the rather be a name of government and authority in this place,
Heb. xiii. 17, because subjection and obedience is required: “Obey them
that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves.” When the word
signifieth ὀδηγὸν, _seu viæ ducem_ (and it is very rarely so used by the
Septuagints, but frequently, and almost in innumerable places, they use it
for a name of rule and authority), obedience and subjection is not due to
such an one _qua talis_; for obedience and subjection cannot be
_correlata_ to the leading of the way, when it is without authority and
government.

6. I having charged Mr Coleman’s doctrine with this consequence, “That
there ought to be neither suspension from the sacrament, nor
excommunication, nor ordination, nor deposition of ministers, nor
receiving of appeals, except all these things be done by the civil
magistrate,” which things, I said, “are most of them corrective, and all
of them more than doctrinal,”—instead of making answer, the reverend
brother expresseth the error, which I objected to him, thus: “That here
are no church censures,” which is the _quæsitum_, saith he, _Male Dicis_,
p. 10. Here, again, he brings an imagination of his own, both for matter
and words, instead of that which I said, and doth not take the argument
right. If the minister’s power be merely doctrinal, and government wholly
in the magistrate’s hands, then all the particulars enumerated; for
instance, suspension from the sacrament, and the receiving of appeals
(which he must not bring under the _quæsitum_, except he bring the
ordinance of Parliament under the _quæsitum_), shall be wholly in the
magistrate’s hand; and elderships may not suspend from the sacrament;
classes and synods may not receive appeals, which yet, by the ordinance,
they have power to do. One of the particulars, and but one, the reverend
brother hath here touched, and it is this: “For ordination of ministers, I
say, it is within the commission of teaching, and so appertains to the
doctrinal part.” This is the effect of his zeal to maintain that all
ecclesiastical ministerial power is merely doctrinal. But mark the
consequence of it: He that holds ordination of ministers to be within the
commission of teaching, and to appertain to the doctrinal part, must hold,
by consequence, that the power of ordination is given _uni_ as well as
_unitati_; that is, that every single minister hath power to ordain, as
well as the classes. But Mr Coleman holds ordination of ministers to be
within the commission of teaching, &c. The reason of the proposition is
clear, because the commission of teaching belongs to every single
minister, so that if the power of ordination be within that commission, it
must needs belong to every single minister. _Quid respondes_?

7. The reverend brother having brought an odious argument against me,
which did conclude the magistrate to manage his office for and under the
devil, if not for and under Christ, I show his syllogism to have four
terms, and therefore worthy to be exploded. I get now two replies:

First, “This is an error (if one) in logic, not divinity. Is it an error
in divinity to make a syllogism with four terms?” _Male Dicis_, p. 15. See
now if he be a fit man to call others to school, who puts an _if_ in this
business—_if one_. Who did ever doubt of it? And if it be an error in
divinity to be fallacious, and to deceive, then it is an error in divinity
to make a syllogism with four terms, yea, as foul an error as can be.

Secondly, He admitteth not my distinction of those words, “Under Christ,
and for Christ.” I said the Christian magistrate is under Christ, and for
Christ, that is, he is serviceable to Christ, but he is not under Christ
nor for Christ as Christ’s vicegerent, _vice Christi_, in Christ’s stead,
as Christ is Mediator. The reverend brother saith, He foresaw that this
would be said (the greater fault it was to make his argument so unclear
and undistinct), but he rejecteth the distinction as being _distinctio
sine differentia_. “If a magistrate (saith he) be thus far a servant of
Christ, as Mediator, that he is to do his work, to take part with him, to
be for his glory, then he doth it _vice Christi_.” He adds the simile of a
servant. Hence it follows, by the reverend brother’s principles, that the
king’s cook, because he doth work and service for the king, therefore he
doth it _vice regis_, and as the king’s vicegerent. Likewise, that a
servant who obeyeth his master’s wife, and executeth her commands, because
it is his master’s will, and for his master’s honour, doth therefore obey
his master’s wife _vice domini_, as his master’s vicegerent; and, by
consequence, that the duty of obedience to the wife doth originally belong
to the husband; for the capacity of a vicegerent, which he hath by his
vicegerentship, is primarily the capacity of him whose vicegerent he is.
These, and the like absurd consequences, will unavoidably follow upon the
reverend brother’s argumentation, that he who doth Christ service doth it
_vice Christi_, as Christ’s vicegerent; and that to be a man’s vicegerent,
and to do a man’s work or service, which I made two different things, are
all one. But, further, observe his tergiversation. I had, p. 13, proved my
distinction out of these words of his own: “The Commissioner saith,
Magistracy is not derived from Christ. I say, magistracy is given to
Christ to be serviceable in his kingdom; so that, though the
Commissioner’s assertion be sound (which in due place will be discussed),
yet it infringeth nothing that I said.” I asked, therefore, _qua fide_ he
could confound in his argument brought against me those two things which
himself had so carefully distinguished. There is no reply to this in _Male
Dicis_. When the brother thought it for his advantage, he denied that the
magistrate’s being serviceable to Christ doth enter the derivation of his
power by a commission of vicegerentship from Christ (for that was the
derivation spoken of), and yielded that the magistrate may be said to be
serviceable to Christ, though his power be not derived from Christ. Now he
denieth the very same distinction for substance.

8. Whereas the reverend brother had told the Parliament that he seeth not,
in the whole Bible, any one act of that church government which is now in
controversy, I brought some scriptural instances against his opinion, not
losing either the argument from Matt. xviii. (concerning which he asketh
what is become of it), or other scriptural arguments, which I intend, by
God’s assistance, to prosecute elsewhere. Now hear what is replied to the
instances which were given. First, To that, 1 Cor. v. 13, “Put away that
wicked person from among you,” his answer is, “I say, and it is sufficient
against the Commissioner, If this be a church censure, then the whole
church jointly, and every particular person, hath power of church
censure.” _Male Dicis_, p. 10. I hope, Sir, it is not sufficient against
me that you say it, so long as you say nothing to prove it. I told you
that Mr Prynne himself (who holds not that every particular person hath
power of church censure) acknowledged that text to be a warrant for
excommunication, and when you say “every particular person,” you say more
than the Independents say, and I am sure more than the text will admit,
for the text saith, “Put away from among you,” therefore this power was
given not _uni_, but _unitati_, and this _unitas_ was the presbytery of
Corinth. The sentence was inflicted ὑπὸ τῶν πλείονων,—_by many_, 2 Cor.
ii. 6, it is not said _by all_. I might say much for this, but I will not
now leave the argument in hand; for it is enough against Mr Coleman that
the place prove an act of church government, flowing from a power not
civil but ecclesiastical. To whom the power belonged is another question.

To the next instance, from 2 Cor. ii. 6, which is coincident with the
former, a punishment or censure inflicted _by many_. “It is only a
reprehension (saith he),—ἐπιτιμία,—which, by all the places in the New
Testament, can amount no higher than to an objurgation, and so is
doctrinal.” _Ans._ 1. He made it even now an act of the whole church
jointly, and of every particular person. Why did he not clear himself in
this,—how the whole church, men, women, children and all, did doctrinally
reprehend him? 2. If the objurgation must be restricted, To whom? Not to a
single minister (yet every single minister hath power of doctrinal
objurgation), but to the presbytery. It was an act of those πλειόνες I
spake of; and this is a ground for that distinction between ministerial
and presbyterial admonition, which Mr Coleman, p. 22, doth not admit. 3.
If it were granted that ἐπιτιμία in this text amounteth to no more but an
objurgation, yet our argument stands good; for the Apostle having, in his
first epistle, required the Corinthians to put away from among them that
wicked person, which they did accordingly resolve to do (which makes the
Apostle commend their obedience, 2 Cor. ii. 9), no doubt either the
offender was at this time actually excommunicated and cast out of the
church, or (as others think) they were about to excommunicate him, if the
Apostle had not, by his second epistle, prevented them, and taken them off
with this _sufficit_: Such a degree of censure is enough, the party is
penitent, go no higher. 4. When the reverend brother appealeth to all the
places in the New Testament, he may take notice that the word ἐπιτιμία is
nowhere found in the New Testament, except in this very text. And if his
meaning be concerning the verb ἐπιτιράω he may find it used to express a
coercive power, as in Christ’s rebuking of the winds and waves, Matt.
viii. 26; Mark iv. 39; his rebuking of the fever, Luke iv. 39; his
rebuking of the devil (which was not a doctrinal, but a coercive rebuke),
Mark i. 25; ix. 25; Luke iv. 35; ix. 42. Sometimes it is put for an
authoritative charge, laying a restraint upon a man, and binding him from
liberty in this or that particular, as Matt. xii. 16; Mark iii. 12; viii.
30; Luke ix. 21. The word ἐπιτιμία I find in the apocryphal book of
Wisdom, chap. iii. 10. It is said of the wicked, ἓξουσιν ἐπιτιμίαν, they
shall have _correction_ or _punishment_. The whole chapter maketh an
opposition between the godly and the wicked, in reference to punishments
and judgments. The Hebrew געד (which, if the observation hold which is
made by Arias Montanus, and divers others, following Kimchi, when it is
construed with ב signifieth _objurgavit_, _duriter reprehendit_; when
without ב, it signifieth _corrupit_, _perdidit_, or _maledixit_), the
Septuagint do most usually turn it ἐπιτιμάω and that in some places where
it is without ב, as Psal. cxix. 21, “Thou hast rebuked the proud that are
cursed;” ἐπιτίμησας,—Pagnin, _disperdidisti_,—thou hast destroyed, so the
sense is; it is rebuke, with a judgment or a curse upon them. The second
part of the verse, in the Greek, is exegetical to the first part, “Thou
hast rebuked the proud, ἐπικατάρατοι, cursed are they,” &c.; so Zech. iii.
2, “The Lord rebuke (ἐπιτιμήσαι) thee, O Satan.” The same phrase is used
in Jude, ver. 9, which must needs be meant of a coercive, efficacious,
divine power, restraining Satan. The same original word they render by
ἀφορίζω, which signifieth to separate and to excommunicate, Mal. ii. 3,
“Behold I will corrupt your seed,” &c. In the preceding words, God told
them that he would curse them. The same word they render by ἀποσκορανίζω,
_extermino_, Isa. xvii. 13, a place which speaks of a judgment to be
inflicted, not of a doctrinal reproof. Yet Aquila readeth there
ἐπιτιμήσει; likewise the word which the Septuagint render ἀπώλεια,
_perdition_, Prov. xiii. 6, and θυμὸς, _wrath_, Isa. li. 20, in other
places they render it ἐπιτίμησις: Psal. lxxvi. 6, “At thy rebuke, O God of
Jacob, both the chariot and horse are cast into a dead sleep;” lxxx. 16,
“They perish at the rebuke of thy countenance.” These are _real_ rebukes,
that is, judgments and punishments.

4. What saith Mr Coleman to Pasor, who expounds ἐπιτιμία to be the same
with ἐπιτίμιον, _mulcta_, and that, 2 Cor. ii. 6. it is meant of
excommunication; which he proves by this reason, Because, in the same
place, the Apostle exhorteth the Corinthians to forgive him. Add hereunto
Erasmus’s observation upon the word κυρῶσαι(1348) (ver. 8, to “confirm
your love toward him”); that it implies an authoritative ratification of a
thing by judicial suffrage and sentence. Which well agreeth to the
πλειόνες, ver. 6; that is, that they who had judicially censured him,
should also judicially loose him and make him free. Now, therefore, the
circumstances and context being observed, and the practice, 2 Cor. ii. 6,
compared with the precept, 1 Cor. v. 13, I conclude, that, whether this
ἐπιτιμία was excommunication already inflicted, or whether it was a lesser
degree of censure, tending to excommunication,—a censure it was, and more
than ministerial objurgation. And it is rightly rendered by the English
translators _punishment_ or _censure;_ which well agreeth with the
signification of the verb ἐπιτιμάω given us by Hesychius,(1349) and by
Julius Pollux;(1350) who makes ἐπιτιμᾶν, to _punish_ or _chastise_, and
ἐπιτίμημα, _punishment_ or _chastisement_. Clemens Alexandrinus(1351)
useth ἐπιτιμία as well as ἐπιτιμιον, _pro poena vel supplicio_. So
Stephanus, in _Thes. Ling. Gr._ From all which it may appear that the text
in hand holds forth a corrective church government in the hands of church
officers; the thing which Mr Coleman denieth.

To the next instance, from 1 Tim. v. 19, “Against an elder receive not an
accusation, but before two or three witnesses,” the reverend brother
answereth, “It is either in relation to the judgment of charity, or
ministerial conviction, as the verses following.” _Ans._ 1. That of two or
three witnesses is taken from the law of Moses, where it is referred only
to a forensical proceeding. But in relation either to the judgment of
charity, or ministerial conviction, it is not necessary that there be two
or three witnesses. If a scandalous sin be certainly known to a minister,
though the thing be not certified by two or three witnesses, yet a
minister, upon certain knowledge had of the fact, may both believe it and
ministerially convince the offender. But there may not be a consistorial
proceeding without two or three witnesses. 2. Since he appealeth to the
following verses, let ver. 22 decide it: “Lay hands suddenly on no man.”
To whom the laying on of hands or ordination did belong, to them also it
did belong to receive an accusation against an elder: but to the
presbytery did belong the laying on of hands, or ordination, 1 Tim. iv.
14; therefore to the presbytery did belong the receiving of an accusation
against an elder. And so it was not the act of a single minister, as
ministerial conviction is.

To the last instance, from Rev. ii. 14, 15, 20, the reverend brother
answers, That he had striven to find out how church censures might be
there grounded, but was constrained to let it alone. But what is it, in
his opinion, which is there blamed in the angels of those churches? Doth
he imagine that those who are so much commended by Christ himself for
their holding fast of his name, and of the true faith, did not so much as
doctrinally or ministerially oppose the foul errors of the Balaamites and
of Jezebel? No doubt but this was done: but Christ reproves them, because
such scandalous persons were yet suffered to be in the church, and were
not cast out. “I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there
them that hold the doctrine of Balaam;” and, ver. 20, “Thou sufferest that
woman Jezebel.” And why was the very having or suffering them in the
church a fault, if it had not been a duty to cast them out of the church?
which casting out could not be by banishment, but by excommunication. It
did not belong to the angel to cast out the Balaamites out of Pergamos,
but he might, and ought to have cast them out of the church in Pergamos.

9. Mr Coleman hath another passage against the distinction of church
censures and civil punishments. “But what are ecclesiastical censures
(saith he)? Let us take a taste. Is deposition from the ministry? This
kings have done,” &c., _Male Dicis_, p. 7. Now _similia labra lactucis_.
But for all that, the taste is vitiated, and doth not put a difference
between things that are different. Deposition is sometimes taken,
improperly, for expulsion; as Balsamon, in _Conc. Nicoen._, can. 19, doth
observe. And so the Christian magistrate may remove or put away ministers
when they deserve to be put away, that is, by a coercive power to restrain
them, imprison or banish them, and, in case of capital crimes, punish them
with capital punishments. King James, having once heard a dispute in St.
Andrews about the deposition of ministers, was convinced that it doth not
belong to the civil magistrate, “yet (said he) I can depose a minister’s
head from his shoulders.” Which was better divinity than this of Mr
Coleman. If we take deposition properly, as it is more than the expelling,
sequestering or removing of a minister from this or that place, and
comprehendeth that which the Council of Ancyra, can. 18, calls Ἀφαιρεισθαι
την τιμὴι τον πρεσβυτεριον, _the honour of presbytership to be taken
away_, or a privation of that _presbyteratus_, the order of a presbyter,
and that ἐξουσία, the authority and power of dispensing the word,
sacraments, and discipline, which was given in ordination, so none have
power to depose who have not power to ordain. It belongeth not to the
magistrate either to make or unmake ministers. Therefore, in the ancient
church, the bishops had power of the deposition as well as of the
ordination of presbyters, yet they were bound up that they might not
depose either presbyter or deacon without the concurrence of a presbytery
or synod in the business.(1352) Mark, of the _synod_, not of the
magistrate. As for the testimonies brought by Mr Coleman, he doth, both
here and in divers other places, name his authors, without quoting the
places. It seems he hath either found the words cited by others, but durst
not trust the quotations, or else hath found somewhat in those places
which might make against him. However, all that he can cite of that kind
concerning deposition of ministers by emperors, is meant of a coercive
expulsion, not of that which we call properly deposition. And to this
purpose let him take the observation of a great antiquary.(1353)

And, withal, he may take notice that Protestant writers(1354) do disclaim
the magistrate’s power of deposing ministers, and hold that deposition is
a part of ecclesiastical jurisdiction: ministers being always punishable
(as other members of the commonwealth), according to the law of the land,
for any offence committed against law.

CHAPTER III.

THAT MR COLEMAN’S AND MR HUSSEY’S OPPOSING OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT NEITHER IS
NOR CAN BE RECONCILED WITH THE SOLEMN LEAGUE AND COVENANT.

Mr Coleman’s doctrine was by me charged to be a violation of the solemn
league and covenant. This he acknowledged in his _Re-examination_, p. 13,
17, to be a very grievous charge, and a greater fault in him than in
divers others, if made out; and he desired seriously, yea, challenged it
by the right of a Christian, and by the right of a minister, that I should
prosecute this charge; whereupon I did, in my _Nihil Respondes_, prosecute
it so far, that, by five strong arguments, I did demonstrate the
repugnancy of his doctrine to the covenant. About a month afterward comes
out Mr Hussey’s book, wherein the charge itself (before desired to be
prosecuted) is declined expressly by Mr Coleman in the few lines by him
prefixed (which are ranked together with the errata), in which he desires
that the argumentative part may be so prosecuted as that the charge of
covenant-breaking may be laid aside; which, if it be taken up, he lets me
know beforehand it shall be esteemed by them a _nihil respondes_. It is
also declined by Mr Hussey, p. 15: “The argument of the covenant is too
low to be thought on in the discourse: we are now in an higher region than
the words of the covenant,” &c.:—a tenet looked upon by the reformed
churches as proper to those that are inspired with the ghost of
Arminius;(1355) for the remonstrants, both at and after the Synod of Dort,
did cry down the obligation of all national covenants, oaths, &c., in
matters of religion, under the colour of taking the Scripture only for a
rule. Well, we see the charge declined as nothing. But this is not all.
Almost two months after my proof of the charge, Mr Coleman comes out with
his _Male Dicis_, and declines both the charge itself (which he calls an
“impertinent charge,” p. 22), and my five arguments too, without so much
as taking notice of them, or offering replies to them; yea, all that I
said in my _Nihil Respondes_, p. 27-34, in prosecution of this argument
concerning covenant-breaking, the reverend brother hath skipped over
_sicco pede_ in the half of one page, p. 23; all that follows is new and
other matter, wherein he did not mind his own answer to the learned
viewer, p. 33, “I will keep you to the laws of disputation, and will not
answer but as it is to the matter in hand.” I leave it to be judged by men
of knowledge and piety, whether such an one doth not give them some ground
to apprehend that he is αυτοκατάκριτος, that is, self-judged, who first
calleth so eagerly for making out a charge against him, and then when it
is made out, doth decline the charge, and not answer the arguments; and
such as esteem the charge of covenant-breaking to be a _nihil respondes_,
and the argument of the covenant too low to be thought on in a controversy
about church government, “O my soul, come not thou into their secret; unto
their assembly, mine honour, be not thou united.” It is in vain for them
to palliate or shelter their covenant-breaking with appealing from the
covenant to the Scripture, for _subordinata non pugnant_. The covenant is
_norma recta_,—a right rule, though the Scripture alone be _norma
recti_,—the rule of right. If they hold the covenant to be unlawful, or to
have anything in it contrary to the word of God, let them speak out. But
to profess the breach of the covenant to be a grievous and great fault,
and worthy of a severe censure, and yet to decline the charge and proofs
thereof, is a most horrible scandal; yea, be astonished, O ye heavens, at
this, and give ear, O earth! how small regard is had to the oath of God by
men professing the name of God.

As for that little which the reverend brother hath replied unto; first, he
takes notice of a passage of his sermon at the taking of the covenant,
which I had put him in mind of, but he answereth only to one particular,
viz., concerning that clause, “Doubtless many materials of Prelacy must of
necessity be retained, as absolutely necessary.” I asked what he
understood by this clause? Now observe his answer: “I answer ingenuously,
as he desires, and fully, as I conceive, These materials of Prelacy are
ordination.” Remember you said, “_many_ materials of Prelacy.” I beseech
you, Sir, How many is ordination? Ordination, ordination, ordination; tell
on till you think you have made many materials; and, withal, tell us (if
this be the meaning, that ordination should be retained without any power
of ecclesiastical government in the ministry) how was it imaginable that
he could hereby satisfy that scruple which then he spoke to, viz., the
scruple about the purging away of the exorbitances of Prelacy, and
retaining a regulated Prelacy? And after all this, I shall desire him to
expound that other clause (which I desired before, but he hath not done
it), “Taking away (said he) the exorbitancies, the remaining will be a new
government, and no Prelacy.” Either he means this of a new church
government distinct from the civil, so that the ministry should have new
power of government; or he meant it of the way which now he pleads for. If
the former, I have what I would. Mr Coleman himself, as well as other men,
took the covenant with an intention to have an ecclesiastical government
distinct from the civil. If the latter, then let him answer these two
things: 1. What good sense there was in applying such an answer to such a
scruple, as if the Erastian way, or the appropriating of all
ecclesiastical jurisdiction wholly to the civil magistrate, could be the
way to satisfy those who scrupled the total abolition of Prelacy. 2. How
will he reconcile himself with himself; for here, p. 22, he saith, That
his way was in practice before I was born, “and the constant practice of
England always.” This, as it is a most notorious untruth (for the constant
practice of England hath granted to the clergy, as he calls them, after
the popish dialect, a power of deposition and excommunication, whereas his
way denies all corrective power or church censures to the ministry), so,
if it were a truth, it is utterly inconsistent with that which he said of
the remaining part, namely, that it will be a new government. If it be his
way, how will he make it the constant practice of England always, and a
new government too?

In the next place, the reverend brother makes short work of my five
arguments to prove the repugnancy of his doctrine to the solemn league and
covenant. They were too hot for him to be much touched upon: “All is but
this much (saith he), the covenant mentioneth and supposeth a distinct
church government.” It is hard when arguments are neither repeated nor
answered. He repeats a point which was proved (and but a part of that),
but not the proofs; and so he answereth (rather to the conclusion than to
the arguments) these two things: “First (saith he), the expressions in the
covenant are according to the general apprehensions of the times, which
took such a thing for granted, yet I believe Mr Gillespie cannot make such
a supposition obligatory.” Now you yield, Sir, what before you eagerly
contended against, viz., that the covenant doth suppose a church
government. Remember your simile of the jury sworn to inquire into the
felony of a prisoner, which oath doth not suppose the prisoner to be
guilty of felony, but he is to be tried, guilty or not guilty. We are now
so far agreed, that the covenant doth suppose a church government distinct
from the civil government, and yet not merely doctrinal, for that was the
point which I proved, and which here he yields. As for the obligation of
an oath sworn upon such supposition, I answer, 1. It is more than
supposed, the words and expressions of the covenant do plainly hold out
the thing as I proved, and as the reverend brother here seems to yield. 2.
That which an oath doth necessarily suppose, if the oath be lawful, and
the thing supposed lawful, is without all controversy obligatory. Now the
reverend brother doth acknowledge both the covenant itself to be a lawful
oath, and that which the covenant supposeth, namely, a church government
distinct from the civil government, and yet not merely doctrinal, to be a
lawful thing; for he professeth to yield it (though not _jure divino_,
yet) in prudence, which he cannot do, if he make the thing unlawful. 3.
That which an oath doth suppose is sometimes supposed _vi materiæ_, or
_consequentiæ_, that is, the words of the oath do necessarily imply such a
thing, though it be not intended by the swearer; and here I will tell Mr
Coleman one story of Alexander for another: When Alexander was coming
against a town to destroy it, he met Anaximenes, who, as he understood,
came to make intercession and supplication for sparing the town. Alexander
prevented him with an oath that he would not do that thing which
Anaximenes should make petition for, whereupon Anaximenes made petition
that he would destroy the town. Alexander found himself bound by the plain
words of his oath not to do what he intended, and so did forbear. And to
add a divine story to an human, Joshua and the princes of Israel did swear
to the Gibeonites upon a supposition that was not true, yet they found
themselves tied by their oath. So he that sweareth to his own hurt must
not change, the oath being otherwise lawful, Psal. xv. 4, yet that
self-hurt which is wrapped up in the matter of his oath was not intended
in swearing. Sometimes, again, that which is supposed and implied in an
oath, lieth also in the thoughts and intentions of those that swear. Now,
where those two are coincident, that is, where the thing supposed in an
oath is both implied necessarily in the words of the oath, and is also
according to the apprehensions of those that swear (which is the case here
in the covenant, and is acknowledged by the reverend brother), I should
think it most strange how any divine can have the least doubt concerning
the obligation of such a thing, except he conceive the thing itself to be
unlawful.

His second answer is this: “In my way (saith he) the governments, civil
and ecclesiastical, are in the subject matter clearly distinct. When the
Parliament handles matters of war, it is a military court; when business
of state, it is a civil court; when matters of religion, it is an
ecclesiastical court.” If this hold good, then it will follow, 1. That the
Parliament, when they deliberate about matters of war or matters of
religion, are not, at least formally and properly, a civil court, else how
makes he these so clearly distinct? 2. That ministers may be called civil
officers, for consider his words in his _Re-examination_, p. 11: “I do not
exclude ministers, neither from ecclesiastical nor civil government, in a
ministerial way, doctrinally and declaratively.” Compare this with his
present answer, it will amount to thus much: That different denominations
being taken from the different subject matter, ministers, when they handle
doctrinally matters of religion, are ecclesiastical ministers; and when
they handle doctrinally matters of civil government, which himself
alloweth them to do, they are civil ministers. But now to apply his answer
to the argument, How doth all this solve the repugnancy of his doctrine to
the covenant? If he had examined my arguments, he had found that most of
them prove from the covenant a church government distinct from civil
government, subjective as well as objective; that is, another government
besides magistracy; different agents as well as different acts; different
hands as well as handling of different matters. I know the Christian
magistrate may and ought to have a great influence in matters of religion;
and whatsoever is due to him by the word of God, or by the doctrine either
of the ancient or reformed churches, I do not infringe, but do maintain
and strengthen it. But the point in hand is, that the covenant doth
undeniably suppose, and clearly hold forth a government in the church
distinct from magistracy, which is proved by these arguments (which, as
they are not yet answered, so I will briefly apply them to the proof of
that point which now Mr Coleman sticks at): 1. The church covenant
mentioned in the covenant is as distinct from the privileges of
parliament, as the first article of the covenant is distinct from the
third article. 2. The church government in the first article of the
covenant, the reformation whereof we are to endeavour, differeth from
church government by archbishops, bishops, &c., mentioned in the second
article, as much as a thing to be reformed differeth from a thing to be
extirpated; so that the church government formerly used in the church of
England is looked upon two ways in the covenant, either _qua_ church
government, and so we swear to endeavour the reformation of it (which I
hope was not meant of reforming that part of the privileges of Parliament
whereby they meddle with religion in a parliamentary way), or _qua_ church
government, by archbishops, bishops, &c., and so we swear to endeavour the
extirpation of it. This difference between the first and second articles,
between reformation and extirpation, proveth that the covenant doth
suppose that the church government formerly used in the church of England,
in so far as it was a church government, is not _eatenus_ to be abolished,
but in so far as it was a corrupt church government, that is, prelatical.
3. Church government, in the covenant, is matched with doctrine, worship,
and catechising. Now these are subjectively different from civil
government, for the civil magistrate doth not act doctrinally nor
catechetically, neither can he dispense the word and sacraments, as Mr
Coleman acknowledgeth. 4. In the first part of the first article of the
covenant, concerning “the preservation of the reformed religion in the
church of Scotland, in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government,” it
is uncontroverted, that discipline and government are ecclesiastical, and
subjectively different from civil government, that is, though divers who
have a hand in the civil government are ruling elders, yet it is as true
that divers members of Parliament and inferior civil courts are not church
officers; and of the ministry none are civil governors which makes the two
governments clearly distinct subjectively. Now the second part of that
article concerning “the reformation of religion in the kingdoms of England
and Ireland, in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government,” cannot so
far differ from the first part of that article in the sense of the words,
“discipline and government,” as that the same words, in the same article
of the same covenant, should signify things differing _toto genere_, which
will follow, unless “discipline and government” in the second branch, and
“form of church government” in the third branch, be understood of the
power of church officers, and not of the magistrate. 6. We did swear to
“endeavour the reformation of religion in the kingdoms of England and
Ireland, in doctrine, worship, discipline and government, according to the
word of God and the example of the best reformed churches.” Now the word
of God holds forth another government besides magistracy; for Mr Coleman
himself hath acknowledged, that he finds in the New Testament ministers to
be rulers, yea, instituted rulers; and the example of the best reformed
churches, without all doubt, leadeth us to an ecclesiastical government
different from magistracy. Neither hath the reverend brother so much as
once adventured to allege the contrary, except of the church of Israel,
which, as it is heterogeneous, being none of the reformed churches
mentioned in the covenant, so it shall be discussed in due place; from all
which reasons I conclude, that the wit of man cannot reconcile Mr
Coleman’s doctrine with the covenant. 6. I add a confutation of him out of
himself, thus: No such church government as Mr Coleman casts upon an
uncertainty, whether the word hold out any such thing, can be, by his
principles, the power of magistracy in things ecclesiastical, but another
government beside magistracy. But the church government, mentioned in the
first article of the covenant, is such a church government as Mr Coleman
casts upon an uncertainty, whether the word hold out any such thing;
therefore the church government mentioned in the first article of the
covenant cannot be, by his principles, the power of magistracy, but
another government beside magistracy. The proposition he will easily
admit, unless he alter his assertions; the assumption is clear from his
_Re-examination,_ p. 15.

CHAPTER IV.

MR COLEMAN AND MR HUSSEY’S ERRORS IN DIVINITY.

Mr Hussey all along calls for divinity schools: I confess himself hath
much need of them, that he may be better grounded in his divinity; and
that if he will plead any more for Christian magistracy, he may not
involve himself into such dangerous heterodoxies as have fallen from his
pen in this short tractate. I instance in these:—

First, In his epistle to the Parliament he hath divers passages against
synodical votes; he will have no putting to the vote: “For votes (saith
he, p. 6) are of no other use but to gather parties, and ought nowhere to
be used but by those that have the power of the sword.” And, p. 3, he will
have the business of assemblies to be only doctrinal, and “by dispute to
find out truth. Their disputes ought to end in a brotherly accord, as in
Acts xv., much disputing, but all ended in accord, no putting to the
vote.” And, p. 5, he will have things carried “with strength of argument
and unanimous consent of the whole clergy.” Behold how he joineth issue
with the remonstrants against the contra-remonstrants, to introduce not
only an academical, but a sceptical and Pyrrhonian dubitation and
uncertainty, so that there shall never be an end of controversy, nor any
settlement of truth and of the ordinances of Jesus Christ, so long as
there shall be but one tenacious disputer to hold up the ball of
contention. One egg is not liker another than Mr Hussey’s tenet is like
that of the Arminians, for which see the Synod of Dort, sess. 25.(1356) It
was the ninth condition which the Arminians required in a lawful and
well-constituted synod, that there might be no decision of the
controverted articles, but only such an accommodation as both sides might
agree to. And, generally, they hold that synods ought not to meet for
decision, or determination, but for examining, disputing, discussing; so
their _Examen Censurae_, cap. 25; and their _Vindiciae_, lib. 2, cap. 6,
p. 131, 133.

Secondly, In that same epistle to the Parliament, p. 4, he hath this
passage: “Will-worship is unlawful, I mean in matters that are essential
to God’s worship, which are matters of duty; as for circumstantials of
time and place, except the Sabbath, which are matters of liberty, in these
the commonwealth may vote, &c.; and this is your Christian liberty, that
in matters of liberty ye make rules and laws to yourselves, not crossing
the ends that you are tied to in duty.” And is the Sabbath only a
circumstantial of time contradistinct from matters of duty? It seems he
will cry down not only the _jus divinum_ of church censures with the
Erastians, but the _jus divinum_ of the Sabbath with the Canterburians.
And if will-worship be unlawful only in the essentials of God’s worship,
why was the argument of will-worship so much tossed, not only between
Prelates and Nonconformists, but between Papists and Protestants, even in
reference to ceremonies? And whether hath not Mr Hussey here engaged
himself to hold it free and lawful to the Christian magistrate, yea, to
private Christians (for he calls it Christian liberty, not parliamentary
liberty—now Christian liberty belongs to all sorts of Christians), to make
laws to themselves for taking the sacrament anniversarily on Christmas,
Good-Friday, and Easter, or to appoint a perpetual monthly fast or
thanksgiving; yea, another Parliament may, if so it should seem good to
them, impose again the surplice and cross in baptism, fonts, railing of
communion tables, the reading of divert passages of Apocrypha to the
congregations, doxologies, anthems, responsories, &c., as heretofore they
were used; or they may appoint all and every one to sit in the church with
their faces towards the east, to stand up at the epistles and gospels,
&c.; yea, what ceremonies, Jewish, popish, heathenish, may they not
impose, provided they only hold the foundation, and keep to those
essentials which he calls matters of duty? By restraining the unlawfulness
of will-worship to the essentials, he leaves men free to do anything in
religion, _præter verbum_, so that it appear not to them to be _contra
verbum_; anything they may add to the word, or do beside the word, so that
the thing cannot be proved contrary to the word.

Thirdly, Mr Hussey, ibid., p. 4, 5, saith, That the Parliament may require
such as they receive for preachers of truth, “to send out able men to
supply the places, and that without any regard to the allowance or
disallowance of the people,” where, in the first part of that which he
saith, there is either a heterodoxy or a contradiction. A heterodoxy, if
he mean that ministers are to be sent out without ordination: a
contradiction, if he mean that they must be ordained; for then he gives
classes a work which is not merely doctrinal. But most strange it is, that
he so far departeth from Protestant divines in point of the church’s
liberty in choosing ministers. He tells us, p. 14, that Mr Herle, “for
want of skill and theological disputations,” hath granted to people a
right to choose their minister. Mr Herle’s skill, both logical and
theological, is greater than it seems he can well judge of; neither can
this bold arrogant censure of his derogate from Mr Herle’s, but from his
own reputation. For the matter itself, it is one, and not the least, of
the controversies between the Papists and Protestants, what right the
church hath in the vocation of ministers: read Bellarmine, _de Cleric._,
and those that write against him, and see whether it be not so. The
Helvetic Confession tells us that the right choosing of ministers is by
the consent of the church, and the Belgic Confession saith, “We believe
that the ministers, seniors and deacons, ought to be called to those their
functions, and by the lawful elections of the church to be advanced into
those rooms.” See both these in the _Harmony of Confessions_, sect. 11. I
might here, if it were requisite, bring a heap of testimonies from
Protestant writers; the least thing which they can admit of is, that a
minister be not obtruded _renitente ecclesia. Factum valet, fieri non
debet._ It may be helped after it is done, without making null or void the
ministry; but in a well-constituted church there ought to be no intrusion
into the ministry, the church’s consent is requisite; for which also I
might bring both scripture and antiquity, but that is not my present
business. One thing I must needs put Mr Hussey in mind of, that when the
prelates did intrude ministers, without any regard to the disallowance of
the people, it was cried out against as an oppression and usurpation, and
we are often warned by Mr Prynne, by Mr Coleman, and by myself, to cast
away the prelates’ usurpation with themselves. But who lords it now over
the Lord’s inheritance, the Presbyterians or the Erastians? Nay, he who
will have ministers put in churches “without any regard to the allowance
or disallowance of people,” falls far short of divers prelatical men, who
did much commend the ancient primitive form of calling ministers, not
without the church’s consent. See Dr Field, _Of the Church_, lib. 5, cap.
54; Bilson, _de Gubern. Eccl._, cap. 15, p. 417; the author of _The
History of Episcopacy_, part 2, p. 360.

Fourthly, Mr Hussey, _Epist._, p. 7, saith, That upon further
consideration he found “the minister charged only with preaching and
baptising.” The like he hath afterwards, p. 39, “Let any man prove that a
minister hath any more to do from Christ than to teach and baptise.” And
again, p. 44, he propounds this query, “Whether Christ gave any more
government (he should have said any more to do, for preaching and
baptising are not acts of government) than is contained in preaching and
baptising,” and he holds the negative. If only preaching and baptising,
then not praying and reading in the congregation, ministering the Lord’s
supper, visiting the sick and particular families.

Fifthly, He holdeth, p. 20, That a heathen magistrate is unlawful, “and
for his government, if sin be lawful, it is lawful.” A gross heterodoxy.
The Apostle exhorteth to be subject even to heathen magistrates, Rom.
xiii., for there were no other at that time, and to pray for them, 1 Tim.
ii.; so that by Mr Hussey’s divinity, the Apostle would have men to be
subject unto, and to pray for an unlawful government. It is an
anabaptistical tenet, that an heathen magistrate is not from God, which
Gerhard, _de Magistrate Politico_, p. 498, 499, fully confutes.

Sixthly, He saith of Christ, p. 40, “He doth nothing as Mediator which he
doth not as God or as man.” It is a dangerous mistake, for take the work
of mediation itself, he neither doth it as God, nor as man, but as
God-man.

Seventhly, He saith, p. 35, “Nothing can be said of Christ as second
person in Trinity, in opposition to Mediator, but in opposition to man
there may.” So that he will not admit of this opposition. Christ, as the
Second Person in the Trinity, is equal and consubstantial to the Father,
but, as Mediator, he is not equal to his Father, but less than his Father,
and subject and subordinate to his Father—a distinction used by our
divines against the Anti-Trinitarians and Socinians. Now by his not
admitting of this distinction, he doth by consequence mire himself in
Socinianism; for Christ, as Mediator, is the Father’s servant, Isa. xlii.
1; and the Father is greater than he, John xiv. 28; and as the head of the
man is Christ, so the head of Christ is God, 1 Cor. xi. 3. If, therefore,
it cannot be said of Christ, as he is the Second Person in the Trinity,
that his Father is not greater than he, and that he is not subordinate to
God as his head, then farewell Anti-Socinianism. I dare boldly say, it is
impossible to confute the Socinians, or to assert the eternal Godhead of
Jesus Christ, except somewhat be affirmed of him as the Second Person of
the Trinity, which must be denied of him as he is Mediator, and something
be denied of him as he is the Second Person in the Trinity, which must be
affirmed of him as he is Mediator.

Eighthly, He saith, p. 36, That Christ, “by his mediation, hath obtained
from the Father that he shall not judge any man according to rigour, but
as they are in or out of Christ; all deferring of judgment from the wicked
is in and for Christ, which otherwise the justice of God would not allow.”
Then Christ did thus far make satisfaction to the justice of God in the
behalf of the wicked, and die for them, that judgment might be deferred
from them, and thus far perform acts of mediation for the savages and
Mohammedans, and for them that never heard the gospel, that by such
mediation he hath obtained of the Father that they shall be judged not
according to rigour, but by the gospel. Which intimateth that Christ hath
taken away all their sins against the law, so that all men shall now go
upon a new score, and none shall be condemned or judged by the law, but by
the gospel only; for if Christ have not taken away their sins against the
law, the justice of God will judge them according to the rigour of the
law. Must not every jot of the law be fulfilled? And is there not a
necessity that every one undergo the curse and rigour of the law, or else
that the Mediator hath undergone it for them?

Ninthly, He propounds this query, p. 44: “Whether ministers have any right
to those privileges which are given to the church more than another
Christian,” and he holds the negative. Now the preaching of the word, the
administration of the sacraments, and the power of the keys, are
privileges given to the church, that is, for the church’s good: “For all
things are yours (saith the Apostle), whether Paul, or Apollos,” &c., 1
Cor. iii. 21, 22. Therefore, by Mr Hussey’s divinity, any other Christian
hath as much right to administer word, sacraments, keys, as the minister.

Come on now to Mr Coleman’s errors in divinity, not to repeat what was
expressed in my _Nihil Respondes_, but to take off the _Male Dicis_ in the
main points.

Tenthly, The tenth heterodoxy shall therefore be this, That whatsoever is
given to Christ, he hath it not as the eternal Son of God. Into this ditch
did Mr Coleman first fall, and then Mr Hussey, p. 25, after him. I said
this tenet leadeth to a blasphemous heresy. For the better understanding
whereof let it be remembered what I did promise in my _Nihil Respondes_,
p. 11, in reply to his proposition, “That which is given to Christ he hath
it not as God. This (said I) is in opposition to what I said, p. 45,
concerning the headship and dignity of Christ, as the natural Son of God,
the image of the invisible God, Col. i. 15, and, p. 43, of the dominion of
Christ, as he is the eternal Son of God. This being premised,” &c. Mr
Coleman, without taking the least notice of that which I did purposely and
plainly premise, begins to speak of God _essentially_; and that if
something may be given to Christ as God, then something may be given to
God, and then God is not absolutely perfect, &c., _Male Dicis_, p. 13, 14.
Thus he turneth over to the essence and nature of God what I spake of the
Second Person in the Trinity, or of Christ as he is the eternal Son of
God. Was not the question between him and me, Whether the kingdom and
dominion over all things may be said to be given to Christ as he is the
eternal Son of God. This is the point which he did argue against, because
it takes off his argument first brought to prove that all government, even
civil, is given to Christ as he is Mediator. And still from the beginning
I spake of Christ as the Second Person in the Trinity, or the eternal Son
of God. Thus therefore the case stands: The reverend brother, to prove
that an universal sovereignty and government over all things is given to
Christ as he is Mediator, and to confute my assertion that it is given to
Christ as he is the eternal Son of God, doth frame this argument against
me, “That which is given to Christ he hath it not as God. But here dignity
is given to Christ; therefore not here to be taken as God;” where there is
more in the conclusion than in the premises; for the conclusion which
naturally follows had been this, Therefore Christ hath not here dignity as
God. It seems he was ashamed of the conclusion, yet not of the premises
which infer the conclusion. But this by the way. I speak to his
proposition, “That which is given to Christ he hath it not as God.” These
words “as God,” either he understands οὐσιωδῶς, _essentially_, or
ἐπιστατικῶς, _personally_; that is, either in regard of the nature and
essence of God, which is common to the Son of God with the Father and the
Holy Ghost, and in respect whereof they three are one; or in regard of the
person of the Word, as Christ is the Second Person in the Trinity, and
personally distinct from the Father and the Holy Ghost. If in the former
sense, then he must lay aside his whole argument, as utterly impertinent,
and making nothing at all against my thesis, which affirmed that an
universal dominion and kingdom over all things is given to Christ, not as
he is Mediator (in which capacity he is only King of the church), but as
he is the eternal Son of God. In opposing of which assertion, as the
reverend brother was before _nihil respondens_, so now he is twice nought.
But if in the other sense he understands his proposition (which I must
needs suppose he doth, it being in opposition to what I said), then I
still aver his proposition will infer a blasphemous heresy, as I proved
before by a clear demonstration: That which is given to Christ he hath it
not as God. But life, glory, &c., is given to Christ; therefore Christ
hath not life, glory, &c., as God. The reverend brother saith, “I
acknowledge the conclusion unsound, and I deny not but that the major is
mine own, and the minor is the very Scripture.” Yet he denies the
conclusion, and clears himself by this simile, “That which was given this
poor man he had not before. But a shilling was given this poor man;
therefore he had not a shilling before: where both propositions are true,
yet the conclusion is false (saith he), contrary to the axiom, _Ex veris
nil nisi verum_.” You are extremely out, Sir: your syllogism of the poor
man is _fallacia ab amphibolia_. The major of it is ambiguous, dubious,
and fallacious, and cannot be admitted without a distinction. But here you
acknowledge the major of my argument to be your own, and so not fallacious
in your opinion. You acknowledge the minor to be Scripture. You have not
found four terms in my premises, nor charged my major or minor with the
least fault in matter or form, and yet, forsooth, you deny the conclusion,
and do not admit that incontrovertible maxim in logic, _Ex veris nil nisi
verum_; or, as Kekerman hath it, _Ex veris præemissis falsam conclusionem
colligi est impossibile_,(1357)—It is impossible that a false conclusion
should be gathered from true premises. Now let us hear what he would say
against my conclusion;—it is concerning the sense of the word _hath_: “For
_hath_ (saith he) by me is used for receiving or having by virtue of the
gift, but by him for having fundamentally, originally.” You are still out,
Sir. I take it just as you take it. For though the Son of God, as God
essentially, or in respect of the nature and essence of God, which is
common to all Three Persons in the blessed Trinity, hath originally of
himself a kingdom and dominion over all; yet, as he is the Second Person
in the Trinity, begotten of, and distinct from the Father, he hath the
kingdom and dominion over all not of himself, but by virtue of the gift of
his Father. So that the reverend brother is still _nihil respondens_, and
therefore he shall be concluded in this syllogism: He who holds that
whatsoever is given to Christ he hath it not by virtue of the gift, as he
is the eternal Son of God or Second Person in the Trinity, but only as
Mediator,—he holds, by consequence, that Christ hath not glory by virtue
of his Father’s gift, as he is the eternal Son of God or Second Person in
the Trinity. But Mr Coleman holds the former; therefore Mr Coleman holds
the latter. The consequence in the proposition is proved from John xvii.
22, “The glory which thou gavest me.” The assumption he will own, or else
quit his argument against my distinction of the double kingdom given to
Christ, as he is the eternal Son of God, and as Mediator. The conclusion
which follows is heretical; for whereas the Nicene Creed said of Christ,
in regard of his eternal generation, that he is _Deus de Deo, Lumen de
lumine_,—God of God, Light of light, Mr Coleman’s argument will infer that
he is not only _ex seipso Deus_, but _ex seipso Filius_; and so deny the
eternal generation of the Son of God, and the communication of the
Godhead, and the sovereignty, glory, and attributes thereof, from the
Father to the Son. For if Christ, as he is the eternal Son of God, hath
not glory by virtue of his Father’s gift, then he hath it not by virtue of
the eternal generation and communication, but fundamentally and originally
of himself.

As for the other branch of Mr Coleman’s argument, tending to prove that
Christ, as he is the eternal Son of God, cannot be given, which he
endeavours to vindicate, p. 14, 15, I answer these two things:

_First_, Granting all that he saith, he concludes nothing against me; for
I did from the beginning expound these words, Eph. i. 22, “And gave him to
be the head over all things to the church,” in this sense, That Christ as
Mediator is given only to the church, to be her head, but he that is given
as Mediator to the church is _over all_. So that the giving of Christ
there spoken of is as Mediator, and he is given to the church only, which
I cleared by the Syriac, “And him who is over all he gave to be the head
to the church.” But his being _over all_, there spoken of, if understood
of glory, dignity, excellency over all, so Christ is over all as Mediator
(yea, in regard of the exaltation of his human nature), and this helpeth
not Mr Coleman, who intends to prove from that place that all government,
even civil, is given to Christ as Mediator. But if understood of a kingdom
and government over all, so he is over all, as he is the eternal Son of
God or Second Person of the Trinity, and not as Mediator.

_Secondly_, The question which the reverend brother falls upon, concerning
the personal inhabitation of the Holy Ghost, will never follow from
anything which I said, more than God’s giving of his Son to us will infer
a personal inhabitation of the Son of God in us. That which I said was to
this intent, That both the Son of God and the Holy Ghost are given, not as
God essentially; that is, in respect of the Godhead itself, or as they are
one in nature with the Father (for so the Father that giveth, and the Holy
Ghost which is given, could not be distinguished), but the Son is given as
the Son proceeding from the Father, and the Holy Ghost is given as the
Holy Ghost proceeding and sent from the Father and the Son. Whether he be
given to dwell personally in us, or by his gracious operations only, is
another question, which hath nothing to do with the present argument, and
therefore I will not be led out of my way.

Eleventhly, The eleventh heterodoxy is this: “I see no absurdity to hold
that every man in authority is either Christ’s vicegerent, or the
devil’s.” _Male Dicis_, p. 16. Here I make this inference: Heathen and
infidel magistrates, either, 1. They are not men in authority; or, 2. They
are Christ’s vicegerents; or, 3. They are the devil’s, _Male Dicis._ If he
say they are not men in authority, he shall contradict the apostle Paul,
who calls them higher powers, Rom. xiii. 1, and men in authority, 1 Tim.
ii. 2, speaking in reference even to the magistrates of that time, who
were infidels. If he say they are Christ’s vicegerents, then, 1. He must
say, that Christ, as Mediator, reigns without the church, and is a king to
those to whom he is neither priest nor prophet. 2. He must find a
commission given by Christ to the infidel magistrate. 3. Whom in authority
will he make to be the devil’s vicegerents if infidel magistrates be
Christ’s vicegerents? If he say that they are the devil’s vicegerents,
then it follows, 1. That they who resist the devil’s vicegerent resist the
ordinance of God; for they that resist an infidel magistrate, and do not
submit to his lawful authority (which his infidelity takes not away), is
said, Rom. xiii. 2, to resist the ordinance of God. 2. That the apostle
Paul bade pray for the devil’s vicegerent, 1 Tim. ii. 1, 2. The reverend
brother doth but more and more wind himself into a labyrinth of errors,
while he endeavours to take away the distinction of the twofold kingdom,
and the twofold vicegerentship of God and of Christ.

Twelfthly, The twelfth heterodoxy followeth: “Now it is true that Christ,
being God as well as man, hath of himself originally, as God, whatsoever
he hath by virtue of gift as Mediator,” _Male Dicis_, p. 13. Now subsume
Christ hath, by virtue of gift, as Mediator, the priestly office;
therefore, by Mr Coleman’s principles, Christ hath of himself originally,
as God, the priestly office. And if Christ hath it of himself originally
as God, then the Father and the Holy Ghost hath it also; so that by his
doctrine the Father and the Holy Ghost shall be the priests of the church
as well as Christ, for Christ hath nothing of himself originally as God
which the Father and the Holy Ghost have not likewise.

Thirteenthly, The thirteenth and last error concerneth the office of
deacons. Not only a widow but a deacon is denied to be a church officer,
or to have any warrant from Scripture. “I hold not a widow a church
officer (saith he); no more do I a deacon; both having a like foundation
in Scripture, which is truly none at all,” _Male Dicis,_ p. 9. If this was
his opinion formerly, why did he not in so main a point enter his dissent
from the votes of the Assembly concerning deacons, together with his
reasons? Well, his opinion is so now, whereby he runneth contrary not only
to the reformed churches (which it seems weigh not much in his balance),
but to the plain Scripture, which speaks of the office of a deacon, 1 Tim.
iii. 10; and this could be no civil office, but an ecclesiastical office,
for the deacons were chosen by the church, were ordained with prayer and
laying on of hands, and their charge was to take special care of the poor;
all which is clear, Acts vi. If he had given us the grounds of his opinion
he should have heard more against it.

CHAPTER V.

THE PRELATICAL WAY AND TENETS OF MR COLEMAN AND MR HUSSEY, REPUGNANT ALSO,
IN DIVERS PARTICULARS, TO THE VOTES AND ORDINANCES OF PARLIAMENT.

1. Mr Coleman, in his _Re-examination_, p. 14, makes the Parliament to be
church governors and church officers to the whole kingdom. It was an
argument used against the prelates, that ecclesiastical and civil
government, spiritual and secular administrations, are inconsistent in the
same persons, either of which requireth the whole man. It was another
exception against the prelate, that he assumed the power of church
government and ecclesiastical jurisdiction over the whole diocese, which
was much more than he could discharge. How will Mr Coleman avoid the
involving the Parliament into prelatical guiltiness by his principles,
which we avoid by ours?

2. The prelates sought great things for themselves rather than to purge
the church of scandals. What other thing was it when Mr Coleman, in his
third rule, instead of exhorting to the purging the church, called only
for learning and competency, and told it out, that this will “get us an
able ministry, and procure us honour enough.” Mr Hussey, in his Epistle to
myself, tells me, that our attending on reading, exhortation and doctrine
(without government) will obtain the magistrate’s love, “more honour, more
maintenance:” something for shame he behoved to add of the punishing of
sin (yet he will not have the minister called from his study to be
troubled or to take any pains in discipline), but behold the love of the
magistrate; more honour and more maintenance, are strong ingredients in
the Erastian electuary.

3. Mr Hussey will have ministers placed “without any regard to the
allowance or disallowance of the people,” _Epist. to the Parliament._ This
is prelatical, or rather more than prelatical.

4. The prelates were great enemies to ruling elders: so are Mr Coleman and
Mr Hussey, who acknowledge no warrant from the word of God for that
calling, nor admit of any ruling elders who are not magistrates,—a
distinction which was used by Saravia and Bilson in reference to the
Jewish elders, and by Bishop Hall in reference to the elders of the
ancient church who were not preaching elders, _Assert. of Episcop. by
Divine Right_, p. 208, 209, 221,—and now, forsooth, Mr Hussey, in his
_Epistle to the Parliament_, doth earnestly beseech them to “set up
classes, consisting only of ministers, whose work should be only to preach
the word,” &c. Such classes, I dare say, the prelates themselves will
admit of. Sure the Scottish prelates, when they were at their highest,
yielded as much.

Mr Coleman and Mr Hussey hold, that ruling elders and a church government
distinct from the civil government, in the times of persecution and under
pagan magistrates, can be no warrant for the like where the state is
Christian. This plea for Christian magistracy was Bishop Whitgift’s plea
against the ruling elders, _Answer to the Admon._, p. 114.

6. Mr Hussey, p. 22, saith, That granting the incestuous Corinthian to be
excommunicated, “the decree was Paul’s and not the Corinthians’,” and that
it no way appertained to them under the notion of a church. This is
Saravia’s answer to Beza, _de Tripl. Epist. Genere_, p. 42, 43, yea, the
Papists’ answer to Protestant writers, by which they would hold up the
authority and sole jurisdiction of the prelates, as the apostles’
successors, to excommunicate.

They do not more agree with the prelatical principles than they differ
from the votes and ordinances of Parliament, which is the other point that
I have here undertaken to discover; and I shall do it by the particular
instances following:—

First, The ordinance of the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament, for
the calling of an assembly of divines, beginneth thus: “Whereas, among the
infinite blessings of Almighty God upon this nation, none is, or can be,
more dear unto us than the purity of our religion, and for that as yet
many things remain in the liturgy, discipline, and government of the
church, which do necessarily require a farther and more perfect
reformation than as yet hath been attained: and whereas it hath been
declared and resolved, by the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament,
that the present church government, by archbishops, bishops, &c., is evil
and justly offensive, &c.; and that, therefore, they are resolved that the
same shall be taken away, and that such a government shall be settled in
the church as may be most agreeable to God’s holy word, and most apt to
procure and preserve the peace of the church at home, and nearer agreement
with the church of Scotland, and other reformed churches abroad.” After it
was resolved and voted in both the honourable houses of Parliament, and
sent as one of the propositions to the treaty at Uxbridge, “That many
particular congregations shall be under one presbyterial government.” Now,
therefore, what can be more contrary to the votes and ordinances of
Parliament than that which Mr Coleman and Mr Hussey hold, that there ought
to be no ecclesiastical government beside civil magistracy, except we
please to take preaching and baptism under the name of government, as if,
forsooth, the Parliament had meant, by presbyterial government,
Parliamentary government; or as if, by the purity of religion in point of
the discipline of government of the church, they had intended nothing but
their civil rights and privileges; or as if the wise and honourable Houses
had understood themselves no better than to intend that for a nearer
agreement with the church of Scotland and other reformed churches, which
is the widest difference from them, to wit, the Erastian way.

Secondly, In the same ordinance of Parliament for the calling of an
assembly of divines, it is ordained that the assembly, after conferring
and treating among themselves touching the liturgy, discipline, and
government of the church, or vindication and clearing of the doctrine of
the same, shall deliver their opinions or advices of or touching the
matters aforesaid to both or either of the houses of Parliament, yet Mr
Hussey, _Epist. to the Parliament_, p. 36, will not have classes to put
anything to the vote, but to hold on the disputes till all end in accord,
and in unanimous consent of the whole clergy. But how can the Assembly,
after disputes, express their sense, and deliver their opinions and advice
to the Parliament, as they are required, except they do it by putting to
the vote? Mr Coleman himself hath consented, yea, sometime called to put
things to the vote; and as for classes, will any man imagine, that when
both houses of Parliament did vote “that many particular congregations
shall be under one presbyterial government,” their meaning was, that the
classical presbytery shall only schoolwise dispute, and put nothing to the
vote; or that the classical presbytery shall in common dispense the word
and sacraments to many congregations, and that either the classical
presbytery shall go to the several congregations successively, or the many
congregations come to the classical presbytery, for preaching and
baptising? I admire what opinion Mr Hussey can have of the Parliamentary
vote concerning presbyterial government.

Thirdly, Mr Hussey, _Epistle to the Parliament_, p. 4, 5, will have
ministers placed “without any regard to the allowance and disallowance of
the people,” yet the ordinance of Parliament, for giving power to
classical presbyteries to ordain ministers, doth appoint that he who is
examined and approved by the presbytery shall be “sent to the church or
other place where he is to serve (if it may be done with safety and
conveniency), there to preach three several days, and to converse with the
people, that they may have trial of his gifts for their edification, and
may have time and leisure to inquire into, and the better to know his life
and conversation,” after which the ordinance appointeth public notice to
be given, and a day set to the congregation to put in what exceptions they
have against him.

Fourthly, Mr Hussey in that _Epistle to the Parliament_, p. 5, saith, “Oh
that this honourable court would hasten to set up classes consisting only
of ministers whose work should be only to preach the word, and weekly meet
in schools of divinity!” Here is a double contradiction to the ordinances
of Parliament, for in the directions of the Lords and Commons for choosing
of ruling elders, and speedy settling of presbyterial government, it is
appointed that ruling elders shall be members both of classes and
synodical assemblies, together with the ministers of the word. Again, the
ordinance about suspension of scandalous persons from the sacrament
appointeth other work to classes, beside preaching and disputing, namely,
the receiving and judging of appeals from the congregational eldership. Mr
Coleman, in _Male Dicis_, p. 12, professeth that he excludeth ruling
elders from church government, yet he can hardly be ignorant that as the
Parliament hath voted “that many particular congregations shall be under
one presbyterial government,” so their votes do commit that government to
pastors and ruling elders jointly.

I will not here repeat the particulars wherein I showed in my _Nihil
Respondes_ that Mr Coleman hath abused the honourable houses of
Parliament, unto which particulars he hath answered as good as nothing.
The honourable houses, in their wisdom, will soon observe whether such
men, whose avouched tenets are so flatly repugnant to the parliamentary
votes and ordinances, are like to be good pleaders for Christian
magistracy.

CHAPTER VI.

MR COLEMAN’S WRONGING OF THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.

Mr Coleman ends his _Male Dicis_ with a resentment of accusations charged
upon him by a stranger, a commissioner from another church. The lot of
strangers were very hard, if, when they are falsely accused to authority,
they may not answer for themselves. He may remember the first accusation
was made by himself, when in his sermon to the Parliament, he did flatly
impute to the commissioners from the church of Scotland a great part of
the fault of hindering union in the Assembly of Divines, as having come
biassed with a national determination; his doctrine also at that time
being such, as did not only reflect upon the government of the church of
Scotland, but tend to the subversion of the covenant in one principal
point, without which there can be small or no hopes of attaining the other
ends of the covenant. Since that time he did in his _Re-examination_, and
now again in his _Male Dicis_, fall foully upon the church of Scotland,
not only by gross mistakes and misrepresentations of our way, but by most
groundless aspersions and most uncharitable and unjust calumnies. I am
sure I am not so much a stranger to this doctrine as he is to the church
of Scotland, of which notwithstanding he boldly speaks his pleasure in
divers particulars, which he will never be able to make good.

First, He hath aspersed that church in the point of promiscuous
communicating. This I confuted in my _Nihil Respondes_: and told him both
of the order of the church and practice of conscientious ministers to the
contrary. Now what replieth he?

“_First_, This refining work, I think, is not one year old in Scotland, or
much more. I was lately informed that in Edinburgh it is begun: whether
anywhere else I know not,” _Male Dicis_, p. 20. Are not these now good
grounds of censuring and aspersing a reformed church (whose name hath been
as precious ointment among other churches abroad), “I think; I was
informed; whether it be otherwise I know not?” He will sit in Cornhill,
and tell the world what he imagines or hears of the church of Scotland,
and that, forsooth, must be taken for a truth. Yet there was both rules
and practice in the church of Scotland for debarring ignorant and
scandalous persons from the sacrament before he was born, though all was
put out of course under the prelates.

“_Secondly_ (saith the reverend brother), It is not a very effectual
sin-censuring and church-refining government, under which, after fourscore
years’ constant practice, divers thousands in the kingdom, and some
hundreds in one particular parish, because of ignorance and scandal, are
yet unfit to communicate,” _Male Dicis_, p. 20. _Ans._ 1. It is
notoriously false that there hath been fourscore years’ constant practice
of presbyterial government in Scotland; for the prelates there were above
thirty years’ standing. 2. “Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one
day, or shall a nation be born at once?” saith the prophet, Isa. lxvi. 8.
It is no easy matter to get a whole nation purged of ignorant and
scandalous persons. 3. He may take notice that the apostle Paul, almost in
all his epistles, maketh mention of scandalous persons among those to whom
he wrote, warning them not to have fellowship with such, to note them, to
avoid them. If the apostolic churches were not free of such, what great
marvel if we be not? 4. Before he objected promiscuous communicating. This
being cleared to be a calumny, now he objecteth that there are such as are
unfit to communicate. But while he thus seeketh a quarrel against church
government, he doth upon the matter quarrel the preaching of the gospel
itself; for he that imputeth it as a fault to the church government that
there are still divers thousands who, by reason of ignorance or scandal,
are unfit to communicate, doth, by consequence, yea, much more, impute it
as a fault to the preaching of the gospel in England, Scotland, Ireland,
France, Germany, the Low Countries, Switzerland, Sweden, Poland,—that in
all these, and other reformed churches, after fourscore years’ constant
preaching of the gospel (which is appointed of God to turn unconverted and
unregenerate persons from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan
to God), there are not only divers thousands, but divers millions, who, by
reason of ignorance or scandal, are yet unfit to communicate. If the word
do not open the eyes of the ignorant, and convert the scandalous, what
marvel that church government cannot do it? Church government is not an
illuminating and regenerating ordinance as the word is. But this church
government can and will do, yea, hath done, where it is duly executed: It
is a most blessed means for keeping the ordinances from visible and known
pollution, which doth very much honour God, shame sin, and commend piety;
it putteth a visible difference between the precious and the vile, the
clean and the unclean, the silver and the dross; and may well be,
therefore, called a church-refining ordinance.

Secondly, The second calumny was this, “I myself (said he) did hear the
presbytery of Edinburgh censure a woman to be banished out of the gates of
the city.” I answered him in his own language, “It is at the best a most
uncharitable slander:” and told him there is no banishment in Scotland but
by the civil magistrate; and that he ought to have inquired and informed
himself better.

Now he doth neither adhere to his calumny, or offer to make it good, nor
yet quit it, or confess he was mistaken, but propoundeth three new queries
(_Male Dicis_, p. 21), still forgetting his own rule of keeping to the
laws of disputation and matter in hand. For the particular in hand he only
saith thus much, “I did make inquiry, and from the presbytery itself I
received information, but not satisfaction.” He tells not what information
he received. If he will say that he received information that the
banishment was by the magistrate, how could he then report that it was by
the presbytery. If he say that the information he had from the presbytery
gave him any ground for the report which he hath made, let him speak it
out, and the world shall know the untruth of it. He may remember, withal,
that by his principles an accusation may not be received against an elder
(much less against an eldership), in reference either to the judgment of
charity, or to ministerial conviction, except under two or three
witnesses. If, therefore, he would have his accusation believed, let him
find two or three witnesses.

Thirdly, Whereas I had rectified a great mistake of the reverend brother
when I told him, “It is accidental to the ruling elder to be of the
nobility, or to nobles to be ruling elders; there are but some so, and
many otherwise,” he is not pleased to be rectified in this, but replieth,
“I say, first, It is continually so; secondly, The king’s commissioner in
the General Assembly, is his presence accidental?” _Male Dicis_, p. 10.
See now here whether he understandeth what he saith, or whereof he
affirmeth. That which he saith is continually so, is almost continually
otherwise; that is, there are continually some ruling elders who are not
nobles, and there are continually some nobles who are not ruling elders.
So that, if anything be accidental, this is accidental, that an elder be
of the nobility, or nobles be elders; they are neither nobles _qua_
elders, nor elders _qua_ nobles. It is no less accidental that the king’s
commissioner be present in the General Assembly; for there have been
General Assemblies in Scotland, both before the erection and since the
last casting out of Prelacy, in which there was no commissioner from the
king. And when the king sends a commissioner, it is accidental that he be
of the nobility; for the king hath sent commissioners to General
Assemblies who were not of the nobility.

Fourthly, A fourth injury, not to be passed in silence, is this: Mr
Coleman hath endeavoured to make the world believe that the commissioners
from the church of Scotland came to the Assembly biassed with something
adventitious from without, which he calls a national determination, and
that we are not permitted by those that sent us to receive any further
light from the word of God. I shall say no more of the bias, because, as I
told him before, the standers by see well enough which way the bias runs.
But most strange it is, that after I had confuted his calumny, not only
from our paper first presented to the grand committee, but from the
General Assembly’s own letter to the Assembly of Divines, showing that
they had ordered the laying aside of some particular customs in the church
of Scotland, for the nearer uniformity with the church of England, so much
endeared unto them, yet he still adhereth to his former calumny (_Male
Dicis_, p. 20), without taking notice of the evidence which I had given to
the contrary. And not content with this, he still quarrelleth with my
allegation of certain parallel examples, which are by him so far
disesteemed, that he hath not stuck to pass the very same censure upon the
foreign divines who came to the Synod of Dort which the Arminians did. The
same he saith of Alexander’s coming to the Council of Nice, and of Cyril’s
coming to the Council of Ephesus; all these, I say, he still involveth
under the same censure with us; for whereas he had alleged that I
justified the bias, this I denied, and called for his proof. His reply now
is thus: “Is not the allegation of the examples of the like doing a
justification of the act done?” _Male Dicis_, p. 20. This reply can have
no other sense but this, That I justified the thing which he thinks our
bias, because I justified those other divines who (as he holds) came also
biassed in like manner. I am persuaded this one particular, his joining
with the Arminians in their exceptions against the Synod of Dort, would
make all the reformed churches, if they could all speak to him _uno ore_,
to cry _Male audis_. And I am as firmly persuaded that the confession
which I have extorted from him in this place, that he knoweth no
adventitious engagements those divines had, makes him irreconcileably to
contradict himself; for he made them but just now biassed in the same
manner as he thinks us, and made my allegation of their examples to be a
justification of the bias charged by him upon us: as, therefore, he doth
must uncharitably and untruly judge us to be biassed with adventitious
engagements, so doth he judge of them. Neither can he assoil them while he
condemneth us; for the articles concerning predestination, the death of
Christ, grace, free will, and perseverance, were determined before the
Synod of Dort by most (if not by all) of those reformed churches who sent
commissioners thither, as much as presbyterial government was determined
in the church of Scotland before the reverend Assembly of Divines was
called. And this pre-engagement and predetermination of those reformed
churches was the main objection of the Arminians against the foreign
divines who came to the Synod of Dort. To conclude this point, Mr Coleman
himself, in his _Re-examination_, p. 7, avoucheth roundly, that the
foreign divines came to Dort, not as divines, by dispute and disquisition
to find out truth, but as judges, to censure all different opinions as
erroneous.

CHAPTER VII.

CALUMNIES CONFUTED, AND THAT QUESTION BRIEFLY CLEARED, WHETHER THE
MAGISTRATE BE CHRIST’S VICEGERENT.

Mr Hussey, in his title page, tells us he hath prosecuted the
argumentative part without any personal reflections, yet I could instance
divers personal reflections in his book which any moderate impartial man
will extremely dislike; but what should this be to the edifying of my
reader, the end which, next to the glory of God and the promoting of
reformation, I have proposed to myself? Yet I must needs take notice of
some calumnies.

First, In his _Epistle_, p. 8, he offereth it to be examined whether I was
not beside my text, Mal. iii. 2, when I pressed from it reformation by
ecclesiastical discipline: whether that refiner’s fire and fuller’s soap
doth not point at another and a nearer operation upon the souls and
spirits of men by the blood, word, Spirit, and grace of Christ: and
whether such handling of a similitude in a text be to preach the mind of
God, or men’s own fancy. It is no discontent to me, but I shall rejoice in
it, that men of piety and judgment examine my doctrine by the word of God,
and hold fast what they find agreeable to the Scriptures, and no more. But
is this brotherly, or fair, or conscionable dealing, to offer my sermon to
be examined under such a notion, when he hath not only said nothing to
confute any of my doctrines, as not arising from my text, or any of my
applications, as not arising from my doctrines; but hath also untruly
represented my sermon, as coming short of, or not expressing that which
indeed it hath most principally and most expressly in it? That of
reformation was but a part of my sermon; and that of church censures,
against scandalous sinners, was but the least part of that part. And why
should not the fuller’s soap in the house of God, take off those spots in
our feasts? Why should not the refiner’s fire purge away the wicked of the
earth like dross? so David calls them. That reformation is one part of the
Holy Ghost’s intendment in that text, is Gualther’s opinion as well as
mine, yet he thinks Gualther his own. Nay, I proved it from comparing
scripture with scripture, which is the best way that I know to clear
scripture. Why did he not answer my proofs? But beside all that I said of
reformation, had I not other three doctrines out of that text
comprehending all that which Mr Hussey hinteth as omitted by me, and yet
intended in the text? Dare he say that I did not take in purgation by the
word? (though I confess he doth not well prove it from the words which he
citeth, “Is not my word an hammer?” But it is proved by the words which he
citeth not, “Is not my word like as a fire?”) Did I not expressly say that
Christ is to us as a refiner’s fire and as fuller’s soap three ways,—by
reformation, by tribulation, by mortification? Did I not handle the last
two as well as the first? Oh let no more such gross calumnies be found
among those who profess to be brethren!

Secondly, Mr Hussey, in his epistle to myself, gives it out that I say,
“We have leave from the civil magistrate to preach the gospel,” which he
interprets as if I denied that we preach the word with authority from
Christ. It was _de facto_, not _de jure_, that I spake it. The magistrate
hath power in his hand to hinder both doctrine and discipline, if he be an
adversary, though it be the will of Christ that there be both doctrine and
discipline, and the authority of both is from Christ. When the magistrate
assisteth or countenanceth, or so much as doth not hinder the preaching of
the gospel, then he gives leave to it.

Thirdly, Mr Coleman, in his _Male Dicis_, p. 3, saith, “I am confident the
church of Scotland sent this Commissioner to dispute down our reasons, not
to revile our persons.” Why did he not, if he could, give instance of some
reviling word written by me against his person? I have not so learned
Christ. The Lord rebuke every railing and reviling spirit. I have given
him reason against railing; he hath given me railing against reason; I
spake to his doctrine, he speaks to my place and relation, which is both
the _alpha_ and _omega_ of his _Male Dicis_.

Fourthly, “Knowledge (saith he) is only with Mr Gillespie; others
understand neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm,” p. 3. He will
sooner bring water out of flint than prove this consequence out of my
title-page. Although I confess himself hath affirmed divers things of the
church of Scotland which he doth not understand, as I have made plainly to
appear. If he take a review of the title-page of his _Re-examination_, he
gives more ground for this consequence,—that Mr Coleman is the only man
that denies himself; others seek great things for themselves. Or from the
title-page of his _Male Dicis_ this consequence will be as good,—that Mr
Coleman is the only man that blesseth; others are revilers.

Fifthly, Thus saith Mr Coleman, “O ye honourable house of Parliament, take
you notice that you manage that great place of yours under Christ and for
Christ: He is your head, and you are his servants; and take you notice
withal that Mr Gillespie accounts this your reproach,” _Male Dicis
Maledicis_, p. 17. But O ye honourable house of Parliament, be pleased to
take notice of my own plain expression of my mind in my _Nihil Respondes._
p. 13: “The Christian magistrate manageth his office under and for Christ,
that is, so as to be serviceable for the kingdom and glory of Christ.” And
now judge whether it be suitable to the sincerity and candour of a
minister of the gospel to endeavour to make me odious to authority, by
imputing to me that which not only I did not say, but the contrary whereof
I did plainly express. The thing which I charged his doctrine with was
this, that by holding all government to be given to Christ as Mediator,
and from him, as Mediator, derived to the magistrate as his vicegerent, he
shaketh the foundation of magistracy. I am sure that which I hold, that
all lawful magistrates are powers ordained by God, and are to be honoured
and obeyed as God’s vicegerents, is a firm and strong foundation for
magistracy. But that which Mr Coleman and Mr Hussey hold, viz., that the
Christian magistrate holdeth his office of, under, and for Christ, as he
is Mediator, and doth act _vice Christi_, as Christ’s vicegerent, gives a
most dangerous wound to Christian magistracy, which I can demonstrate in
many particulars. I shall now give instance only in these few: First, They
must prove from Scripture that Christ, as Mediator, hath given a
commission of vicegerentship to Christian magistrates, and appointed them
not only to be serviceable to him, and to do his work (for that they must
serve Christ, and be for his glory, is not controverted, nay, can never
enough be commended to them), but also to govern _vice Christi_, in
Christ’s stead, and that not only as he is God, which is not controverted
neither, but as he is Mediator. This, I say, they must prove, which they
will never be able to do, or otherwise they do, by their doctrine, lead
the magistrate into a snare, and leave him in it. For how shall he be
acknowledged for a vicegerent who can show no commission nor warrant for
his vicegerentship? Secondly, Their doctrine tendeth to the altering of
the surest and best known tenure of magistracy, which is from God; for
they hold that God hath put all government, and all authority civil, and
all, into the hands of Christ as Mediator; if the tenure from Christ fail,
then, by their doctrine, the tenure from God shall fail too. Thirdly, The
vicegerent cannot act in that capacity, nor assume that power which his
sovereign, whose vicegerent he is, ought not to assume if he were
personally present; so that, by their principles, it will follow that the
Christian magistrate can act no farther, nor assume any other power of
government, than Christ himself might have assumed when he was on earth,
or might now assume and exercise as Mediator if he were on earth. But
Christ himself, when he was on earth, neither did exercise, nor was sent
to exercise, civil judgment, Luke xii. 14; and the temporal sword, John
xviii. 36; nor external observation and state, Luke xvii. 20, 21; and he
declined to be an earthly king, John vi. 15. Therefore, by their
principles, the Christian magistrate ought to forbear and avoid all these.

A sixth calumny is this: Mr Coleman, descanting upon the governments
mentioned 1 Cor. xii. 28, chargeth me with a circular argumentation: “He
circularly argues (saith he): they are civil, because God placed them
there, and God placed them there because they are civil,” _Male Dicis
Maledicis_, p. 9. I neither argued the one nor the other; they are both,
Sir, of your own forging. But this is not your first allegation of this
kind. I sometime admire what oscitancy or supine negligence (to judge it
no worse) this can be, to fancy to yourself that I have said what you
would, and then to bring forth your own apprehensions for my arguments.

CHAPTER VIII.

THAT MR COLEMAN DOTH GREAT VIOLENCE, BOTH TO HIS OWN WORDS AND TO THE
WORDS OF OTHERS WHOM HE CITETH.

The reverend brother hath offered extreme violence to his own declaration,
of which let the leader now judge, comparing his declaration with his
interpretation.—

_Declaration_

For much of what is reported of my sermon I utterly deny, and refer myself
to the sermon itself, for what I have acknowledged to be delivered by me,
although it is my judgment, yet because I see it hath given a great deal
of offence to this Assembly and the reverend Commissioners of Scotland, I
am sorry I have given offence in the delivery thereof; and for the
printing, although I have an order, I will forbear, except I be further
commanded. THO. COLEMAN.

_Interpretation_

It is a truth, and a Scripture truth, which I have delivered, and because
I see a scripture truth hath given offence to the Commissioners of
Scotland, &c. I am sorry. This must needs be the sense; I am sure this was
the sense intended, _Male Dicis, Maledicis_, p. 18.

Surely if such Orleans glosses be admitted upon men’s declarations, signed
with their hands, and if he who hath subscribed himself sorry that he hath
given offence in the delivery of such a doctrine, shall be allowed to
expound himself thus; that he meant he was sorry others had taken offence
at a Scripture truth, that is, he was sorry for our fault, not for his
own. I know not how men shall trust one another’s declarations, or how we
can practically, as well as doctrinally, confute the Jesuitical
equivocations and mental reservations. And if this must needs be the sense
which now the reverend brother gives, and was the sense intended, why
saith he that he did publicly recal that declaration? He might make a
revocation of it, in the sense wherein I understood it: but how could he
make a revocation of it as himself understood it, and as he saith the
sense must needs be? Was this his sorrow for our taking offence at a
Scripture truth, a sorrow to be sorrowed for? Why did he not rather make a
second declaration the next day interpreting the former? And whereas he
thinks that his revocation ought to have been mentioned together with his
declaration, because the whole truth is to be told as well as the truth,
his own heart knows that he himself hath not told the whole truth, for he
could tell much more if he pleased, how he was brought upon the business,
and particularly upon that revocation. Why will he challenge others for
not telling the whole truth, when himself doth it not? I should have
thought that this revocation was neither here nor there as to the point of
scandal, for proof whereof his declaration was brought; and that, as it
was not to the business in hand, so it might rather serve for impairing
his credit than for anything else. But seeing himself thinks it more for
his credit to tell the world of his saying and unsaying, declaring and
undeclaring, let him be doing.

In the next place, Will you see how much violence he offereth to divines
whom he citeth? I had cited plain and full testimonies of the Zurich
divines, showing that Gualther expounds 1 Cor. v. all along of
excommunication; that Bullinger holds excommunication to be instituted by
Christ, Matt. xviii.; that Aretius saith God was the author of
excommunication in the Old Testament, and Christ in the New, all which see
in _Nihil Respondes_, p. 32.

The reverend brother, notwithstanding of their plain testimonies, speaking
for me and against him in the main controversy between him and me, doth
still allege that they are for him, not for me, _Male Dicis_, p. 23, yet
he doth not so much as offer any answer to their testimonies by me cited,
only he bringeth three other passages of theirs, intimating that there may
be a true church without excommunication; that they thought it not
necessary where they lived; that they thought it hard, yea
impossible—_arduum nec non impossible_—to introduce excommunication in
those parts, by which citations the brother hath proved nothing against
me, but confirmed what I said. Let him remember first, he himself makes
the main controversy between him and me about the scriptural warrants of
church censures, now in that they are clearly against him. Next Aretius,
who thought it hard, yea impossible, to bring in excommunication at that
time, saith also, _Dabit posterior aetas tractabiliores forte
animas_,—peradventure the following age shall bring forth more tractable
souls; and thereupon he adviseth not to despair of the restitution of
excommunication. I cited also other testimonies to show that the Zurich
divines did endeavour and long for the discipline of excommunication,
though as things stood then and there, they did prudentially supersede the
restoring of it where they lived, because of the difficulty and
apprehended impossibility of the thing. If Mr Coleman will follow the
Zurich divines he must change his tone, and quite alter the state of the
question, and make it thus: Whether, as things now stand, it be expedient
to settle excommunication in the church of England. Now if he makes this
the state of the question, then he must make a revocation of that word, “I
deny an institution, I assent to a prudence.” For the tables were turned
with the Zurich divines; they assented to an institution; they denied a
prudence; they held an affirmative precept for excommunication, but that
it doth not bind _ad semper_, that the thing is not at all times, nor in
all places necessary; that weighty inconveniences may warrant the
superseding of it.

The reverend brother brings another testimony out of Aretius against
suspension from the sacrament: “And further (saith he) for this grand
desired power, suspension from sacrament, these are his words,” &c. A
testimony three ways falsified: 1. Aretius speaks not at all in that place
of the power or duty of church officers, of which suspension is a part,
but he speaks of private Christians, and what is incumbent to them. 2. He
speaks of separation, not of suspension from the sacrament; that a man is
not bound to withdraw and lie off from the sacrament, because every one
who is to communicate with him is not in his opinion a saint. 3. He
speaketh against separation from both word and sacrament, because of the
mixture of good and bad in hearing and in communicating; but scandalous
sinners are invited to, not suspended from the hearing of the word,
wherefore take Aretius’s(1358) words as they are, and then let the
reverend brother consider what he hath gained.

What hath this now to do with church officers’ power of suspension from
the sacrament?

Observe another testimony which he addeth out of Augustine, _lib. de Fide,
Excommunicatio debet supplere locum visibilis gladii_, which he Englisheth
thus: “Excommunication comes in only to supply the want of the civil
sword.” But how comes in your _only_, Sir? Augustine saith no such thing.
And when I have expunged that word, I must tell you farther, that I can
find no such passage in Augustine’s book _de Fide_; but I find somewhat to
this purpose in another book of his, which is entitled _De Fide et
Operibus_, a book which he wrote against the admission of such persons to
baptism, as being instructed in the faith, are, notwithstanding, still
scandalous in their lives (which, by the way, will hold _a fortiori_, for
the exclusion of notorious scandalous sinners from the Lord’s supper; for
they who ought not to be admitted to the sacrament of initiation, ought
much less to be admitted to the sacrament of confirmation). Now because
divers scriptures speak of a mixture of good and bad in the church,
Augustine takes there occasion to reprove those who abused these
scriptures against the exercise of discipline and church censures, the
necessity whereof he showeth to be the greater, because the magistrate
doth not punish by death all such crimes as under the law were punished by
death, as, namely, adultery, the scandal chiefly by him insisted upon. As
for that passage concerning excommunication supplying the place of the
sword,(1359) it plainly holds forth excommunication under Christian
emperors and magistrates, for such they were at that time, so far it is
from making against us. For these are the words which say no such thing as
Mr Coleman would make them say: “And Phinehas the priest did thrust
through the adulterous persons found together with the avenging sword;”
which signified that it should be none by degradations and
excommunications in this time, when, in the discipline of the church, the
visible sword was to cease.

If the reverend brother had let me know where to find his other
testimonies of Origen and Chrysostom, peradventure I had given him as good
an account of them. Tertullian’s(1360) words which he citeth, _Praesident
probati seniores_, I know very well where to find; and I know also, that
if there be a passage in all antiquity against the Erastians, that is one.
Which therefore I here offer as it is to be considered.

One instance more of his misalleging and perverting of testimonies. In the
close, he citeth a passage of Mr Case’s sermon, Aug. 22, 1645. “He
(Christ) is king of nations and king of saints. As king of nations he hath
a temporal kingdom and government over the world,” &c., “and the rule and
regiment of this kingdom he hath committed to monarchies,” &c. “Here is
Erastianism (saith Mr Coleman, p. 38), a step higher than ever I or
Erastus himself went. And I desire to know of Mr Gillespie, if he will own
this as good divinity?” Yes, Sir, I own it for very good divinity; for my
reverend brother, Mr Case, saith not that Christ, as Mediator, is king of
nations, and hath a temporal kingdom in the world, and hath committed rule
and regiment to monarchies or other lawful magistrates (which is the point
that you and Mr Hussey contend for, being a great heterodoxy in divinity),
but he saith of the Son of God, that he is king of nations, and hath
committed rule to monarchies, which I own with all my heart. The
distinction of the twofold kingdom of Christ,—an universal kingdom,
whereby he reigneth over all things as God, and a special economical
kingdom, whereby he is king to the church only, and ruleth and governeth
it,—is that which, being rightly understood, overturneth, overturneth,
overturneth the Erastian principles. Let Mr Coleman but own this
distinction, and that which Mr Case addeth concerning the kingdom, which
Christ, as king of saints (and so as Mediator), doth exercise both
invisibly, in the conscience, and visibly, in the church: First, By
conquering a people and visible subjects; secondly, By giving them laws
distinct from all the laws and statutes of all the kingdoms and republics
in the world, Isa. xxxiii. 22; thirdly, By constituting special officers
in the church not only to promulgate these laws, Matt, xviii. 19, but to
govern his people according to them, Acts xx. 28; Rom. xii. 8; 1 Cor. xii.
28; xiv. 32; fourthly, In that he hath commanded all his people to obey
these ecclesiastical officers, Heb. xiii. 7, 17; fifthly, And hath
appointed censures proper to this government, Matt, xviii. 17; 1 Cor. v.
13: I say, let Mr Coleman but own this doctrine of Mr Case, which was
printed by order of the honourable House of Commons as well as his was,
then we are agreed. And so much for this time.

THE END.

ONE HUNDRED AND ELEVEN PROPOSITIONS CONCERNING THE MINISTRY AND GOVERNMENT
OF THE CHURCH.

ONE HUNDRED AND ELEVEN

PROPOSITIONS

CONCERNING

THE MINISTRY AND GOVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH.

BY GEORGE GILLESPIE,

MINISTER AT EDINBURGH, 1642

EDINBURGH:

ROBERT OGLE AND OLIVER AND BOYD.

M. OGLE & SON AND WILLIAM COLLINS, GLASGOW. J. DEWAR, PERTH. W. MIDDLETON,
DUNDEE.

G. & R. KING, ABERDEEN. W. M’COMB, BELFAST.

HAMILTON, ADAMS, & CO., AND JAMES NISBET & CO., LONDON.

1642.

REPRINTED BY A. W. MURRAY, MILNE SQUARE, EDINBURGH.

1844.

_Act approving Eight general Heads of Doctrine against the Tenets of
Erastianism, Independency, and Liberty of Conscience, asserted in the One
Hundred and Eleven Propositions, which are to be examined against the next
Assembly._

Being tender of so great an engagement by solemn covenant,—sincerely,
really, and constantly to endeavour in our places and callings, the
preservation of the reformed religion in this kirk of Scotland, in
doctrine, worship, discipline, and government, the reformation of religion
in the kingdoms of England and Ireland, in doctrine, worship, discipline,
and government, according to the word of God and the example of the best
reformed kirks, and to endeavour the nearest conjunction and uniformity in
all these, together with the extirpation of heresy, schism, and whatsoever
shall be found contrary to sound doctrine: and considering, withal, that
one of the special means which it becometh us in our places and callings
to use in pursuance of these ends is, in zeal for the true reformed
religion, to give our public testimony against the dangerous tenets of
Erastianism, Independency, and (which is falsely called) _Liberty of
Conscience_, which are not only contrary to sound doctrine, but more
special lets and hinderances as well to the preservation of our own
received doctrine, worship, discipline and government, as to the work of
reformation and uniformity in England and Ireland. The General Assembly
upon these considerations, having heard publicly read the one hundred and
eleven following propositions, exhibited and tendered by some brethren who
were appointed to prepare articles or propositions for the vindication of
the truth in those particulars, doth unanimously approve and agree unto
these eight general heads of doctrine therein contained and asserted, viz,
1. That the ministry of the word and the administration of the sacraments
of the New Testament, baptism and the Lord’s supper, are standing
ordinances, instituted by God himself, to continue in the church to the
end of the world; 2. That such as administer the word and sacraments ought
to be duly called and ordained thereunto; 3. That some ecclesiastical
censures are proper and peculiar to be inflicted only upon such as bear
office in the kirk; other censures are common, and may be inflicted both
on ministers and other members of the kirk; 4. That the censure of
suspension from the sacrament of the Lord’s supper, inflicted because of
gross ignorance, or because of a scandalous life and conversation, as
likewise the censure of excommunication or casting out of the kirk
flagitious or contumacious offenders, both the one censure and the other
is warrantable by and grounded upon the word of God, and is necessary (in
respect of divine institution) to be in the kirk; 5. That as the rights,
power, and authority of the civil magistrate are to be maintained
according to the word of God, and the confessions of the faith of the
reformed kirks, so it is no less true and certain, that Jesus Christ, the
only Head and only King of the kirk, hath instituted and appointed a kirk
government, distinct from the civil government or magistracy; 6. That the
ecclesiastical government is committed and entrusted by Christ to the
assemblies of the kirk, made up of the ministers of the word and ruling
elders; 7. That the lesser and inferior ecclesiastical assemblies ought to
be subordinate and subject unto the greater and superior assemblies; 8.
That notwithstanding hereof, the civil magistrate may and ought to
suppress, by corporal or civil punishments, such as by spreading error or
heresy, or by fomenting schism, greatly dishonour God, dangerously hurt
religion, and disturb the peace of the kirk. Which heads of doctrine
(howsoever opposed by the authors and fomenters of the foresaid errors
respectively) the General Assembly doth firmly believe, own, maintain, and
commend unto others, as solid, true, orthodox, grounded upon the word of
God, consonant to the judgment both of the ancient and the best reformed
kirks. And because this Assembly (through the multitude of other necessary
and pressing business) cannot now have so much leisure as to examine and
consider particularly the foresaid one hundred and eleven propositions;
therefore a more particular examination thereof is committed and referred
to the theological faculties in the four universities of this kingdom, and
the judgment of each of these faculties concerning the same is appointed
to be reported to the next General Assembly. In the mean while these
propositions shall be printed, both that copies thereof may be sent to
presbyteries, and that it may be free for any that pleaseth to peruse
them, and to make known or send their judgment concerning the same to the
said next Assembly.

A. KER.

PROPOSITIONS.

1. As our Lord Jesus Christ doth invisibly teach and govern his church by
the Holy Spirit; so in gathering, preserving, instructing, building and
saving thereof, he useth ministers as his instruments, and hath appointed
an order of some to teach and others to learn in the church, and that some
should be the flock and others the pastors.

2. For beside these first founders of the church of Christ,
extraordinarily sent, and furnished with the gift of miracles, whereby
they might confirm the doctrine of the gospel, he appointed also ordinary
pastors and teachers, for the executing of the ministry, even until his
coming again unto judgment, Eph. iv. 11-13. Wherefore also, as many as are
of the number of God’s people, or will be accounted Christians, ought to
receive and obey the ordinary ministers of God’s word and sacraments
(lawfully though mediately called), as the stewards and ambassadors of
Christ himself.

3. It is not lawful for any man, how fit soever and how much soever
enriched or beautified with excellent gifts, to undertake the
administration either of the word or sacraments by the will of private
persons, or others who have not power and right to call, much less it is
lawful by their own judgment or arbitrement to assume and arrogate the
same to themselves. But before it be lawful to undergo that sacred
ministry in churches constituted, a special calling, yea beside, a lawful
election (which alone is not sufficient), a mission or sending, or (as
commonly it is termed) ordination, is necessarily required, and that both
for the avoiding of confusion, and to bar out or shut the door (so far as
in us lieth) upon impostors; as also by reason of divine institution
delivered to us in the Holy Scripture, Rom. x. 15; Heb. v. 4; Tit. i. 5; 1
Tim. ii. 7.

4. The church ought to be governed by no other persons than ministers and
stewards preferred and placed by Christ, and after no other manner than
according to the laws made by him; and, therefore, there is no power on
earth which may challenge to itself authority or dominion over the church:
but whosoever they are that would have the things of Christ to be
administered not according to the ordinance and will of Christ revealed in
his word, but as it liketh them, and according to their own will and
prescript, what other thing go they about to do than by horrible sacrilege
to throw down Christ from his own throne?

5. For our only lawgiver and interpreter of his Father’s will, Jesus
Christ hath prescribed and foreappointed the rule according to which he
would have his worship and the government of his own house to be ordered.
To wrest this rule of Christ, laid open in his holy word, to the counsels,
wills, manners, devices, or laws of men, is most high impiety. But
contrarily, the law of faith commandeth the counsel and purposes of men to
be framed and conformed to this rule, and overturneth all the reasonings
of worldly wisdom, and bringeth into captivity the thoughts of the proud
swelling mind to the obedience of Christ. Neither ought the voice of any
to take place or be rested upon in the church but the voice of Christ
alone.

6. The same Lord and our Saviour Jesus Christ, the only Head of the
church, hath ordained in the New Testament, not only the preaching of the
word and administration of baptism and the Lord’s supper, but also
ecclesiastical government, distinct and differing from the civil
government; and it is his will that there be such a government distinct
from the civil in all his churches everywhere, as well those which live
under Christian, as those under infidel magistrates, even until the end of
the world. Heb. xiii. 7, 17; 1 Tim. v. 17, 19; Rom. xii. 8; 1 Cor. xii.
28; 1 Thess. v. 12; Acts i. 20; Luke xii. 42; 1 Tim. vi. 14; Rev. ii. 25.

7. This ecclesiastical government, distinct from the civil, is from God
committed, not to the whole body of the church or congregation of the
faithful, or to be exercised both by officers and people, but to the
ministers of God’s word, together with the elders which are joined with
them for the care and government of the church, 1 Tim. v. 17. To those,
therefore, who are over the church in the Lord, belongeth the authority
and power, and it lieth upon them by their office, according to the rule
of God’s word, to discern and judge betwixt the holy and profane, to give
diligence for amendment of delinquents, and to purge the church (as much
as is in them) from scandals, and that not only by inquiring, inspection,
warning, reproving, and more sharply expostulating, but also by acting in
the further and more severe parts of ecclesiastical discipline, or
exercising ecclesiastical jurisdiction, even unto the greatest and
weightiest censures, where deed is.

8. None that is within the church ought to be without the reach of church
law, and exempt from ecclesiastical censures; but discipline is to be
exercised on all the members of the church, without respect or
consideration of those adhering qualities which use to commend a man to
other men, such as power, nobility, illustrious descent, and the like: for
the judgment cannot be right where men are led and moved with these
considerations. Wherefore, let respect of persons be far from all judges,
chiefly the ecclesiastical: and if any in the church do so swell in pride,
that he refuse to be under this discipline, and would have himself to be
free and exempt from all trial and ecclesiastical judgment, this man’s
disposition is more like the haughtiness of the Roman Pope, than the
meekness and submissiveness of Christ’s sheep.

9. Ecclesiastical censure, moreover, is either proper to be inflicted upon
the ministers and office-bearers only, or with them common to other
members of the church: the former consisteth in suspension or deposition
of ministers from their office (which in the ancient canons is called
καθαίρεσις); the latter consisteth in the greater and lesser
excommunication (as they speak). Whatsoever in another brother deserveth
excommunication, the same much more in a minister deserveth
excommunication: but justly sometimes a minister is to be put from his
office, and deprived of that power which by ordination was given him,
against whom, nevertheless, to draw the sword of excommunication, no
reason doth compel.

10. Sometime also it happeneth that a minister, having fallen into heresy
or apostacy, or other grievous crimes, if he show tokens of true
repentance, may be justly received into the communion of the church, whom,
notwithstanding, it is no way expedient to restore into his former place
or charge; yea, perhaps it will not be found fit to restore such an one to
the ministry in another congregation as soon as he is received into the
bosom of the church; which surely is most agreeable as well to the word of
God (2 Kings xxiii. 9; Ezek. xliv. 10-14,) as to that ecclesiastical
discipline, which in some ages after the times of the Apostle was in use.

So true is it that the ministers of the church are liable as well to
peculiar as to common censures; or that a minister of the church is
censured one way, and one of the people another way.

11. Ecclesiastical censure, which is not proper to ministers, but common
to them with other members of the church, is either suspension from the
Lord’s supper (which by others is called the publican’s excommunication),
or the cutting off of a member, which is commonly called excommunication.
The distinction of this twofold censure (commonly, though not so properly
passing under the name of the lesser and greater excommunication) is not
only much approved by the church of Scotland, and the synod now assembled
at Westminster, but also by the reformed churches of France, the Low
Countries, and of Poland, as is to be seen in the _Book of the
Ecclesiastical Discipline of the Reformed Churches in France_, chap. 5,
art. 9; in the _Harmony of the Belgic Synods_, chap. 14, art. 8, 9; in the
canons of the general synod of Torn, held in the year 1597.

12. That the distinction of that twofold church censure was allowed also
by antiquity, it may be sufficiently clear to him who will consult the
sixty-first canon of the sixth general synod, with the annotations of
Zonaras and Balsamon; also the thirteenth canon of the eighth synod (which
is termed the first and second), with the notes of Zonaras; yea, besides,
even the penitents also themselves of the fourth degree, or οἱ ἐν
συστασεῖ, that is, which were in the _consistency_, were suspended from
the Lord’s supper, though as to other things of the same condition with
the faithful; for, to the communion also of prayers, and so to all
privileges of ecclesiastical society, the eucharist alone excepted, they
were thought to have right: so sacred a thing was the eucharist esteemed.
See also, beside others, Cyprian, book 1, epist. 11; that Dionysius, the
author of _The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy_, chap. 3, part. 3; Basil.,
_Epist. to Amphilochius_, can. 4; Ambrose, _De Officiis_, lib. 2, chap.
27; Augustine, in his book against the Donatists after the Conference,
cap. 4; Chrysostom, hom. 83, in Matt.; Gregor. the Great, _Epist._, lib.
2, chap. 65, 66; Walafridus Strabo, _Of Ecclesiastical Matters_, chap. 17.

13. That first and lesser censure by Christ’s ordinance is to be inflicted
on such as have received baptism, and pretend to be true members of the
church, yet are found unfit and unworthy to communicate in the signs of
the grace of Christ with the church, whether for their gross ignorance of
divine things, the law, namely, and gospel, or by reason of scandal,
either of false doctrine or wicked life. For these causes, therefore, or
for some one of them, they are to be kept back from the sacrament of the
Lord’s supper (a lawful judicial trial going before) according to the
interdiction of Christ, forbidding that that which is holy be given to
dogs, or pearls be cast before swine, Matt. vii. 6; and this censure of
suspension is to continue till the offenders bring forth fruits worthy of
repentance.

14. For the asserting and defending of this suspension there is no small
accession of strength from the nature of the sacrament itself, and the
institution and end thereof. The word of God indeed is to be preached, as
well to the ungodly and impenitent, that they may be converted, as to the
godly and repenting that they may be confirmed; but the sacrament of the
Lord’s supper is by God instituted, not for beginning the work of grace,
but for nourishing and increasing grace, and therefore no one is to be
admitted to the Lord’s supper who by his life testifieth that he is
impenitent, and not as yet converted.

15. Indeed, if the Lord had instituted this sacrament, that not only it
should nourish and cherish faith, and seal the promises of the gospel, but
also should begin the work of grace in sinners, and give regeneration
itself as the instrumental cause thereof, verily even the most wicked,
most unclean, and most unworthy, were to be admitted: but the reformed
churches do otherwise judge of the nature of this sacrament, which shall
be abundantly manifest by the gleaning of these following testimonies.

16. The _Scottish Confession_, art. 23. “But we confess that the Lord’s
supper belongs only to those of the household of faith who can try and
examine themselves, as well in faith as in the duties of faith towards
their neighbours. Whoso abideth without faith, and in variance with their
brethren, do at that holy table eat and drink unworthily. Hence it is that
the pastors in our church do enter on a public and particular examination,
both of the knowledge, conversation and life, of those who are to be
admitted to the Lord’s table.” The _Belgic Confession_, art. 35:—“We
believe also and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ hath ordained the holy
sacrament of his supper, that in it he may nourish and uphold them whom he
hath already regenerated.”

17. The _Saxon Confession_, art. 15:—“The Lord willeth that every receiver
be particularly confirmed by this testimony, so that he may be certified
that the benefits of the gospel do appertain to himself, seeing the
preaching is common, and by this testimony, by this receiving, he showeth
that thou art one of his members, and washed with his blood.” And by and
by:—“Thus, therefore, we instruct the church, that it behoveth them that
come to the supper to bring with them repentance or conversion, and (faith
being now kindled in the mediation of the death and resurrection, and the
benefits of the Son of God) to seek here the confirmation of this faith.”
The very same things are set down, and that in the very same words, in the
consent of the churches of Poland in the Sendomirian synod, anno 1570,
art. “of the Lord’s supper.”

18. The _Bohemian Confession_, art. 11:—“Next our divines teach that the
sacraments of themselves, or as some say, _ex opere operato_, do not
confer grace to those who are not first endued with good motions, and
inwardly quickened by the Holy Spirit, neither do they bestow justifying
faith, which maketh the soul of man in all things obsequious, trusting and
obedient to God; for faith must go before (we speak of them of ripe
years), which quickeneth a man by the work of the Holy Spirit, and putteth
good motions into the heart.” And after:—“But if any come unworthily to
the sacraments, he is not made by them worthy or clean, but doth only
bring greater sin and damnation on himself.”

19. Seeing, then, in the holy supper, that is, in the receiving the
sacramental elements (which is here distinguished from the prayers and
exhortations accompanying that action), the benefits of the gospel are not
first received, but for them being received are thanks given; neither by
partaking thereof doth God bestow the very spiritual life, but doth
preserve, cherish and perfect that life; and seeing the word of God is
accounted in the manner of letters patent, but sacraments like seals, (as
rightly the _Helvetian Confession_ saith, chap. 19), it plainly followeth
that those are to be kept back from the Lord’s supper, who by their fruits
and manners do prove themselves to be ungodly or impenitent, and strangers
or aliens from all communion with Christ. Nor are the promises of grace
sealed to any other than those to whom these promises do belong, for
otherwise the seal annexed should contradict and gainsay the letters
patent; and by the visible word those should be loosed and remitted, who
by the audible word are bound and condemned: but this is such an
absurdity, as that if any would, yet he cannot smooth or heal it with any
plaster.

20. But as known, impious, and unregenerate persons, have no right to the
holy table, so also ungodly persons, by reason of a grievous scandal, are
justly for a time deprived of it; for it is not lawful or allowable that
the comforts and promises which belong only to such as believe and repent,
should be sealed unto known unclean persons, and those who walk
inordinately, whether such as are not yet regenerate, or such as are
regenerate, but fallen, and not yet restored or risen from their fall. The
same discipline plainly was shadowed forth under the Old Testament, for
none of God’s people, during their legal pollution, were permitted to
enter into the tabernacle, or to have access to the solemn sacrifices and
society of the church; and much more were wicked and notorious offenders
debarred from the temple, until, by an offering for sin, together with a
solemn confession thereof, being cleansed, they were reconciled unto God.
Num. v. 6-8; Lev. v. 1-7; vi. 1-8.

21. Yea that those who were polluted with sins and crimes were reckoned
among the unclean in the law, Maimonides (_in More Nevoch._, part. 3, ch.
47,) proveth out of Lev. xx. 3; xviii. 24; Num. xxxv. 33, 34. Therefore
seeing the shedding of man’s blood was rightly esteemed the greatest
pollution of all, hence it was that as the society of the leprous was
shunned by the clean, so that the company of murderers by good men was
most religiously avoided, Lam. iv. 13-15. The same thing is witnessed by
Ananias the high priest, in Josephus, _Jewish War_, book 4, ch. 5, where
he saith that those false zealots of that time, bloody men, ought to have
been restrained from access to the temple, by reason of the pollution of
murder; yea, as Philo the Jew witnesseth (in his book of the _Offerers of
Sacrifices_), whosoever were found unworthy and wicked, were by edict
forbidden to approach the holy threshold.

22. Neither must that be passed by which was noted by Zonaras, book 4, of
his annals (whereof see also Scaliger agreeing with him, in _Elench.
Triheres. Nicserrar._, cap. 28), namely, that the Essenes were forbidden
the holy place, as being heinous and piacular transgressors, and such as
held other opinions, and did otherwise teach concerning sacrifices than
according to the law, and observed not the ordinances of Moses, whence it
proceeded that they sacrificed privately; yea, and also the Essenes
themselves did thrust away from their congregations those that were
wicked. Whereof see Drusius, _Of the Three Sects of Jews_, lib. 4, cap.
22.

23. God verily would not have his temple to be made open to unworthy and
unclean worshippers; nor was it free for such men to enter into the
temple. See Nazianzen, _Orat._ 21. The same thing is witnessed and
declared by divers late writers, such as have been and are more acquainted
with the Jewish antiquities. Consult the Annotations of Vatablus, and of
Ainsworth, an English writer, upon Psal. cxviii. 19, 20; also Constantine
L’Empereur, _Annot. in Cod. Middoth_, cap. 2, p. 44, 45; Cornelius
Bertramus, _Of the Commonwealth of the Hebrews_, cap. 7; Henry Vorstius,
_Animadvers. in Pirk. Rab. Eliezer_, p. 169. The same may be proved out of
Ezek. xxiii. 30, 38; Jer. vii. 9-12; whence also it was that the solemn
and public society in the temple, had the name of the assembly of the
righteous, and congregation of saints, Psal. lxxxix. 5, 7; cxi. 1; cxlvii.
1; hence also is that (Psal. cxviii. 19, 20) of the gates of righteousness
by which the righteous enter.

24. That which is now driven at, is not that all wicked and unclean
persons should be utterly excluded from our ecclesiastical societies, and
so from all hearing of God’s word; yea there is nothing less intended: for
the word of God is the instrument as well of conversion as of
confirmation, and therefore is to be preached as well to the unconverted
as to the converted, as well to the repenting as the unrepenting: the
temple indeed of Jerusalem had special promises, as it were pointing out
with the finger a communion with God through Christ, 1 Kings viii. 30, 48;
Dan. vi. 10; 2 Chron. vi. 16; vii. 15, 16. But it is far otherwise with
our temples, or places of church assemblies, “because our temples contain
nothing sacramental in them, such as the tabernacle and temple contained,”
as the most learned Professors of Leyden said rightly in _Synops. Pur.
Theologiae_, disp. 48, thes. 47.

25. Wherefore the point to be here considered, as that which is now aimed
at, is this, that howsoever, even under the New Testament, the uncleanness
of those to whom the word of God is preached be tolerated, yet all such,
of what estate or condition soever in the church, as are defiled with
manifest and grievous scandals, and do thereby witness themselves to be
without the inward and spiritual communion with Christ and the faithful,
may and are to be altogether discharged from the communion of the Lord’s
supper until they repent and change their manners.

26. Besides, even those to whom it was permitted to go into the holy
courts of Israel, and to ingratiate themselves into ecclesiastical
communion, and who did stand between the court of Israel and the outer
wall, were not therefore to be kept back from hearing the word; for in
Solomon’s porch, and so in the _intermurale_ or court of the Gentiles, the
gospel was preached, both by Christ, John x. 23, and also by the apostles,
Acts iii. 11; v. 12, and that of purpose, because of the reason brought by
Pineda, _Of the things of Solomon_, book v. chap. 19, because a more
frequent multitude was there, and somewhat larger opportunity of sowing
the gospel: wherefore to any whomsoever, even heathen people meeting
there, the Lord would have the word to be preached, who, notwithstanding,
purging the temple, did not only overthrow the tables of money-changers,
and chairs of those that sold doves, but also cast forth the buyers and
sellers themselves, Matt. xxi. 12; for he could not endure either such
things or such persons in the temple.

27. Although, then, the gospel is to be preached to every creature, the
Lord in express words commanding the same, Mark xvi. 15, yet not to every
one is set open an access to the holy supper; it is granted that
hypocrites do lurk in the church, who hardly can be convicted and
discovered, much less repelled from the Lord’s supper; such therefore are
to be suffered, till by the fan of judgment the grain be separated from
the chaff; but those whose wicked deeds or words are known and made
manifest are altogether to be debarred from partaking those symbols of the
covenant of the gospel, lest that the name of God be greatly disgraced,
whilst sins are permitted to be spread abroad in the church unpunished; or
lest the stewards of Christ, by imparting the signs of the grace of God to
such as are continuing in the state of impurity and scandal, be partakers
of their sins. Hitherto of suspension.

28. Excommunication ought not to be proceeded unto except when extreme
necessity constraineth: but whensoever the soul of the sinner cannot
otherwise be healed, and that the safety of the church requireth the
cutting off of this or that member, it behoveth to use this last remedy.
In the church of Rome, indeed, excommunication hath been turned into
greatest injustice and tyranny (as the Pharisees abused the casting out of
the synagogues, which was their excommunication) to the fulfilling of the
lust of their own minds; yet the ordinance of Christ is not therefore by
any of the reformed religion to be utterly thrust away and wholly
rejected. What Protestant knows not that the vassals of Antichrist have
drawn the Lord’s supper into the worst and most pernicious abuses, as also
the ordination of ministers, and other ordinances of the gospel? Yet who
will say that things necessary (whether the necessity be that of command,
or that of the means or end) are to be taken away because of the abuse?

29. They, therefore, who with an high hand do persevere in their
wickedness, after foregoing admonitions stubbornly despised or carelessly
neglected, are justly, by excommunication in the name of the Lord Jesus
Christ, cut off and cast out from the society of the faithful, and are
pronounced to be cast out from the church, until being filled with shame
and cast down, they shall return again to a more sound mind, and by
confession of their sin and amendment of their lives, shall show tokens of
repentance, Matt, xviii. 16-18; 1 Cor. v. 13, which places are also
alleged in the Confession of Bohemia, art. 8, to prove that the
excommunication of the impenitent and stubborn, whose wickedness is known,
is commanded of the Lord: but if stubborn heretics or unclean persons be
not removed or cast out from the church, therein do the governors of the
church sin, and are found guilty, Rev. ii. 14, 20.

30. But that all abuse and corruption in ecclesiastical government may be
either prevented and avoided, or taken away, or lest the power of the
church, either by the ignorance or unskilfulness of some ministers here
and there, or also by too much heat and fervour of mind, should run out
beyond measure or bounds, or contrariwise, being shut up within straiter
limits than is fitting, should be made unprofitable, feeble, or of none
effect,—Christ, the most wise lawgiver of his church, hath foreseen and
made provision to prevent all such evils which he did foresee were to
arise, and hath prepared and prescribed for them intrinsical and
ecclesiastical remedies, and those also in their kind (if lawfully and
rightly applied) both sufficient and effectual: some whereof he hath most
expressly propounded in his word, and some he hath left to be drawn from
thence by necessary consequence.

31. Therefore, by reason of the danger of that which is called _clavis
errans_, or a wrong key; and that it may not be permitted to particular
churches to err or sin licentiously, and lest any man’s cause be
overthrown and perish, who in a particular church had perhaps the same men
both his adversaries and his judges; also that common business, which do
belong to many churches, together with the more weighty and difficult
controversies (the deciding whereof in the consistories of praticular
churches is not safe to be adventured upon) may be handled and determined
by a common council of presbyteries; finally, that the governors of
particular churches may impart help mutually one to another against the
cunning and subtile enemies of the truth, and may join their strength
together (such as it is) by an holy combination, and that the church may
be as a camp of an army well ordered, lest while every one striveth singly
all of them be subdued and overcome, or lest by reason of the scarcity of
prudent and godly counsellors (in the multitude of whom is safety) the
affairs of the church be undone: for all these considerations particular
churches must be subordinate to classical presbyteries and synods.

32. Wherefore it is not lawful to particular churches, or, as commonly
they are called, parochial, either to decline the authority of classes or
synods, where they are lawfully settled, or may be had (much less to
withdraw themselves from that authority, if they have once acknowledged
it), or to refuse such lawful ordinances or decrees of the classes or
synods as, being agreeable to the word of God, are with authority imposed
upon them. Acts xv. 2, 6, 22-24, 28, 29; xvi. 4.

33. Although synods assemble more seldom, classes and consistories of
particular churches more frequently, yet that synods, both provincial and
national, assemble at set and ordinary times, as well as classes and
parochial consistories, is very expedient, and for the due preservation of
church policy and discipline, necessary. Sometimes, indeed, it is
expedient they be assembled occasionally, that the urgent necessity of the
church may be the more speedily provided for, namely, when such a business
happeneth, which, without great danger, cannot be put off till the
appointed time of the synod.

34. But that, besides occasional synods, ordinary synods be kept at set
times, is most profitable, not only that they may discuss and determine
the more difficult ecclesiastical causes coming before them, whether by
the appeal of some person aggrieved, or by the hesitation or doubting of
inferior assemblies (for such businesses very often fall out), but also
that the state of the churches whereof they have the care, being more
certainly and frequently searched and known, if there be anything wanting
or amiss in their doctrine, discipline or manners, or anything worthy of
punishment, the slothful labourers in the vineyard of the Lord may be made
to shake off the spirit of slumber and slothfulness, and be stirred up to
the attending and fulfilling more diligently their calling, and not
suffered any longer to sleep and snore in their office; the stragglers and
wanderers may be reduced to the way; the untoward and stiff-necked, which
scarce, or very hardly, suffer the yoke of discipline, as also unquiet
persons, who devise new and hurtful things, may be reduced to order:
finally, whatsoever doth hinder the more quick and efficacious course of
the gospel may be discovered and removed.

35. It is too, too manifest (alas for it!) that there are those who with
unwearied diligence, do most carefully labour that they may oppress the
liberties and rights of synods, and may take away from them all liberty of
consulting of things and matters ecclesiastical, at least of determining
thereof (for they well know how much the union and harmony of churches may
make against their designs): but so much the more it concerneth the
orthodox churches to know, defend and preserve, this excellent liberty
granted to them by divine right, and so to use it, that imminent dangers,
approaching evils, urging grievances, scandals growing up, schisms rising,
heresies creeping in, errors spreading, and strifes waxing hot, may be
corrected and taken away, to the glory of God, and the edification and
peace of the church.

36. Beside provincial and national synods, an œcumenical (so called from
οἰκουμένη, that is from the habitable world,) or more truly, a general,
or, if you will, an universal synod, if so it lie free and rightly
constituted, and no other commissioners but orthodox churches be admitted
(for what communion is there of light with darkness, of righteousness with
unrighteousness, or of the temple of God with idols); such a synod is of
special utility, peradventure also such a synod is to be hoped for, surely
it is to be wished that, for defending the orthodox faith, both against
Popery and other heresies, as also for propagating it to those who are
without, especially the Jews, a more strait and more firm consociation may
be entered into. For the unanimity of all the churches, as in evil it is
of all things most hurtful, so on the contrary side, in good it is most
pleasant, most profitable, and most effectual.

37. Unto the universal synod also (when it may be had) is to be referred
the judgment of controversies, not of all, but of those which are
_controversiæ juris_, controversies of right; neither yet of all these,
but of the chief and most weighty controversies of the orthodox faith, or
of the most hard and unusual cases of conscience. Of the controversies of
fact there is another and different consideration to be had; for besides
that it would be a great inconvenience that plaintives, persons accused,
and witnesses, be drawn from the most remote churches to the general or
universal council, the visible communion itself of all the churches (on
which the universal council is built, and whereupon, as on a foundation,
it leaneth) is not so much of company, fellowship, or conversation, as of
religion and doctrine. All true churches of the world do indeed profess
the same true religion and faith, but there is beside this a certain
commixture and conjunction of the churches of the same nation, as to a
more near fellowship, and some acquaintance, conversing and companying
together, which cannot be said of all the churches throughout the
habitable world.

38. And for this cause, as in doctrinal controversies, which are handled
by theologists and casuists, and in those which belong to the common state
of the orthodox churches, the national synod is subordinate and subjected
to the universal lawfully-constituted synod, and from the national to the
oecumenical synod (when there is a just and weighty cause) an appeal is
open: so there is no need that the appeals of those who complain of injury
done to them through the exercise of discipline in this or that church,
should go beyond the bounds of the national synod; but it is most
agreeable to reason that they should rest and acquiesce within those
bounds and borders; and that the ultimate judgment of such mutters be in
the national synod, unless the thing itself be so hard and of so great
moment, that the knot be justly thought worthy of a greater decider; in
which case the controversy which is carried to the universal synod is
rather of an abstract general theological proposition than of the
particular or individual case.

39. Furthermore, the administration of the ecclesiastic power in
consistories, classes and synods, doth not at all tend to weaken in
anywise, hurt or diminish, the authority of the civil magistrate, much
less to take it away or destroy it; yea, rather, by it a most profitable
help cometh to the magistrate, forasmuch as by the bond of religion men’s
consciences are more straitly tied unto him. There has been, indeed,
fantastical men, who, under pretence and cloak of Christian liberty, would
abolish and cast out laws and judgments, orders also, degrees and honours,
out of the commonwealth, and have been bold to reckon the function of the
magistrate armed with the sword among evil things and unlawful: but the
reformed churches do renounce and detest these dreams, and do most
harmoniously and most willingly confess and acknowledge it to be God’s
will that the world be governed by laws and policy, and that he himself
hath appointed the civil magistrate, and hath delivered to him the sword
to the protection and praise of good men, but for punishment and revenge
on the evil, that by this bridle, men’s vices and faults may be
restrained, whether these are committed against the first or second table.

40. The reformed churches believe also, and openly confess, the power and
authority of emperors over their empires, of kings over their kingdoms, of
princes and dukes over their dominions, and of other magistrates or states
over their commonwealths and cities, to be the ordinances of God himself
appointed as well to the manifestation of his own glory, as to the
singular profit of mankind: and withal, that by reason of the will of God
himself, revealed in his word, we must not only suffer and be content that
those do rule which are set over their own territories, whether by
hereditary or by elective right, but also to love them, fear them, and
with all reverence and honour embrace them as the ambassadors and
ministers of the most high and good God, being in his stead, and preferred
for the good of their subjects, to pour out prayers for them, to pay
tributes to them, and in all business of the commonwealth which is not
against the word of God, to obey their laws and edicts.

41. The orthodox churches believe also, and do willingly acknowledge, that
every lawful magistrate, being by God himself constituted the keeper and
defender of both tables of the law, may and ought first and chiefly to
take care of God’s glory, and (according to his place, or in his manner
and way) to preserve religion when pure, and to restore it when decayed
and corrupted: and also to provide a learned and godly ministry, schools
also and synods, as likewise to restrain and punish as well atheists,
blasphemers, heretics and schismatics, as the violaters of justice and
civil peace.

42. Wherefore the opinion of those sectaries of this age is altogether to
be disallowed, who, though otherwise insinuating themselves craftily into
the magistrate’s favour, do deny unto him the authority and right of
restraining heretics and schismatics, and do hold and maintain that such
persons, how much soever hurtful and pernicious enemies to true religion
and to the church, yet are to be tolerated by the magistrate, if so be he
conceive them to be such as no way violate the laws of the commonwealth,
and in nowise disturb the civil peace.

43. Yet the civil power and the ecclesiastical ought not by any means to
be confounded or mixed together. Both powers are indeed from God, and
ordained for his glory, and both to be guided by his word, and both are
comprehended under that precept, “Honour thy father and thy mother,” so
that men ought to obey both civil magistrates and ecclesiastical governors
in the Lord; to both powers their proper dignity and authority is to be
maintained and preserved in force: to both also is some way intrusted the
keeping of both tables of the law, also both the one and the other doth
exercise some jurisdiction, and giveth sentence of judgment in an external
court or judicatory: but these and other things of like sort, in which
they agree notwithstanding, yet by marvellous vast differences are they
distinguished the one from the other, and the rights of both remain
distinct, and that eight manner of ways, which it shall not be amiss here
to add, that unto each of these administrations, its own set bounds may be
the better maintained.

44. _First_, therefore, they are differenced the one from the other, in
respect of the very foundation and the institution: for the political or
civil power is grounded upon the law of nature itself, and for that cause
it is common to infidels with Christians; the power ecclesiastical
dependeth immediately upon the positive law of Christ alone: that
belongeth to the universal dominion of God the Creator over all nations;
but this unto the special and economical kingdom of Christ the Mediator,
which he exerciseth in the church alone, and which is not of this world.

45. The _second_ difference is in the object, or matter about which: the
power politic or civil is occupied about the outward man, and civil or
earthly things,—about war, peace, conservation of justice, and good order
in the commonwealth; also about the outward business or external things of
the church, which are indeed necessary to the church, or profitable, as
touching the outward man, yet not properly and purely spiritual, for they
do not reach unto the soul, but only to the external state and condition
of the ministers and members of the church.

46. For the better understanding whereof it is to be observed, that so far
as the ministers and members of the church are citizens, subjects, or
members of the commonwealth, it is in the power of the magistrate to
judge, determine, and give sentence, concerning the disposing of their
bodies or goods; as also concerning the maintenance of the poor, the sick,
the banished, and of others in the church who are afflicted; to regulate
(so far as concerneth the civil order) marriages, burials, and other
circumstances which are common both to holy, and also to honest civil
societies; to afford places fit for holy assemblies, and other external
helps by which the sacred matters of the Lord may be more safely,
commodiously, and more easily in the church performed, to remove the
external impediments of divine worship or of ecclesiastical peace, and to
repress those who exalt themselves against the true church and her
ministers, and do raise up trouble against them.

47. The matter may further be thus illustrated, there is almost the like
respect and consideration of the magistrate as he is occupied about the
outward things of the church, and of the ecclesiastic ministry as it is
occupied about the inward or spiritual part of civil government, that is,
about those things which in the government of the commonwealth belong to
the conscience. It is one thing to govern the commonwealth, and to make
political and civil laws, another thing to interpret the word of God, and
out of it to show the magistrate his duty, to wit, how he ought to govern
the commonwealth, and in what manner he ought to use the sword. The former
is proper and peculiar to the magistrate (neither doth the ministry
intermeddle or entangle itself into such businesses), but the latter is
contained within the office of the ministers.

48. For to that end also in the holy Scripture profitable, to show which
is the best manner of governing a commonwealth, and that the magistrate,
as being God’s minister, may by this guiding star be so directed, as that
he may execute the parts of his office according to the will of God, and
may perfectly be instructed to every good work; yet the minister is not
said properly to treat of civil businesses, but of the scandals which
arise about them, or in the cases of conscience which occur in the
administration of the commonwealth, so also the magistrate is not properly
said to be exercised about the spiritual things of the church, but rather
about those external things which adhere unto and accompany the spiritual
things.

49. And in such external matters of the church, although all magistrates
will not, yet all, yea even heathen magistrates, may and ought to aid and
help the church: whence it is that by the command of God prayers are to be
made also for an heathen magistrate, that the faithful under them may live
a quiet life, with all godliness and honesty, 1 Tim. ii. 1, 2.

50. Unto the external things of the church belongeth, not only the
correction of heretics and other troublers of the church, but also that
civil order and way of convocating and calling together synods which is
proper to the magistrate; for the magistrate ought by his authority and
power both to establish the rights and liberties of synods assembling
together at times appointed by the known and received law, and to indict
and gather together synods occasionally, as often as the necessity of the
church shall require the same. Not that all or any power to consult or
determine of ecclesiastic or spiritual matters doth flow or spring from
the magistrate as head of the church under Christ, but because in those
things pertaining to the outward man, the church needeth the magistrate’s
aid and support.

51. So that the magistrate calleth together synods, not as touching those
things which are proper to synods, but in respect of the things which are
common to synods with other meetings and civil public assemblies, that is,
not as they are assemblies in the name of Christ, to treat of matters
spiritual, but as they are public assemblies within his territories; for
to the end that public conventions may be kept in any territory, the
license of the lord of that place ought to be desired. In synods,
therefore, a respect of order, as well civil as ecclesiastical, is to be
had; and because of this civil order, outward defence, better
accommodation, together with safe access and recess, the consent and
commandment of him who is appointed to take care of, and defend human
order, doth intervene.

52. Moreover, when the church is rent asunder by unhappy and lamentable
schisms, while they who have raised the troubles, and given cause for the
solemn gathering of a synod (whether by their heresy, or schism, or
tyranny, or any other fault of others), use to place the great strength
and safeguard of their cause in declining and fleeing the trial and
sentence of a free synod as being formidable to them, who seeth not that
they cannot be drawn to a public and judicial trial, nor other disobedient
persons be compelled to obedience, without the magistrate’s public mandate
and help.

53. The object of ecclesiastical power is not the same with the object of
the civil power, but much differing from it; for the ecclesiastical power
doth determine and appoint nothing concerning men’s bodies, goods,
dignities, civil rights, but is employed only about the inward man or the
soul; not that it can search the hearts or judge of the secrets of the
conscience, which is in the power of God alone: yet notwithstanding it
hath for its proper object those externals which are purely spiritual, and
do belong properly and most nearly to the spiritual good of the soul;
which also are termed τὰ εἴσα τῆς ἐκκλησίας, _the inward things of the
church_.

54. Those things, then, wherein the ecclesiastical power is exercised, are
the preaching of the word, the administration of sacraments, public prayer
and thanksgiving, the catechising and instructing of children and ignorant
persons, the examination of those who are to come to the holy communion,
the ecclesiastical discipline, the ordination of ministers, and the
abdication, deposing, and degrading of them (if they become like unsavoury
salt), the deciding and determining of controversies of faith and cases of
conscience, canonical constitutions concerning the treasury of the church
and collections of the faithful, as also concerning ecclesiastical rites
or indifferent things which pertain to the keeping of decency and order in
the church, according to the general rules of Christian love and prudence
contained in the word of God.

55. It is true that about the same things the civil power is occupied, as
touching the outward man, or the outward disposing of divine things in
this or that dominion, as was said, not as they are spiritual and
evangelical ordinances piercing into the conscience itself, but the object
of the power ecclesiastical is a thing merely and purely spiritual; and in
so far as it is spiritual (for even that jurisdiction ecclesiastical which
is exercised in an outward court or judicatory, and which inflicteth
public censures, forbiddeth from the use of the holy supper, and excludeth
from the society of the church) doth properly concern the inward man, or
the repentance and salvation of the soul.

56. Surely the faithful and godly ministers, although they could do it
unchallenged and uncontrolled, and were therein allowed by the magistrate
(as in the prelatical times it was) yet would not usurp the power of life
and death, or judge and determine concerning men’s honours, goods,
inheritance, division of families, or other civil businesses, seeing they
well know these things to be heterogeneous to their office; but as they
ought not to entangle themselves with the judging of civil causes, so if
they should be negligent and slothful in their own office, they shall in
that be no less culpable.

57. To the object also of ecclesiastical power belongeth the assembling of
synods, so far as they are spiritual assemblies proper to the church, and
assembled in the Holy Ghost; for being so considered, the governors of
churches, after the example of the apostles and presbyters, Acts xv., in a
manifest danger of the church, ought to use their own right of meeting
together and convening, that the churches endangered may be relieved and
supported.

58. _Thirdly_, These powers are differenced in respect of their forms, and
that three ways: for, first, the civil power, although in respect of God
it be ministerial, yet in respect of the subjects it is lordly and
magisterial. Ecclesiastical power is indeed furnished with authority, yet
that authority is liker the fatherly than the kingly authority; yea also
it is purely ministerial, much less can it be lawful to ministers of the
church to bear dominion over the flock.

59. Emperors, kings, and other magistrates are indeed appointed fathers of
the country, but they are withal lords of their people and subjects: not
as if it were permitted to them to bear rule and command at their own will
and as they list (for they are the ministers of God for the good and
profit of the subjects), yet it belongs to their power truly and properly
to exercise dominion, to hold principality, to proceed imperiously. It is
indeed the duty of ministers and rulers of the church to oversee, to feed
as shepherds, to correct and rectify, to bear the keys, to be stewards in
the house of Christ, but in nowise to be lords over the house, or to
govern as lords, or lord-like to rule; yea, in brief, this is the
difference between the civil magistrate and the ecclesiastical ministry,
in respect of those who are committed to their trust, that the lot of the
former is to be served or ministered unto, the lot of the latter to
minister or serve.

60. Now we have one only Lord who governs our souls, neither is it
competent to man, but to God alone, to have power and authority over
consciences. But the Lord hath appointed his own stewards over his own
family, that according to his commandment they may give to every one their
allowance or portion, and to dispense his mysteries faithfully; and to
them he hath delivered the keys, or power of letting into his house, or
excluding out of his house those whom he himself will have let in or shut
out. Matt. xvi. 19; and xviii. 18; Luke xii. 42; 1 Cor. iv. 1; Tit. i. 7.

61. Next, the civil power is endued with authority of compelling; but it
belongs not to the ministry to compel the disobedient. If any compulsion
be in or about ecclesiastical matters, it is adventitious from without, to
wit, from the help and assistance of the magistrate, not from the nature
of ecclesiastical power, from which it is very heterogeneous; and,
therefore, if any suspended or excommunicate person should be found who
shall be so stiff-necked, and so impudent, that at once he cast off all
shame, and make no account at all of those censures, but scorn and contemn
the same, or peradventure shall insolently or proudly obtrude himself upon
the sacrament, or being also filled with devilish malice do more and more
contradict and blaspheme, the ecclesiastical ministry in such cases hath
nothing more to do by way of jurisdiction: but the magistrate hath in
readiness a compelling jurisdiction and external force, whereby such
stubborn, rebellious, and undaunted pride may be externally repressed.

62. Last of all, the power of the magistrate worketh only politically or
civilly, according to the nature of the sceptre or sword, maketh and
guardeth civil laws, which sometimes also he changeth or repealeth, and
other things of that kind he effecteth with a secular power: but the
ecclesiastical power dealeth spiritually, and only in the name of our Lord
Jesus Christ, and by authority intrusted or received from him alone:
neither is exercised without prayer or calling on the name of God; nor,
lastly, doth it use any other than spiritual weapons.

63. The same sin, therefore, in the same man may be punished one way by
the civil, another way by the ecclesiastical power; by the civil power
under the formality of a crime, with corporal or pecuniary punishment, by
the ecclesiastical power, under the notion and nature of scandal, with a
spiritual censure, even as also the same civil question is one way
deliberate upon and handled by the magistrate in the senate or place of
judgment, another way by the minister of the church, in the presbytery or
synod; by the magistrate, so far as it pertaineth to the government of the
commonwealth, by the minister, as far as it respects the conscience; for
the ecclesiastical ministry also is exercised about civil things
spiritually, in so far as it teacheth and admonisheth the magistrate out
of the word of God what is best and most acceptable unto God; or as it
reproveth freely unjust judgments, unjust wars, and the like, and out of
the Scripture threateneth the wrath of God to be revealed against all
unrighteousness of men: so also is the magistrate said to be occupied
civilly about spiritual things.

64. Therefore all the actions of the civil magistrate, even when he is
employed about ecclesiastical matters, are of their own nature and
essentially civil, he punisheth externally idolaters, blasphemers,
sacrilegious persons, heretics, profaners of holy things, and according to
the nature and measure of the sin he condemneth to death or banishment,
forfeiture of goods, or imprisonment; he guardeth and underproppeth
ecclesiastical canons with civil authority, giveth a place of habitation
to the church in his territory, restraineth or expelleth the insolent and
untamed disturbers of the church.

65. He taketh care also for maintaining the ministers and schools, and
supplieth the temporal necessities of God’s servants; by his command
assembleth synods, when there is need of them; and summoneth, calleth out,
and draws to trial the unwilling, which without the magistrate’s strength
and authority cannot be done, as hath been already said; he maketh synods
also safe and secure, and in a civil way presideth or moderateth in them
(if it seem so good to him) either by himself or by a substitute
commissioner: in all which the power of the magistrate, though occupied
about spiritual things, is not for all that spiritual, but civil.

66. _Fourthly_, They differ in the end. The immediate nearest end of civil
power is, that the good of the commonwealth may be provided for and
procured, whether it be, in time of peace, according to the rules of law
and counsel of judges, or in time of war, according to the rules of
military prudence, and so the temporal safety of the subjects may be
procured, and that external peace and civil liberty may be preserved, and,
being lost, may be again restored.

67. But the chiefest and last end of civil government is, the glory of God
the Creator, namely, that those who do evil, being by a superior power
restrained or punished, and those who do good getting praise of the same,
the subjects so much the more may shun impiety and injustice, and that
virtue, justice, and the moral law of God (as touching those eternal
duties of both tables, unto which all the posterity of Adam are obliged)
may remain in strength and flourish.

68. But whereas the Christian magistrate doth wholly devote himself to the
promoting of the gospel and kingdom of Christ, and doth direct and bend
all the might and strength of his authority to that end: this proceedeth
not from the nature of his office or function, which is common to him with
an infidel magistrate, but from the influence of his common Christian
calling into his particular vocation.

69. For every member of the church (and so also the faithful and godly
magistrate) ought to refer and order his particular vocation, faculty,
ability, power and honour, to this end, that the kingdom of Christ may be
propagated and promoted, and the true religion be cherished and defended:
so that the advancement of the gospel, and of all the ordinances of the
gospel, is indeed the end of the godly magistrate, not of a magistrate
simply: or (if ye will rather) it is not the end of the office itself, but
of him who doth execute the same piously.

70. But the end of ecclesiastical power, yea, the end as well of the
ministry itself as of the godly minister, is, that the kingdom of Christ
may be set forward; that the paths of the Lord be made straight; that his
holy mysteries may be kept pure; that stumblingblocks may be removed out
of the church, lest a little leaven leaven the whole lump, or lest one
sick or scabbed sheep infect the whole flock; that the faithful may so
walk as it becometh the gospel of Christ, and that the wandering sheep of
Christ may be converted and brought back to the sheepfold.

71. And seeing this power is given of the Lord not to destruction but to
edification, therefore this same scope is propounded in excommunication
(which is the greatest and last of ecclesiastical censures), namely, that
the soul of an offending brother may be gained to Christ, and that, being
stricken with fear, and the stubborn sinner filled with shame, may by the
grace of God be humbled, and may (as a brand plucked out of the fire) be
snatched out of the snare of the devil, and may repent unto salvation; at
least the rest may turn away from those which are branded with such a
censure, lest the soul-infection do creep and spread further.

72. _Fifthly_, They are distinguished by the effect. The effect of civil
power is either proper, or by way of redundance. The proper effect is the
safety temporal of the commonwealth, external tranquillity, the fruition
of civil liberty, and of all things which are necessary to the civil
society of men: the effect by way of redundance is the good of the church,
to wit, in so far as, by execution of justice and good laws, some
impediments that usually hinder and disturb the course of the gospel, are
avoided or taken away.

73. For by how much the more faithfully the magistrate executeth his
office in punishing the wicked, and cherishing and encouraging good men,
taking away those things which withstand the gospel, and punishing or
driving away the troublers and subverters of the church,—so much the more
the orthodox faith and godliness are reverenced and had in
estimation,—sins are hated and feared. Finally, All the subjects contained
(as much as concerneth the outward man) within the lists of God’s law,
whence, also, by consequence, it happeneth, by God’s blessing, that the
church is defiled with fewer scandals, and doth obtain the more freedom
and peace.

74. But the proper effect of the ecclesiastical power, or keys of the
kingdom of heaven is wholly spiritual; for the act of binding and loosing,
of retaining and remitting sins, doth reach to the soul and conscience
itself (which cannot be said of the act of the civil power): and as unjust
excommunication is void, so ecclesiastical censure, being inflicted by the
ministers of Christ and his stewards according to his will, is ratified in
heaven (Matt, xviii. 18), and therefore ought to be esteemed and
acknowledged in like manner as inflicted by Christ himself.

75. _Sixthly_, They are also differenced in respect of the subjects. The
politic power is committed sometimes to one, sometimes to more, sometime
by right of election, sometime by right of succession; but the
ecclesiastical power is competent to none under the New Testament by the
right of succession, but he who hath it must be called by God and the
church to it; neither was it given by Christ to one, either pastor or
elder, much less to a prelate, but _to the church_, that is, to the
consistory of presbyters. It is confessed, indeed, and who can be ignorant
of it, that the power, as they call it, of order, doth belong to
particular ministers, and is by each of them apart lawfully exercised. But
that power which is commonly called of jurisdiction is committed not to
one, but to the unity, that is, to a consistory; therefore ecclesiastical
censure ought not to be inflicted but “by many,” 2 Cor. ii. 6.

76. _Seventhly_, They differ as touching the correlative. God hath
commanded, that unto the civil power every soul, or all members of the
commonwealth, of what condition and estate soever, be subject; for what
have we to do with the Papists, who will have them whom they call the
clergy or ecclesiastical persons, to be free from the yoke of the civil
magistrate? The ecclesiastical power extends itself to none other subjects
than unto those which are called brethren, or members of the church.

77. _Eighthly_, There remaineth another difference in respect of the
distinct and divided exercise of authority, for either power ceasing from
its duty, or remitting punishment, that doth not (surely it ought not)
prejudice the exercise of the other power, namely, if the magistrate cease
to do his duty, or do neglect to punish, with secular punishment, those
malefactors who, by profession, are church members nevertheless, it is in
the power of the governors of the church, by the bridle of ecclesiastical
discipline, to curb such men; yea also, by virtue of their office, they
are bound to do it, and on the other part, the magistrate may and ought to
punish in life and limb, honours or goods, notwithstanding of the
offender’s repentance or reconciliation with the church.

78. Therefore, the one sword being put up in the scabbard, it is free, and
often necessary, to draw the other. Neither power is bound to cast out or
receive him whom the other doth cast forth or receive the reason whereof
is, because the ecclesiastical ministry doth chiefly respect the
repentance to salvation, and gaining of the sinner’s soul, wherefore it
also embraceth all kinds of wicked men repenting, and receiveth them into
the bosom of the church; the magistrate proposeth to himself another and
much differing scope, for even repenting offenders are by him punished,
both that justice and the laws may be satisfied, as also to terrify
others,—hence it is that absolution from ecclesiastic censure freeth not
at all the delinquent from civil judgment and the external sword.

79. Seeing, then, there are so many and so great differences of both
offices, and seeing also that the function of ministers and elders of the
church is not at all contained in the office of the magistrate, neither,
on the other part, is this comprehended within that, magistrates shall no
less sin in usurping ecclesiastical power, ministering holy things,
ordaining ministers, or exercising discipline ecclesiastical, than
ministers should sin in rushing into the borders of the magistrate, and in
thrusting themselves into his calling.

80. Neither are those powers more mingled one with another, or less
distinguished, where the magistrate is a Christian than where he is an
infidel, for as in a believing father, and in an infidel father, the
rights of a father are the same, so in a Christian magistrate, and in an
infidel magistrate, the rights of magistrates are the same; so that to the
magistrate converted to the Christian faith there is no accession of new
right, or increase of civil power, although being endued with true faith
and piety, he is made more fit and willing to the undergoing of his office
and the doing of his duty.

81. So, then, the word of God and the law of Christ, which by so evident
difference separateth and distinguisheth ecclesiastical government from
the civil, forbiddeth the Christian magistrate to enter upon or usurp the
ministry of the word and sacraments, or the judicial dispensing of the
keys of the kingdom of heaven, to invade the church government, or to
challenge to himself the right of both swords, spiritual and corporal; but
if any magistrate (which God forbid) should dare to arrogate to himself so
much, and to enlarge his skirts so far, the church shall then straightway
be constrained to complain justly, and cry out, that though the Pope is
changed, yet popedom remaineth still.

82. It is unlawful, moreover, to a Christian magistrate to withstand the
practice and execution of ecclesiastical discipline (whether it be that
which belongs to a particular church, or the matter be carried to a class
or synod). Now the magistrate withstandeth the ecclesiastic discipline,
either by prohibitions and unjust laws, or, by his evil example, stirring
up and inciting others to the contempt thereof, or to the trampling it
under foot.

83. Surely the Christian magistrate (if at any time he give any grievous
scandal to the church), seeing he also is a member of the church, ought
nowise disdain to submit himself to the power of the keys; neither is this
to be marvelled at, for even as the office of the minister of the church
is nowise subordinate and subjected to the civil power, but the person of
the minister, as he is a member of the commonwealth, is subject thereto,
so the civil power itself, or the magistrate, as a magistrate, is not
subjected to ecclesiastical power; yet that man, who is a magistrate,
ought (as he is a member of the church) to be under the church’s censure
of his manners, after the example of the emperor Theodosius, unless he
will despise and set at nought ecclesiastical discipline, and indulge the
swelling pride of the flesh.

84. If any man should again object that the magistrate is not indeed to
resist ecclesiastical government, yet that the abuses thereof are to be
corrected and taken away by him, the answer is ready. In the worst and
most troublesome times, or in the decayed and troubled estate of things,
when the ordinance of God in the church is violently turned into tyranny,
to the treading down of true religion, and to the oppressing of the
professors thereof, and when nothing almost is sound or whole, divers
things are yielded to be lawful to godly magistrates, which are not
ordinarily lawful for them, that so to extraordinary diseases
extraordinary remedies may be applied. So also the magistrate abusing his
power unto tyranny, and making havoc of all, it is lawful to resist him by
some extraordinary ways and means, which are not ordinarily to be allowed.

85. Yet ordinarily, and by common or known law and right in settled
churches, if any man have recourse to the magistrate to complain, that,
through abuse of ecclesiastical discipline, injury is done to him, or if
any sentence of the pastors and elders of the church, whether concerning
faith or discipline, do displease or seem unjust unto the magistrate
himself, it is not for that cause lawful to draw those ecclesiastical
causes to a civil tribunal, or to bring in a kind of political or civil
popedom.

86. What then? Shall it be lawful ordinarily for ministers and elders to
do what they list? Or shall the governors in the churches, glorying in the
law, by their transgression dishonour God? God forbid. For first, if they
shall trespass in anything against the magistrate or municipal laws,
whether by intermeddling in judging of civil causes, or otherwise
disturbing the peace and order of the commonwealth, they are liable to
civil trial and judgments, and it is in the power of the magistrate to
restrain and punish them.

87. Again, it hath been before showed, that to ecclesiastical evils
ecclesiastical remedies are appointed and fitted, for the church is, no
less than the commonwealth, through the grace of God, sufficient to itself
in reference unto her own end, and as in the commonwealth, so in the
church, the error of inferior judgments and assemblies, or their evil
government, is to be corrected by superior judgments and assemblies, and
so still by them of the same order, lest one order be confounded with
another, or one government be intermingled with another government. What
shall now the adversaries of ecclesiastical power object here, which those
who admit not the yoke of the magistrate may not be ready, in like manner,
to transfer against the civil judicatories and government of the
commonwealth, seeing it happeneth sometimes that the commonwealth is no
less ill governed than the church?

88. If any man shall prosecute the argument, and say that yet no remedy is
here showed which may be applied to the injustice or error of a national
synod, surely he stumbleth against the same stone, seeing he weigheth not
the matter with an equal balance, for the same may, in like sort, fall
back and be cast upon parliaments, or any supreme senate of a
commonwealth, for who seeth not the judgment of the supreme civil senate
to be nothing more infallible, yea, also, in matters of faith and
ecclesiastical discipline, more apt and prone to error (as being less
accustomed to sacred studies) than the judgment of the national synod?
What medicines then, or what sovereign plasters shall be had, which may be
fit for the curing and healing of the errors and miscarriages of the
supreme magistrates and senate? The very like, and beside all this, other
and more effectual medicines by which the errors of national synods may be
healed, are possible to be had.

89. There wanteth not a divine medicine and sovereign balm in Gilead, for
although the popish opinion of the infallibility of counsels be worthily
rejected and exploded, yet it is not in vain that Christ hath promised he
shall be present with an assembly which indeed and in truth meeteth in his
name with such an assembly verily he useth to be present, by a spiritual
aid and assistance of his own Spirit, to uphold the falling, or to raise
up the fallen. Whence it is that divers times the errors of former synods
are discovered and amended by the latter; sometimes, also, the second or
afterthoughts of one and the same synod are the wiser and the better.

90. Furthermore, the line of ecclesiastical subordination is longer and
further stretched than the line of civil subordination; for a national
synod must be subordinate and subject to an universal synod in the manner
aforesaid, whereas yet there is no oecumenical parliament or general civil
court acknowledged, unto which the supreme civil senate in this or that
nation should be subject. Finally, neither is the church altogether
destitute of nearer remedies whether an universal council may be had or
not.

91. For the national synod ought to declare, and that with greatest
reverence, to the magistrate, the grounds of their sentence, and the
reasons of their proceedings, when he demandeth or inquireth into the
same, and desireth to be satisfied; but if the magistrate nevertheless do
dissent, or cannot, by contrary reasons (which may be brought, if he
please), move the synod to alter their judgment, yet may he require and
procure that the matter be again debated and canvassed in another national
synod, and so the reasons of both sides being thoroughly weighed, may be
lawfully determined in an ecclesiastical way.

92. But as there is much indeed to be given to the demand of the
magistrate, so is there here a twofold caution to be used, for, first,
notwithstanding of a future revision, it is necessary that the former
sentence of the synod, whether concerning the administration of
ecclesiastical discipline, or against any heresy, be forthwith put in
execution, lest by lingering, and making of delays, the evil of the church
take deeper root, and the gangrene spread and creep further; and lest
violence be done to the consciences of ministers, if they be constrained
to impart the signs and seals of the covenant of grace to dogs and swine,
that is, to unclean persons, wallowing in the mire of ungodliness; and
lest subtile men abuse such interims or intervals, so as that
ecclesiastical discipline altogether decay, and the very decrees of synods
be accounted as cobwebs, which none feareth to break down.

93. Next it may be granted that the matter may be put under a further
examination, yet upon condition, that when it is come to the revision of
the former sentence, regard may be had of the weaker which are found
willing to be taught, though they doubt; but that unto the wicked and
contentious tempters, which do mainly strive to oppress our liberty which
we have in Christ, and to bring us into bondage, we do not for a moment
give place by subjecting ourselves; for what else seek they or wait for,
than that, under the pretence of a revising and of new debate, they cast
in lets and impediments ever and anon, and that by cunning lyings in wait
they may betray the liberty of the church, and in process of time may, by
open violence, more forcibly break in upon it, or at least constrain the
ministers of the church to weave Penelope’s web, which they can never
bring to an end.

94. Moreover, the Christian magistrate hath then only discharged his
office in reference to ecclesiastical discipline, when not only he
withdraweth nothing from it, and maketh no impediment to it, but also
affordeth special furtherance and help to it, according to the prophecy,
Isa. xlix. 23, “And kings shall be thy nursing-fathers, and their queens
thy nursing-mothers.”

95. For Christian magistrates and princes, embracing Christ, and sincerely
giving their names to him, do not only serve him as men, but also use
their office to his glory and the good of the church; they defend, stand
for, and take care to propagate the true faith and godliness,—they afford
places of habitation to the church, and furnish necessary helps and
supports,—turn away injuries done to it,—restrain false religion,—and
cherish, underprop, and defend the rights and liberties of the church: so
far they are from diminishing, changing or restraining those rights; for
so the condition of the church were in that respect worse, and the liberty
thereof more cut short, under the Christian magistrate, than under the
infidel or heathen.

96. Wherefore seeing these nursing-fathers, favourers, and defenders, can
do nothing against the truth, but for the truth, nor have any right
against the gospel, but for the gospel; and their power, in respect of the
church whereof they bear the care, being not privative or destructive, but
cumulative and auxiliary, thereby it is sufficiently clear that they ought
to cherish, and by their authority ought to establish the ecclesiastical
discipline; but yet not with implicit faith, or blind obedience; for the
reformed churches do not deny to any of the faithful, much less to the
magistrate, the judgment of Christian prudence and discretion concerning
those things which are decreed or determined by the church.

97. Therefore, as to each member of the church respectively, so unto the
magistrate belongeth the judgment of such things, both to apprehend and to
judge of them; for although the magistrate is not ordained and preferred
of God, that he should be a judge of matters and causes spiritual, of
which there is controversy in the church, yet is he questionless judge of
his own civil act about spiritual things; namely, of defending them in his
own dominions, and of approving or tolerating the same; and if, in this
business, he judge and determine according to the wisdom of the flesh, and
not according to the wisdom which is from above, he is to render an
account thereof before the supreme tribunal.

98. However, the ecclesiastical discipline, according as it is ordained by
Christ, whether it be established and ratified by civil authority or not,
ought to be retained and exercised in the society of the faithful (as long
as it is free and safe for them to come together in holy assemblies), for
the want of civil authority is unto the church like a ceasing gain, but
not like damage or loss ensuing; as it superaddeth nothing more, so it
takes nothing away.

99. If it further happen (which God forbid) that the magistrate do so far
abuse his authority, that he doth straitly forbid what Christ hath
ordained, yet the constant and faithful servants of Christ will resolve
and determine with themselves, that any extremities are rather to be
undergone than that they should obey such things, and that we ought to
obey God rather than men; yea, they will not leave off to perform all the
parts of their office, being ready in the meantime to render a reason of
their practice to every one that demandeth it, but specially unto the
magistrate (as was said before).

100. These things are not to that end and purpose proposed, that these
functions should be opposed one against another, in a hostile posture, or
in terms of enmity, than which nothing is more hurtful to the church and
commonwealth, nothing more execrable to them who are truly and sincerely
zealous for the house of God (for they have not so learned Christ); but
the aim is, first, and above all, that unto the King of kings and Lord of
lords, Jesus Christ, the only monarch of the church, his own prerogative
royal (of which also himself in the world was accused, and for his
witnessing a good confession thereof before Pontius Pilate, was unjustly
condemned to death) may be fully maintained and defended.

101. Next, this debate tendeth also to this end, that the power, as well
of ecclesiastical censure as of the civil sword, being in force, the
licentiousness of carnal men, who desire that there be too slack
ecclesiastical discipline, or none at all, may be bridled, and so men may
sin less, and may live more agreeably to the gospel. Another thing here
intended is, that errors on both sides being overthrown (as well the error
of those who, under a fair pretence of maintaining and defending the
rights of magistracy, do leave to the church either no power, or that
which is too weak, as the error of others, who, under the veil of a
certain suppositious and imaginary Christian liberty, do turn off the yoke
of the magistrate) both powers may enjoy their own privileges; add hereto,
that both powers being circumscribed with their distinct borders and
bounds, and also the one underpropped and strengthened by the help of the
other, a holy concord between them may be nourished, and they may mutually
and friendly embrace one another.

102. Last of all, seeing there are not wanting some unhappy men, who cease
not to pervert the right ways of the Lord, and with all diligence go about
to shake off the yoke of the ecclesiastical discipline where now it is
about to be introduced, yea, also where it hath been long ago established,
and as yet happily remaineth in force, it was necessary to obviate their
most wicked purposes; which things being so, let all which hath been said
pass, with the good leave and liking of those orthodox churches in which
the discipline of excommunication is not as yet in use; neither can any
offence easily arise to them from hence, yea (if the best conjecture do
not deceive), they cannot but rejoice and congratulate at the defence and
vindication of this discipline.

103. For those churches do not deny, but acknowledge and teach, that the
discipline of excommunication is most agreeable to the word of God, as
also that it ought to be restored and exercised; which also, heretofore,
the most learned Zachary Ursine, in the declaration of his judgment
concerning excommunication, exhibited to Prince Frederick, the third count
elector palatine, the title whereof is, _Judicium de Disciplina
Ecclesiastica et Excommunicatione, &c._

104. For thus he: “In other churches where either no excommunication is in
use, or it is not lawfully administered, and nevertheless, without all
controversy, it is confessed and openly taught, that it ought justly to be
received and be of force in the church.” And a little after: “Lest also
your Highness, by this new opinion, do sever yourself and your churches
from all other churches, as well those which have not excommunication as
those which have it; forasmuch as all of them do unanimously confess, and
always confessed, that there is reason why it ought to be in use.”

105. To the same purpose it tendeth which the highly esteemed Philip
Melancthon, in his _Common Places_, chap. _Of civil magistrates_, doth
affirm: “Before (saith he) I warned that civil places and powers are to be
distinguished from the adhering confusions which arise from other causes,
partly from the malice of the devil, partly from the malice of men, partly
from the common infirmity of men, as it cometh to pass in other kinds of
life and government ordained of God. No man doubteth that ecclesiastical
government is ordained of God, and yet how many and great disorders grow
in it from other causes.” Where he mentioneth a church government distinct
from the civil, and that _jure divino_, as a thing uncontroverted.

106. Neither were the wishes of the chief divines of Zurich and Berne
wanting for the recalling and restoring of the discipline of
excommunication. So Bullinger, upon 1 Cor. v.: “And hitherto (saith he) of
the ecclesiastical chastising of wickedness; but here I would have the
brethren diligently warned, that they watch, and with all diligence take
care that this wholesome medicine, thrown out of the true church, by
occasion of the Pope’s avarice, may be reduced; that is, that scandalous
sins be punished; for this is the very end of excommunication, that men’s
manners may be well ordered, and the saints flourish, the profane being
restrained, lest wicked men, by their impudence and impiety, increase and
undo all. It is our part, O brethren, with greatest diligence, to take
care of those things; for we see that Paul, in this place, doth stir up
those that were negligent in this business.”

107. Aretius agreeth hereunto. _Problem. Theolog._, loc. 33: “Magistrates
do not admit the yoke; they are afraid for their honours; they love
licentiousness,” &c. “The common people are too dissolute; the greatest
part is most corrupt,” &c. “In the meanwhile, I willingly confess that we
are not to despair, but the age following will peradventure yield more
tractable spirits, more mild hearts than our times have.” See also Lavater
agreeing in this, homil. 52, on Nehemiah: “Because the popes of Rome have
abused excommunication, for the establishing of their own tyranny, it
cometh to pass that almost no just discipline can be any more settled in
the church; but unless the wicked be restrained, all things must of
necessity run into the worst condition.” See, besides, the opinion of
Fabritius upon Psal. cxlix. 6-9, of spiritual corrections, which he
groundeth upon that text compared with Matt. xvi. 19; xviii. 18; John xx.
23.

108. It can hardly be doubted or called in question, but besides these,
other learned and godly divines of those churches were and are of the same
mind herein with those now cited; and, indeed, the very Confession of
Faith of the churches of Helvetia, chap. 18, may be an evidence hereof:
“But there ought to be, in the meantime, a just discipline amongst
ministers, for the doctrine and life of ministers is diligently to be
inquired of in synods: those that sin are to be rebuked of the elders, and
to be brought again into the way, if they be curable; or to be deposed,
and, like wolves, driven away from the flock of the Lord, if they be
incurable.” That this manner of synodical censure, namely, of deposing
ministers from their office for some great scandal, is used in the
republic of Zurich, Lavater is witness, in his book of the rites and
ordinances of the church of Zurich, chap. 23. Surely they could not be of
that mind, that ecclesiastical discipline ought to be exercised upon
delinquent ministers only, and not also upon other rotten members of the
church.

109. Yea, the Helvetian Confession, in the place now cited, doth so tax
the inordinate zeal of the Donatists and Anabaptists (which are so bent
upon the rooting out of the tares out of the Lord’s field, that they take
not heed of the danger of plucking up the wheat) that withal it doth not
obscurely commend the ecclesiastical forensical discipline as distinct
from the civil power; “And seeing (say they) it is altogether necessary
that there be in the church a discipline; and among the ancients, in times
past, excommunication hath been usual, and ecclesiastical courts have been
among the people of God, among whom this discipline was exercised by
prudent and godly men. It belongeth also to ministers, according to the
case of the times, the public estate and necessity to moderate this
discipline,—where this rule is ever to be held, that all ought to be done
to edification, decently, honestly, without tyranny and sedition. The
Apostle also witnesseth (2 Cor. xiii.), that to himself was given of God a
power unto edification, and not unto destruction.”

110. And, now, what resteth but that God be entreated with continual and
ardent prayers, both that he would put into the hearts of all magistrates,
zeal and care to cherish, defend, and guard the ecclesiastical discipline,
together with the rest of Christ’s ordinances, and to stop their ears
against the importunate suits of whatsoever claw-backs who would stir them
up against the church; and that, also, all governors and rulers of
churches, being everywhere furnished and helped with the strength of the
Holy Spirit, may diligently and faithfully execute this part also of their
function, as it becometh the trusty servants of Christ, who study to
please their own Lord and Master more than men.

111. Finally, All those who are more averse from ecclesiastical
discipline, or ill-affected against it, are to be admonished and
entreated, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that they be no longer entangled
and inveigled with carnal prejudice, to give place in this thing to human
affections, and to measure by their own corrupt reason spiritual
discipline, but that they do seriously think with themselves, and consider
in their minds, how much better it were that the lusts of the flesh were,
as with a bridle, tamed; and that the repentance, amendment, and gaining
of vicious men unto salvation may be sought, than that sinners be left to
their own disposition, and be permitted to follow their own lusts without
controlment, and by their evil example to draw others headlong into ruin
with themselves; and seeing either the keys of discipline must take no
rust, or the manners of Christians will certainly contract much rust: what
is here to be chosen, and what is to be shunned, let the wise and godly,
who alone take to heart the safety of the church, judge.

THE END.

A SERMON PREACHED BEFORE THE HONOURABLE HOUSE OF COMMONS AT THEIR LATE
SOLEMN FAST

SERMON

PREACHED BEFORE

THE HONOURABLE HOUSE OF COMMONS

AT THEIR LATE SOLEMN FAST,

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 27, 1644.

BY GEORGE GILLESPIE,

MINISTER AT EDINBURGH, 1642.

“When the Lord shall build up Zion, he shall appear in his glory”—Psal.
cii. 16.

EDINBURGH:

ROBERT OGLE AND OLIVER AND BOYD.

M. OGLE & SON AND WILLIAM COLLINS, GLASGOW. J. DEWAR, PERTH. W. MIDDLETON,
DUNDEE

G. & R. KING, ABERDEEN. W. M’COMB, BELFAST.

HAMILTON, ADAMS, & CO., AND JAMES NISBET & CO., LONDON.

REPRINTED BY A. W. MURRAY, MILNE SQUARE, EDINBURGH.

1844.

PREFACE TO THE READER.

Divine providence hath made it my lot, and a calling hath induced me (who
am less than the least of all the servants of Christ) to appear among
others in this cloud of public witnesses. The scope of the sermon is to
endeavour the removal of the obstructions, both of _humiliation_ and
_reformation_; two things which ought to lie very much in our thoughts at
this time. Concerning both I shall preface but little. _Reformation_ hath
many unfriends, some upon _the right hand_, and some upon _the left_;
while others cry up that _detestable indifferency_ or _neutrality_,
abjured in our solemn covenant, insomuch that Gamaliel (Acts v. 38, 39)
and Gallio (Acts xviii. 14-17), men who regarded alike the Jewish and the
Christian religion, are highly commended, as “examples for all
Christians,”(1361) and as men walking by the rules not only of policy, but
of “reason and religion.” Now, let all those that are either against us or
not with us do what they can, the right hand of the most High shall
perfect the glorious begun reformation. Can all the world keep down “the
Sun of Righteousness” from rising? or, being risen, can they spread a vail
over it? And though they dig deep to hide their counsels, is not this a
time of God’s overreaching and befooling all plotting wits? They have
conceived iniquity, and they shall bring forth vanity: “They have sown the
wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind” (Hos. viii. 7). Wherefore we
“will wait upon the Lord, that hideth his face from the house of Jacob,
and will look for him” (Isa. viii. 17); and “though he slay us, yet will
we trust in him” (Job xiii. 15). The Lord hath commanded to proclaim, and
to say “to the daughter of Zion, Behold, thy salvation cometh” (Isa. lxii.
11); “Rejoice ye with Jerusalem, all ye that mourn for her” (Isa. lxvi.
10); for “behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of
salvation” (2 Cor. vi. 2). But I have more to say: Mourn, O mourn with
Jerusalem, all ye that rejoice for her; “This day is a day of trouble, and
of rebuke, and of blasphemy: for the children are come to the birth, and
there is not strength to bring forth” (Isa. xxxvii. 3): it is an
interwoven time, _warped_ with mercies, and _woofted_ with judgments. Say
not thou in thine heart, The days of my mourning are at an end: Oh! we are
to this day an unhumbled and an unprepared people; and there are among us
both many cursed Achans, and many sleeping Jonahs, but few wrestling
Jacobs; even the wise virgins are slumbering with the foolish (Matt. xxv.
5): surely, unless we be timely awakened, and more deeply humbled, God
will punish us yet “seven times” (Lev. xxvi. 18, 21, 24, 28) more for our
sins; and if he hath chastised us with “whips,” he will “chastise us with
scorpions;” and he will yet give a further charge to the sword to “avenge
the quarrel of his covenant” (Lev, xxvi. 25). In such a case, I cannot
say, according to the now Oxford divinity, that _preces et
lachrymae_,—prayers and tears,—must be our only one shelter and fortress,
and that we must cast away defensive arms, as unlawful, in any case
whatsoever, against the supreme magistrate (that is, by interpretation,
they would have us do no more than _pray_, to the end themselves may do no
less than _prey)_; wherein they are contradicted not only by Pareus, and
by others that are “eager for a presbytery” (as a prelate(1362) of chief
note hath lately taken, I should say _mistaken_, his mark), but even by
those that are “eager royalists”(1363) (pardon me that I give them not
their right name: I am sure, when all is well reckoned, we are better
friends to royal authority than themselves). Yet herein I do agree with
them, that “prayers and tears” will prove our strongest weapons, and the
only _tela divina_, the weapons that fight for us from above: O then “fear
the Lord, ye his saints” (Psal. xxxiv. 9); O stir up yourselves to lay
hold on him (Isa. lxiv. 7); “Keep not silence; and give him no rest, till
he establish, and till he make Jerusalem a praise in the earth” (Isa.
lxii. 6, 7). O that we could all make wells in our dry and desert-like
hearts (Psal. lxxxiv. 6), that we may draw out water (1 Sam. vii. 6), even
buckets-full, to quench the wrath of a sin-revenging God, the fire which
still burneth against the Lord’s inheritance. God grant that this sermon
be not “as water spilt on the ground” but may “drop as the rain” and
“distil as the dew” (Deut. xxxii. 2) of heaven upon thy soul.

SERMON.

EZEK. xliii. 11.

“And if they be ashamed of all that they have done, show them the
form of the house, and the fashion thereof, and the goings-out
thereof, and the comings-in thereof, and all the forms thereof,
and all the ordinances thereof, and all the forms thereof, and all
the laws thereof: and write it in their sight, that they may keep
the whole form thereof, and all the ordinance thereof, and do
them.”

It is not long since I did, upon another day of humiliation, lay open
England’s disease from that text, 2 Chron. xx. 33, “Howbeit the high
places were not taken away; for as yet the people had not prepared their
hearts unto the God of their fathers.” Though the Sun of Righteousness be
risen, Mal. iv. 2, “with healing in his wings,” yet the land is not
healed, no, not of its worst disease, which is corruption in religion, and
the iniquity of your holy things. I did then show the symptoms, and the
cause of this evil disease. The symptoms are your high places not yet
taken away, many of your old superstitious ceremonies to this day
remaining, which, though not so evil as the high places of idolatry in
which idols were worshipped, yet are parallel to the high places of
will-worship, of which we read that the people, thinking it too hard to be
tied to go up to Jerusalem with every sacrifice, “did sacrifice still in
the high places, yet unto the Lord their God only,” 2 Chron. xxxiii, 17;
pleading for their so doing, antiquity, custom, and other defences of that
kind, which have been alleged for your ceremonies. But albeit these be
foul spots in the church’s face, which offend the eyes of her glorious
Bridegroom, Jesus Christ, yet that which doth less appear is more
dangerous, and that is the cause of all this evil in the very bowels and
heart of the church; the people of the land, great and small, have not as
yet prepared their hearts unto the Lord their God; mercy is prepared for
the land, but the land is not prepared for mercy. I shall say no more of
the disease at this instant.

But I have now chosen a text which holds forth a remedy for this malady—a
cure for this case; that is, that if we will humble our uncircumcised
hearts, and accept of the punishment of our iniquity, Lev. xxvi. 41; if we
be “ashamed and confounded” (Ezek. xxxvi. 32), before the Lord this day
for our evil ways; if we judge ourselves as guilty, and put our mouth in
the dust, and clothe ourselves with shame as with a garment; if we repent
and abhor ourselves in dust and ashes, then the Lord will not abhor us,
but take pleasure in us, to dwell among us, to reveal himself unto us, to
set before us the right pattern of his own house, that the tabernacle of
God may be with men, Rev. xxi. 3; and pure ordinances, where before they
were defiled and mixed; Zech. xiii. 2, He “will cut off the names of the
idols out of the land,” and cause the false prophet, “and the unclean
spirit to pass out of the land,” and the glory of the Lord shall dwell in
the land, Psal. lxxxv. 9. But, withal, we must take heed that we “turn not
again to folly,” Psal. lxxxv. 8; that our hearts start not aside, “like a
deceitful bow,” Psal. lxxviii. 57; that we “keep the ways of the Lord,”
Psal. xviii. 21, and do not wickedly depart from our God. Thus you have
briefly the occasion and the sum of what I am to deliver from this text;
the particulars whereof I shall not touch till I have, in the first place,
resolved a difficult, yet profitable question.

You may ask, What house or what temple doth the Prophet here speak of, and
how can it be made to appear that this scripture is applicable to this
time?

I answer, Some(1364) have taken great pains to demonstrate that this
temple, which the Prophet saw in this vision, was no other than the temple
of Solomon; and that the accomplishment of this vision of the temple,
city, and division of the land, was the building of the temple and city
again after the captivity, and the restoring of the Levitical worship and
Jewish republic, which came to pass in the days of Nehemiah and Zorobabel.
This sense is also most obvious to every one that readeth this prophecy;
but there are very strong reasons against it, which make other learned
expositors not to embrace it.

For, 1. The temple of Solomon was one hundred and twenty cubits high, the
temple built by Zorobabel was but sixty cubits high, Ezra vi. 3.

2. The temple of Zorobabel (Ezra iii. 1, 8, vi. 3, 5, 7) was built in the
same place where the temple of Solomon was, that is, in Jerusalem, upon
mount Moriah, but this temple of Ezekiel was without the city, and a great
way distant from it,(1365) chap. xlviii. 10 compared with ver. 15. The
whole portion of the Levites, and a part of the portion of the priests,
was betwixt the temple and the city.

3. Moses’ greatest altar,—the altar of burnt-offerings, was not half so
big as Ezekiel’s altar, compare Ezek. xliii. 16 with Exod. xxvii. 1,(1366)
so is Moses’ altar of incense much less than Ezekiel’s altar of incense,
Exod. xxx. 2 compared with Ezek. xli. 22.

4. There are many new ceremonial laws, different from the Mosaical,
delivered in the following part of this vision, chap. xlv. and xlvi., as
interpreters have particularly observed upon these places.(1367)

5. The temple and city were not of that greatness which is described in
this vision; for the measuring reed, containing six cubits of the
sanctuary, not common cubits (chap. xl. 5), which amount to more than ten
feet, the outer wall of the temple being two thousand reeds in compass
(chap. xlii. 20), was by estimation four miles, and the city (chap.
xlviii. 16, 35) thirty-six miles in compass.

6. The vision of the holy waters (chap. xlvii.) issuing from the temple,
and after the space of four thousand reeds growing to a river which could
not be passed over, and healing the waters and the fishes, cannot be
literally understood of the temple at Jerusalem.

7. The land is divided among the twelve tribes (chap. xlviii.), and that
in a way and order different from the division made by Joshua, which
cannot be understood of the restitution after the captivity, because the
twelve tribes did not return.

8. This new temple hath with it a new covenant, and that an everlasting
one, Ezek. xxxvii. 26, 27. But at the return of the people from Babylon
there was no new covenant, saith Irenæus,(1368) only the same that was
before continued till Christ’s coming.

Wherefore we must needs hold with Jerome,(1369) Gregory,(1370) and other
later interpreters, that this vision is to be expounded of the spiritual
temple and church of Christ, made up of Jews and Gentiles; and that not by
way of allegories only, which is the sense of those whose opinion I have
now confuted, but according to the proper and direct intendment of the
vision, which, in many material points, cannot agree to Zorobabel’s
temple.

I am herein very much strengthened while I observe many parallel
passages(1371) betwixt the vision of Ezekiel and the revelation of John;
and while I remember withal, that the prophets do in many places foretell
the institution of the ordinances, government and worship of the New
Testament, under the terms of temple, priests, sacrifices, &c., and do set
forth the deliverance and stability of the church of Christ, under the
notions of Canaan, of bringing back the captivity, &c., God speaking to
his people at that time, so as they might best understand him.

Now if you ask how the several particulars in the vision may be
particularly expounded and applied to the church of Christ, I answer The
word of God, the “river that makes glad the city of God,” though it have
many easy and known fords where any of Christ’s lambs may pass through,
yet in this vision, and other places of this kind, it is “a great deep”
where the greatest elephant, as he said, may swim. I shall not say with
the Jews, that one should not read the last nine chapters of Ezekiel
before he be thirty years old. Surely a man may be twice thirty years old,
and a good divine too, and yet not able to understand this vision. Some
tell us, that no man can understand it without skill in geometry, which
cannot be denied, but there is greater need of ecclesiometry, if I may so
speak, to measure the church in her length, or continuance through many
generations, in her breadth, or spreading through many nations, her depth
of humiliation, sorrows and sufferings, her height of faith, hope, joy,
and comfort, and to measure each part according to this pattern here set
before us.

Wherein, for my part, I must profess (as Socrates in another case), _Scio
quod nescio_. I know that there is a great mystery here which I cannot
reach. Only I shall set forth unto you that little light which the Father
of lights hath given me.

I conceive that the Holy Ghost in this vision hath pointed at four several
times and conditions of the church,—that we may take with us the full
meaning, without addition or diminution.

Observing this rule, That what agreeth not to the type must be meant of
the thing typified, and what is not fulfilled at one time must be
fulfilled of the church at another time.

First of all, It cannot be denied that he points in some sort at the
restitution of the temple, worship of God, and city of Jerusalem, after
the captivity, as a type of the church of Christ, for though many things
in the vision do not agree to that time, as hath been proved, yet some
things do agree this, as it is least intended in the vision, so it is not
fit for me at this time to insist upon it. But he that would understand
the form of the temple of Jerusalem, the several parts, and excellent
structure thereof, will find enough written of that subject.(1372)

Secondly, This and other prophecies of building again the temple, may well
be applied to the building of the Christian church by the master-builders,
the apostles, and by other ministers of the gospel since their days. Let
us hear but two witnesses of the apostles themselves applying those
prophecies to the calling of the Gentiles: the one is Paul, 2 Cor. vi. 16,
“For ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell
in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my
people;” the other is James, who applieth to the converted Gentiles that
prophecy of Amos, “After this I will return, and will build again the
tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the
ruins thereof, and I will set it up,” Acts xv. 16.

Thirdly, But there is a third thing aimed at in this prophecy, and that
more principally than any of the other two, which is the repairing of the
breaches and ruins of the Christian church, and the building up of Zion in
her glory, about the time of the destruction of Antichrist and the
conversion of the Jews; and this happiness hath the Lord reserved to the
last times, to build a more excellent and glorious temple than former
generations have seen. I mean not of the building of the material temple
at Jerusalem, which the Jews do fancy and look for,—but I speak of the
church and people of God; and that I may not seem to expound an obscure
prophecy too conjecturally, which many in these days do, I have these
evidences following for what I say:—

1. If Paul and James, in those places which I last cited, do apply the
prophecies of building a new temple to the first-fruits of the Gentiles,
and to their first conversion, then they are much more to be applied to
the fulness of the Gentiles, and, most of all, to the fulness both of Jews
and Gentiles, which we wait for. “Now, if the fall of them (saith the
Apostle, speaking of the Jews) be the riches of the world, and the
diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their
fulness?” Rom. xi. 12. And again, “If the casting away of them be the
reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life
from the dead?” ver. 15. Plainly insinuating a greater increase of the
church, and a larger spread of the gospel at the conversion of the Jews,
and so a fairer temple, yea, another world, in a manner, to be looked for.

2. The Lord himself, in this same chapter, ver. 7, speaking of the temple
here prophesied of, saith, “The place of my throne, and the place of the
soles of my feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the children of
Israel for ever, and my holy name shall the house of Israel no more
defile, neither they nor their kings,” &c.; which, as it cannot be
understood of the Jews after the captivity, who did again forsake the
Lord, and were forsaken of him, as Jerome noteth upon the place, so it can
as ill be said to be already fulfilled upon the Christian church, but
rather that such a church is yet to be expected in which the Lord shall
take up his dwelling for ever, and shall not be provoked by their
defilements and whoredoms again to take away his kingdom and to remove the
candlestick.

3. This last temple is also prophesied of by Isaiah, chap. ii. 2, “And it
shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord’s house
shall be established in the top of the mountains (even as here Ezekiel did
see this temple upon a very high mountain, chap. lx. 2), and shall be
exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it,” &c.; ver. 4,
“And they shall beat their swords into plow-shares, and their spears into
pruning-hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither
shall they learn war any more.” Here is the building of such a temple as
shall bring peaceable and quiet times to the church, of which that
evangelical prophet speaketh in other places also, Isa. xi. 9; lx. 17, 18.
And if we shall read that which followeth, Isa. ii. 5, as the Chaldee
paraphrase doth, “And the men of the house of Jacob shall say, Come ye,”
&c., then the building of the temple there spoken of shall appear to be
joined with the Jews’ conversion; but, howsoever, it is joined with a
great peace and calm, such as yet the church hath not seen.

4. We find in this vision, that when Ezekiel’s temple shall be built,
princes shall no more oppress the people of God, nor defile the name of
God, Ezek. xlv. 8; xliii. 7;(1373) which are in like manner joined, Psal.
cii. 15, 16, 22, “The heathen shall fear the name of the Lord, and all the
kings of the earth thy glory. When the Lord shall build up Zion, he shall
appear in his glory; when the people are gathered together, and the
kingdoms (understand here also kings, as the Septuagint do), to serve the
Lord;” which psalm is acknowledged to be a prophecy of the kingdom of
Christ, though under the type of bringing back the captivity of the Jews,
and of the building again of Zion at that time. The like prophecy of
Christ we have Psal. lxxii. 11, “All kings shall fall down before him; all
nations shall serve him.” But I ask, Have not the kings of the earth
hitherto, for the most part, set themselves “against the Lord, and against
his Anointed”? Psal. ii. 2. And how then shall all those prophecies hold
true, except they be coincident with Rev. xvii. 16, 17, and that time is
yet to come, when God shall put it in the hearts of kings to “hate the
whore (of Rome), and they shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat
her flesh, and burn her with fire”? It is foretold that God shall do this
great and good work even by those kings who have before subjected
themselves to Antichrist.

5. That which I now draw from Ezekiel’s vision is no other but the same
which was showed to John, Rev. xi. 1, 2,—a place so like to this of
Ezekiel, that we must take special notice of it, and make that serve for a
commentary to this,—“And there was given me (saith John) a reed like unto
a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God,
and the altar, and them that worship therein. But the court which is
without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the
Gentiles; and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two
months.” This time of forty and two months must be expounded by Rev. xiii.
5, where it is said of the beast, “Power was given unto him, to continue
forty and two months;” which, according to the computation of Egyptian
years (reckoning thirty days to each month), make three years and a half,
or twelve hundred and sixty days, and that is the time of the witnesses’
prophesying in sackcloth, and of the woman’s abode in the wilderness, Rev,
xi. 3; xii. 6. Now lest it should be thought that the treading down of the
holy city by the Gentiles (that is, the treading under foot of the true
church, the city of God, by the tyranny of Antichrist and the power of his
accomplices) should never have an end in this world, the angel gives John
to understand that the church, the house of the living God, shall not lie
desolate for ever, but shall be built again (for the measuring is in
reference to building), that the kingdom of Antichrist shall come to an
end, and that after twelve hundred and sixty years, counting days for
years as the prophets do. It is not to my purpose now to search when this
time of the power of the beast and of the church’s desolation did begin,
and when it ends, and so to find out the time of building this new
temple,—only this much I trust, I may say, that if we reckon from the time
that the power of the beast did begin, and, withal, consider the great
revolution and turning of things upside down in these our days, certainly
the work is upon the wheel; the Lord hath plucked his hand out of his
bosom, he hath whet his sword, he hath bent his bow, he hath also prepared
the instruments of death against Antichrist: so saith the Psalmist of all
persecutors, Psal. vii. 12, 13; but it will fall most upon that capital
enemy. Whereof there will be occasion to say more afterward.

Let me here only add a word concerning a fourth thing which the Holy Ghost
may seem to intend in this prophecy, and that is, the church triumphant,
the new “Jerusalem which is above,” unto which respect is to be had, as
interpreters judge, in some parts of the vision, which happily cannot be
so well applied to the church in this world. Even as the new Jerusalem is
so described in the Revelation (Rev. xxi.), that it may appear to be the
church of Christ, reformed, beautified, and enlarged in this world, and
fully perfected and glorified in the world to come; and as many things
which are said of it can very hardly be made to agree to the church in
this world; so other things which are said of it can as hardly be applied
to the church glorified in heaven, as where it is said, “Behold, the
tabernacle of God is with men, [having come down from God out of heaven]
and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself
shall be with them, and be their God,” ver. 3. Again, “And the nations of
them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the
earth do bring their glory and honour into it,” ver. 24.

But now I make haste to the several particulars contained in my text: “I
pray God (saith the Apostle) your whole spirit, and soul, and body, be
preserved blameless,” 1 Thess. v. 23; Phil. i. 9, 11. And what he there
prays for, this text, rightly understood and applied, may work in us, that
is, gracious affections, gracious minds, gracious actions. In the first
place, a change upon our corrupt and wicked affections,—“If they be
ashamed of all that they have done,” saith the Lord; Secondly, A change
upon our blind minds,—“Show them the form of the house, and the fashion
thereof,” &c.; Thirdly, A change also upon our actions,—“That they may
keep the whole form thereof, and all the ordinances thereof, and do them.”

For the first, the words here used is not that which signifieth blushing
through modesty, but it signifieth shame for that which is indeed
shameful, filthy, and abominable,(1374) so that it were impenitency and an
aggravation of the fault not to be ashamed for it.

I shall here build only one doctrine, which will be of exceeding great use
for such a day as this: “If either we would have mercy to ourselves, or
would do acceptable service in the public reformation, we must not only
cease to do evil and learn to do well, but also be ashamed, confounded and
humbled, for our former evil ways.” Here is a twofold necessity, which
presseth upon us this duty,—to loathe and abhor ourselves for all our
abominations, to be greatly abashed and confounded before our God: First,
Without this we shall not find grace and favour to our own souls;
Secondly, We shall else miscarry in the work of reformation.

First, I say, let us do all the good we can, God is not pleased with us
unless we be ashamed and humbled for former guiltiness. Be zealous and
repent (Rev. iii. 19), saith Christ to the Laodiceans; be zealous in time
coming, and repent of your former lukewarmness: “What fruit had ye then in
those things whereof ye are now ashamed?” (Rom. vi. 21,) saith the Apostle
to the saints at Rome, of whom he saith plainly, that they were “servants
to righteousness,” (ver. 19;) and had their “fruit unto holiness.” But
that is not all; they were also ashamed while they looked back upon their
old faults, which is the rather to be observed, because it maketh against
the Antinomian error now afoot.(1375) It hath a clear reason for it, for
without this God is still dishonoured, and not restored to his glory: “O
Lord (saith Daniel), righteousness belongeth unto thee, but unto us
confusion of faces,” Dan. ix. 7. These two go together. We must be
confounded, that God may be glorified; we must be judged, that God may be
justified; our mouths must be stopped, and laid in the dust, that the Lord
may be just when he speaketh, and clear when he judgeth (Psal. li. 4). And
as the Apostle teacheth us, 1 Cor. xi. 31, that if we judge ourselves, we
shall not be judged of God; and, by the rule of contraries, if we judge
not ourselves, we shall be judged of God; so say I now, if we give glory
to God, and take shame and confusion of faces to ourselves, God shall not
confound us, nor put us to shame: but if we will not be confounded and
ashamed in ourselves, God shall confound us, and pour shame upon us; if we
loathe not ourselves, God shall loathe us.

Nay let me argue from the manner of men, as the Prophet doth, Mal. i. 8,
“Offer it now unto thy governor; will he be pleased with thee, or accept
thy person?” Will thy governor, nay, thy neighbour, who is as thou art,
alter an injury done to him, be pleased with thee, if thou do but leave
off to do him any more such injuries? Will he not expect an acknowledgment
of the wrong done? Is it not Christ’s rule (Luke xvii. 4) that he who
seven times trespasseth against his brother, seven times turn again,
saying, I repent? David would hardly trust Ittai to go up and down with
him, who was but a stranger (2 Sam. xv. 19), how much more if he had done
him some great wrong, and then refused to confess it? And how shall we
think that it can stand with the honour of the most high God, that we seem
to draw near unto him, and to walk in his ways, while, in the meantime, we
do not acknowledge our iniquity, and even accuse, shame, judge, and
condemn ourselves? Nay, “Be not deceived, God is not mocked,” Gal. vi. 7.

This is the first necessity of the duty which this text holdeth forth. The
Lord requireth of us not only to do his will for the future, but to be
ashamed for what we have done amiss before.

The other necessity of it, which is also in the text, is this: That except
we be thus ashamed and humbled, God hath not promised to show us the
pattern of his house, nor to reveal his will unto us; which agreeth well
with that, Psal. xxv. 9, “The meek will he teach his way;” and ver. 12,
“What man is he that feareth the Lord? him shall he teach in the way that
he shall choose;” and ver. 14, “The secret of the Lord is with them that
fear him, and he will show them his covenant.” There is sanctification in
the affections, and here is humiliation in the affections, spoken of as
necessary means of attaining the knowledge of the will of God. Let the
affections be ordered aright, then light which is offered shall be seen
and received; but let light be offered when disordered affections do
overcloud the eye of the mind, then all is in vain.

In this case a man shall be like “the deaf adder” (Psal. lviii. 4, 5,)
which will not be taken by the voice of the charmers, “charming never so
wisely.” Let the helm of reason be stirred as well as you can imagine, if
there be a contrary wind in the sails of the affections, the ship will not
answer to the helm. It is a good argument: He is a wicked man, a covetous
man, a proud man, a carnal man, an unhumbled man; therefore he will
readily miscarry in his judgment. So divines have argued against the
Pope’s infallibility! The Pope hath been, and may be a profane man;
therefore he may err in his judgment and decrees. And what wonder that
they who receive not the love of the truth be given over to “strong
delusion, that they should believe a lie?” 2 Thess. ii. 9, 10. It is as
good an argument: He is a humbled man, and a man that feareth God;
therefore, in so far as he acteth and exerciseth those graces, the Lord
shall teach him in the way that he shall choose. I say, in so far as he
acteth those graces,—because when he grieves the Spirit, and cherisheth
the flesh, when the child of God is more swayed by his corruptions than by
his graces, then he is in great danger to be given up to the counsel of
his own heart, and to be deserted by the Holy Ghost, which should lead him
“into all truth,” John xvi. 13.

But we must take notice of a seeming contradiction here in the text. God
saith to the Prophet in the former verse, “Show the house to the house of
Israel, that they may be ashamed of their iniquities;” and, Jer. xxxi. 19,
Ephraim is first instructed, then ashamed. And here it is quite turned
over in my text; if they be ashamed show them the house.

I shall not here make any digression unto the debates and distinctions of
schoolmen, what influence and power the affections have upon the
understanding and the will; I will content myself with this plain answer:
Those two might very well stand together,—light is a help to humiliation,
and humiliation a help to light. As there must be some work of faith, and
some apprehension of the love of God, in order before true evangelical
repentance, yet this repentance helpeth us to believe more firmly that our
sins are forgiven. The soul, in the pains of the new birth, is like Tamar
travailing of her twins, Pharez and Zarah (Gen. xxxviii. 28-30): faith,
like Zarah, first putting out his hand, but hath no strength to come
forth, therefore draweth back the hand again, till repentance, like
Pharez, have broken forth,—then can faith come forth more easily. Which
appeareth in that woman, Luke vii. 47, 48: she wept much, because she
loved much; she loved much, because she believed; and by faith had her
heart enlarged with apprehending the rich grace and free love of Christ to
poor sinners: this faith moves her bowels, melts her heart, stirs her
sorrow, kindles her affection. Then, and not till then, she gets a prop to
her faith, and a sure ground to build upon. It is not till she have wept
much that Christ intimates mercy, and saith, “Thy sins are forgiven thee.”
Just so is the case in this text: Show them the house, saith the Lord,
that they may be ashamed; give them a view of it, that they may think the
worse of themselves, that they want it, that they may be ashamed for all
their iniquities, whereby they have separate betwixt their God and
themselves, so that they cannot “behold the beauty of the Lord,” nor
“inquire in his temple,” Psal. xxvii. 4; and if, when they begin to see
it, they have such thoughts as these, and humble themselves, and
acknowledge their iniquities, then go to and show them the whole fabric,
and structure, and all the gates thereof, and all the parts thereof, and
all things pertaining thereto.

I suppose I have said enough for confirmation and clearing of the doctrine
concerning the necessity of our being ashamed and confounded before the
Lord. I have now a fourfold application to draw from it.

The first application shall be to the malignant enemies of the cause and
people of God at this time, who deserve Jeremiah’s black mark to be put
upon them: “Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? nay,
they wore not at all ashamed, neither could they blush,” Jer. vi. 15;
viii. 12. When he would say the worst of them, this is it: “Thou hadst a
whore’s forehead, thou refusedst to be ashamed,” Jer. iii. 3. There are
some sons of Belial risen up against us, who have done some things
whereof, I dare say, many heathens would have been ashamed; yet they are
as far from being ashamed of their outrages as Caligula was, who said of
himself, that he loved nothing better in his own nature than that he could
not be ashamed: nay, their glory is their shame, Phil. iii. 19; and if the
Lord do not open their eyes to see their shame, their end will be
destruction. Is it a light matter to swear and blaspheme, to coin and
spread lies, to devise calumnies, to break treaties, to contrive
treacherous plots, to exercise so many barbarous cruelties, to shed so
much blood, and, as if that were too little, to bury men quick? Is all
this no matter of shame? And when they have so often professed to be for
the true Protestant religion, shall they not be ashamed to thirst so much
after Protestant blood, and in that cause desire to associate themselves
with all the Papists at home and abroad whose assistance they can have,
and particularly with those matchless monsters (they call them subjects)
of Ireland, who, if the computation fail not, have shed the blood of some
hundred thousands in that kingdom? For our part, it seems they are
resolved to give the worst name to the best thing which we can do, and
therefore they have not been ashamed to call a religious and loyal
covenant a traitorous and damnable covenant. I have no pleasure to take up
these and other dunghills, the text hath put this in my mouth which I have
said. O that they could recover themselves out of the gall of bitterness,
and bond of iniquity, Acts viii. 23; O that we could hear that they begin
to be ashamed of their abominations, “Lord, when thy hand is lifted up,
they will not see: but they shall see, and be ashamed for their envy at
the people,” Isa. xxvi. 11; the Lord “shall appear to your joy, and they
shall be ashamed,” lxvi. 5.

But now, in the second place, let me speak to the kingdom, and to you whom
it concerneth this day to be humbled, both for your own sins and for the
sins of the kingdom which you represent. Although yourselves, whom God
hath placed in this honourable station, and the kingdom which God hath
blessed with many choice blessings, be much and worthily honoured among
the children of men, yet when you have to do with God, and with that
wherein his great name and his glory is concerned, you must not think of
honouring, but rather abashing yourselves, and creeping low in the dust.
Livy tells us,(1376) that when M. Claudius Marcellus would have dedicate a
temple to Honour and Virtue, the priests hindered it, _quod utri deo res
divina fieret, sciri non posset_, because so it could not be known to
which of the two gods he should offer sacrifice. Far be it from any of you
to suffer the will of God and your own credit to come in competition
together, or to put back any point of truth, because it may seem,
peradventure, some way to wound your reputation, though, when all is well
examined, it shall be found your glory.

You are now about the casting out of many corruptions in the government of
the church and worship of God. Remember, therefore, it is not enough to
cleanse the house of the Lord, but you must be humbled for your former
defilements wherewith it was polluted. It is not enough that England say
with Ephraim in one place, “What have I to do any more with idols?” Hos.
xiv. 8. England must say also with Ephraim in another place, “Surely after
that I was turned, I repented; and after that I was instructed, I smote
upon my thigh: I was ashamed, yea, even confounded, because I did bear the
reproach of my youth,” Jer. xxxi. 19. Let England sit down in the dust,
and wallow itself in ashes, and cry out as the lepers did (Lev. xiii. 45),
“Unclean, unclean,” and then rise up and cast away the least superstitious
ceremony “as a menstruous cloth; thou shalt say unto it, Get thee hence,”
Isa. xxx. 22. I know that those who are not convinced of the intrinsical
evil and unlawfulness of former corruptions may, upon other
considerations, go along and join in this reformation; for according to
Augustine’s rule,(1377) men are to let go those ecclesiastical customs
which neither Scriptures nor councils bind upon us, nor yet are
universally received by all churches. And according to Ambrose’s rule to
Valentinian, epist. 31, _Nullus pudor est ad meliora transive_,—it is no
shame to change that which is not so good for that which is better. So
doth Arnobius(1378) answer the pagans, who objected the novelty of the
Christian religion: You should not look so much (saith he) _quid
reliquerimus_ as _quid secuti simus_; be rather satisfied with the good
which we follow, than to quarrel why we have changed our former practise.
He giveth instance, that when men found the art of weaving clothes, they
did no longer clothe themselves in skins; and when they learned to build
houses, they left off to dwell in rocks and caves. All this carrieth
reason with it, for _optimum est eligendum_. If all this satisfy not, it
may be Nazianzen’s rule(1379) will move some man: When there was a great
stir about his archbishopric of Constantinople, he yielded for peace;
because this storm was raised for his sake, he wished to be cast into the
sea. He often professeth that he did not affect riches, nor dignities, but
rather to be freed of his bishopric. We are like to listen long before we
hear such expressions either from archbishop or bishop in England, who
seem not to care much who sink, so that themselves swim above. Yet I shall
name one rule more, which I shall take from the confessions of two English
prelates. One(1380) of them hath this contemplation upon Hezekiah’s taking
away the brazen serpent, when he perceived it to be superstitiously
abused: “Superstitious use (saith he) can mar the very institutions of
God, how much more the most wise and well-grounded devices of men?”
Another(1381) of them acknowledged that whatsoever is taken up at the
injunction of men, and is not of God’s own prescribing, when it is drawn
to superstition, cometh under the case of the brazen serpent. You may
easily make the assumption, and then the conclusion, concerning those
ceremonies which are not God’s institutions but men’s devices, and have
been grossly and notoriously abused by many to superstition.

Now to return to the point in hand, if upon all or any of these, or the
like principles, any of this kingdom shall join in the removal of
corruptions out of the church, which yet they do not conceive to be in
themselves, and intrinsically corruptions in religion, in this case I say
with the Apostle, “I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice,” Phil. i.
18, because every way reformation is set forward. But let such an one look
to himself, how the doctrine drawn from this text falleth upon him, that
he who only ceaseth to do evil, but repenteth not of the evil,—he who
applieth himself to reformation, but is not ashamed of former defilements,
is in danger both of God’s displeasure, and of miscarrying in his judgment
about reformation. It is far from my meaning to discourage any who are,
with humble and upright hearts, seeking after more light than yet they
have; I say it only for their sake, who, through the presumption and
unhumbledness of their spirits, will acknowledge no fault in anything they
have formerly done in church matters.

I cannot leave this application to the kingdom till I enlarge it a little
farther. There are four considerations which may make England ashamed and
confounded before the Lord.

1. Because of the great blessings which it hath so long wanted. Your
flourishing estate in the world could not have countervailed the want of
the purity and liberty of the ordinances of Christ. That was a heavy word
of the Prophet, “Now for a long season Israel hath been without the true
God, and without a teaching priest, and without law,” 2 Chron. xv. 3. It
hath not been altogether so with this land, where the Lord hath had not
only a true church, but many burning and shining lights, many gracious
preachers and professors, many notable defenders of the Protestant cause
against Papists, many who have preached and written worthily of practical
divinity, and of those things which most concern a man’s salvation. Nay, I
am persuaded, that all this time past, there have been in this kingdom
many thousands of his secret and sealed ones, who have been groaning under
that burden and bondage which they could not help, and have been “waiting
for the consolation of Israel,” Luke ii. 25. Nevertheless, the reformation
of the church of England hath been exceedingly deficient, in government,
discipline and worship; yea, and many places of the kingdom have been
“without a teaching priest,” and other places poisoned with false
teachers. It is said (1 Sam. vii. 2), that all the house of Israel
lamented after the Lord, when they wanted the ark twenty years. O let
England lament after the Lord, until the ark be brought into the own place
of it!

2. There is another cause of this great humiliation, and that is, the
point in the text, to be ashamed “of all that you have done.” Sin, sin is
that which blacketh our faces, and covereth us with confusion as with a
mantle, and then most of all when we may read our sin in some judgment of
God which lieth upon us; therefore the Septuagint here, instead of being
“ashamed of all that they have done,” read—“accept their punishment for
all that they have done,” which agreeth to that word in the law:(1382) “If
then their uncircumcised hearts be humbled (the Greek readeth there
_ashamed_) and they then accept of the punishment of their iniquity,” Lev.
xxvi. 41. This is now England’s case, whose sin is written in the present
judgment, and graven in your calamity as “with a pen of iron, and with a
point of a diamond” (Jer. xvii. 1), to make you say, “The Lord our God is
righteous in all his works which he doeth: for we obeyed not his voice,”
Dan. ix. 14. Did not the land make idol gods of the court, and of the
prelatical clergy, and feared them, and followed them more than God, and
obeyed them rather than God, so that their threshold was set by God’s
threshold, and their posts by God’s posts? as it is said, ver. 7. I speak
not now of lawful obedience to authority. Is it not a righteous thing with
the Lord to make these, your idols, his rods to correct you? Hath not
England harboured and entertained Papists, priests, and Jesuits in its
bosom? Is it not just that now you feel the sting and poison of these
vipers? Hath there not been a great compliance with the prelates, for
peace’s sake, even to the prejudice of truth? Doth not the Lord now justly
punish that Episcopal peace with an Episcopal war? Was not that prelatical
government first devised, and since continued, to preserve peace and to
prevent schisms in the church? And was it not God’s just judgment that
such a remedy of man’s invention should rather increase than cure the
evil? So that sects have most multiplied under that government, which now
you know by sad experience. Hath not this nation, for a long time, taken
the name of the Lord in vain, by a formal worship and empty profession? Is
it not a just requital upon God’s part, that your enemies have all this
while taken God’s name in vain, and taken the Almighty to witness of the
integrity of their intentions for religion, law and liberty, thus
persuading the world to believe a lie? What shall I say of the book of
sports, and other profanations of the Lord’s day? This licentiousness was
most acceptable to the greatest part, and they “loved to have it so,” Jer.
v. 31. Doth not the great famine of the word almost everywhere in the
kingdom, except in this city, make the land mourn on the Sabbath, and say,
“I do remember my faults this day?” Gen. xli. 9. Yea, doth not the land
now enjoy her Sabbaths, while men are constrained not only to cease from
sports on that day, but from labouring the ground, and from other works of
their calling upon other days? What should I speak of the lusts and
uncleanness, gluttony and drunkenness, chambering and wantonness,
prodigality and lavishness, excess of riot, masking, and balling, and
sporting, when Germany and the Palatinate, and other places, were
wallowing in blood, yea, when there was so much sin and wrath upon this
same kingdom? Will not you say now, that for this the Lord God hath caused
your “sun to go down at noon,” and hath turned your feasts into mourning,
and all your songs into lamentations? (Amos viii. 9, 10.) Or what should I
say of the oppressions, injustice, cozenage in trading and in merchandise,
which yourselves know better than I can do how much they have abounded in
the kingdom? Doth not God now punish the secret injustice of his people by
the open injustice of their enemies? Do ye not remember that mischief was
framed by a law? And now, when your enemies execute mischief against law,
will you not say, Righteous art thou, O Lord, and just are thy judgments.
One thing I may not forget, and that is, that the Lord is punishing blood
with blood, the blood of the oppressed, the blood of the persecuted, the
blood of those who have died in prisons, or in strange countries,
suffering for righteousness’ sake. He that departed from evil did even
make himself a prey, Isa. lix. 15. There was not so much as one drop of
blood spilt upon the pillory for the testimony of the truth but it crieth
to heaven, for precious is the blood of the saints, (Psal. lxxii. 14.)
Doth not all the blood shed in Queen Mary’s days cry? And doth not the
blood of the Palatinate and of Rochel cry? And doth not the blood of souls
cry? which is the loudest cry of all. God said to Cain, “The voice of thy
brother’s blood crieth unto me from the ground,” Gen. iv. 10. The Hebrew
hath it, “Thy brother’s blood,” which is well expounded both by the
Chaldee Paraphrase and the Jerusalem Targum, the voice of the blood of all
the generations and the righteous people which thy brother should have
begotten crieth unto me. I may apply it to the thing in hand: The
silencing, deposing, persecuting, imprisoning, and banishing of so many of
the Lord’s witnesses, of the most painful and powerful preachers, and the
preferring of so many either dumb dogs or false teachers, maketh the voice
of bloods to cry to heaven, even the blood of many thousands, yea,
thousands of thousands of souls, which have been lost by the one, or might
have been saved by the other. God will require the blood of the children
which those righteous Abels might have begotten unto him. There is, beside
all this, more blood-guiltiness, which is secret, but shall sometime be
brought to light. O blood! blood! O let the land tremble, while the
righteous Judge makes “inquisition for blood,” Psal. ix. 12; O let England
cry, “Deliver me from blood-guiltiness, O God”! Psal. li. 14.

But you will say, peradventure, many of these things whereof I have spoken
ought not to be charged upon the kingdom, they were only the acts of a
prevalent faction for the time.

I answer, First, God will impute them to the kingdom, unless the kingdom
mourn for them. God gives not a charge to the destroying angel (Ezek. ix.
4) to spare those who have not been actors in the public sins and
abominations, but to spare those only who cry and sigh for those
abominations.

Secondly, When the ministers of state, or others having authority in
church or commonwealth, take the boldness to do such acts, the kingdom is
not blameless; for they durst not have done as they did, had the Lord but
disclaimed, discountenanced, and cried out against them. It is marked both
of John Baptist (Matt. xiv. 5), and of Christ (Matt. xxi. 46), and of the
apostles (Acts iv. 21), that so long as the people did magnify them, and
esteem them highly, their enemies durst not do unto them what else they
would have done.

3. A third consideration concerning the kingdom is this. Notwithstanding
of all the happiness and gospel-blessings which it hath wanted in so great
a measure, and notwithstanding of all the sins which have so much abounded
in it, yet the servants of God have charged it with great
presumption,(1383) that the church of England hath said with the church of
Laodicea, “I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing,”
Rev. iii. 17. It hath been proud of its clergy, learning, great revenues,
peace, plenty, wealth, and abundance of all things, and as the Apostle
chargeth the Corinthians, “Ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned,”
that the wicked ones “might be taken away from among you,” 1 Cor. v. 2.
And would God this presumption had taken an end when God did begin to
afflict the land. It did even make an idol of this Parliament, and trusted
to its own strength and armies, which hath provoked God so much, that he
hath sometimes almost blasted your hopes that way, and hath made you to
feel your weakness even where you thought yourselves strongest. God would
not have England say, “Mine own hand hath saved me,” Judg. vii. 2; neither
will he have Scotland to say, “My hand hath done it:” but he will have
both to say, His hand hath done it, when we were lost in our own eyes. God
grant that your leaning so much upon the arm of flesh be not the cause of
more blows. God must be seen in the work, and he will have us to give him
all the glory, and to say, “Thou also hast wrought all our works in us,”
Isa. xxvi. 12. O that all our presumption may be repented of, and that the
land may be yet more deeply humbled! Assuredly God will arise and subdue
our enemies, and command deliverances for Jacob; but it is as certain God
will not do this till we be more humbled and (as the text saith) ashamed
of all that we have done.

4. There is another motive more evangelical: Let England be humbled even
for the mercy, the most admirable mercy which God hath showed upon so
undeserving and evil-deserving a kingdom. See it in this same prophecy, “I
will establish my covenant with thee; and thou shalt know that I am the
Lord: that thou mayest remember, and be confounded, and never open thy
mouth any more because of thy shame, when I am pacified toward thee for
all that thou hast done, saith the Lord God,” Ezek. xvi. 62, 63. And
again: “Not for your sakes do I this, saith the Lord God, be it known unto
you: be ashamed and confounded for your own ways, O house of Israel,”
Ezek. xxxvi. 32; “O my God (saith Ezra), I am ashamed and blush to lift up
my face to thee,” Ezra. ix. 6. And what was it that did so confound him?
You may find it in that which followeth: God had showed them mercy, and
had left them a remnant to escape, and had given them a nail in his holy
place, and had lightened their eyes: “And now (saith he), O our God, what
shall we say after this? for we have forsaken thy commandments,” Ezra. ix.
10. Let us this day compare, as he did, God’s goodness and our own
guiltiness. England deserved nothing but to get a bill of divorce, and
that God should have said in his wrath, Away from me, I have no pleasure
in you; but now he hath received you into the bond of his covenant, he
rejoiceth over you to do you good, and to dwell among you; his banner over
you is love. O let our hard hearts be overcome and be confounded with so
much mercy, and let us be ashamed of ourselves, that after so much mercy
we should be yet in our sins and trespasses.

There is a third application, which I intend for the ministry, who ought
to go before the people of God in the example of repentance and
humiliation. You know the old observation, _Raro vidi clericum
poenitentem_,—I have seldom seen a clergyman penitent. As Christ saith of
rich men (Mark x. 24, 25), I may say of learned men, It is easier for a
camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a man that trusts in his
learning to enter into the kingdom of heaven. He will needs maintain the
lawfulness of all which he hath done, and will not be, as this text would
have him, ashamed of all that he hath done. Yet it is not impossible with
God to make such an one deny himself, and that whatsoever in him exalts
itself against Christ should be brought into captivity to the obedience of
Christ (2 Cor. x. 5). Among all that were converted by the ministry of the
apostles, I wonder most at the conversion of a great company of priests,
Acts vi. 7. I do not suspect, as two learned men have done,(1384) that the
text is corrupted in that place, and that it should be otherwise read. I
am the rather satisfied, because there is nothing there mentioned of the
conversion of the high priest, or of the chief priests, the heads of the
twenty-four orders which were upon the council, and had condemned Christ:
the place cannot be understood but of a multitude of common or inferior
priests, even as, by proportion, in Hezekiah’s reformation, the Levites
were more upright in heart than the priests, 2 Chron. xxix. 34.

And now many of the inferior clergy (as they were abusively called) are
more upright in heart unto this present reformation than any of those who
had assumed to themselves high degrees in the church. The hardest point of
all is, so to embrace and follow reformation as to be ashamed of former
prevarications and pollutions. But in this also the Holy Ghost hath set
examples before the ministers of the gospel. I read, 2 Chron. xxx. 15,
“The priests and the Levites were ashamed, and sanctified themselves, and
brought in the burnt-offerings into the house of the Lord.” They thought
it not enough to be sanctified, but they were ashamed that they had been
before defiled. A great prophet is not content to have his judgment
rectified which had been in error, but he is ashamed of the error he had
been in; “So foolish was I (saith he) and ignorant: I was as a beast
before thee,” Psal. lxxiii. 22. A great apostle must glorify God, and
humbly acknowledge his own shame; “For I am the least of the apostles
(saith he), that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted
the church of God,” 1 Cor. xv. 9. And shall I add the example of a great
father? Augustine confesseth(1385) honestly, that for the space of nine
years he both was deceived, and did deceive others. Nature will whisper to
a man to look to his credit: but the text here calleth for another
thing,—to look to the honour of God, and to thine own shame; and yet in so
doing thou shalt be more highly esteemed both by God and by his children.
Now without this let a man seem to turn and reform never so well, all is
unsure work, and built upon a sandy foundation. And whosoever will not
acknowledge their iniquity, and be ashamed for it, God shall make them
bear their shame; according to that which is pronounced in the next
chapter, ver. 10-15, against the Levites, who had gone astray when Israel
went astray after their idols; and according to that, Mal. ii. 8, 9, “Ye
have corrupted the covenant of Levi, saith the Lord of hosts: therefore
have I also made you contemptible and base before all the people.”

The fourth and last application of this doctrine is for every Christian.
The text teacheth us a difference betwixt a presumptuous and a truly
humbled sinner; the one is ashamed of his sins, the other not. By this
mark let every one of us try himself this day. It is a saving grace to be
truly and really ashamed of sin. It is one of the promises of the covenant
of grace, “Then shall ye remember your own evil ways, and your doings that
were not good, and shall loathe yourselves in your own sight, for your
iniquities, and for your abominations,” Ezek. xxxvi. 31. Try, then, if
thou hast but thus much of the work of grace in thy soul; and if thou
hast, be assured of thy interest in Christ and in the new covenant. A
reprobate may have somewhat which is very like this grace: but I shall lay
open the difference betwixt the one and the other in these particulars:—

1. To be truly ashamed of sin, is to be ashamed of it as an act of
filthiness and uncleanness. The child of God, when he comes to the throne
of grace, is ashamed of an unclean heart, though the world cannot see it.
A natural man, at his best, looketh upon sin as it damneth and destroyeth
the soul, but he cannot look upon it as it defiles the soul. Shame ariseth
properly from a filthy act, though no other evil be to follow upon it.

2. As we are ashamed of acts of filthiness, so of acts of folly. A natural
man may judge himself a fool in regard of the circumstances or consequents
of his sin, but he is not convinced that sin in itself is an act of
madness and folly. When the child of God is humbled he becomes a fool in
his own eyes,—he perceives he had done like a mad fool, 1 Cor. iii. 18;
therefore he is said then to come to himself, Luke xv. 17.

3. The child of God is ashamed of sin as an act of unkindness and
unthankfulness to a sweet merciful Lord, Psal. cxxx. 4; Rom. ii. 4. Though
there were no other evil in sin, the conscience of so much mercy and love
so far abused, and so unkindly recompensed, is that which confoundeth a
penitent sinner. As the wife of a kind husband, if she play the whore
(though the world know it not), and if her husband, when he might divorce
her, shall still love her and receive her into his bosom; such a one, if
she have at all any sense, or any bowels of sorrow, must needs be
swallowed up of shame and confusion for her undutifulness and treachery to
such a husband. But now the hypocrite is not at all troubled or afflicted
in spirit for sin as it is an act of unkindness to God.

4. Shame, as philosophers have defined it,(1386) is “the fear of a just
reproof:” not simply the fear of a reproof, but the fear of a just
reproof. That is servile; this filial. The child of God is ashamed of the
very guiltiness, and of that which may be justly laid to his charge; the
hypocrite not so. Saul was not ashamed of his sin, but he was ashamed that
Samuel should reprove him before the elders of the people, 1 Sam. xv. 15,
30. Christ’s adversaries were ashamed (Luke xiii. 17), not of their error,
but because their mouths were stopped before the people, and they could
not answer him. A hypocrite is ashamed, “as a thief is ashamed when he is
found,” Jer. ii. 26; mark that, “when he is found;” a thief is not ashamed
of his sin, but because he is found in it, and so brought to a shameful
end.

5. When the cause of God is in hand, a true penitent is so ashamed of
himself that he fears the people of God shall be put to shame for his
sake, and that it shall go the worse with them because of his vileness and
guiltiness. This made David pray, “O God, thou knowest my foolishness; and
my sins are not hid from thee. Let not them that wait on thee, O Lord God
of hosts, be ashamed for my sake; let not those that seek thee be
confounded for my sake, O God of Israel,” Psal. lxix. 5, 6. The sorrow and
shame of a hypocrite (as all his other seeming graces) are rooted in
self-love, not in the love of God: he hath not this in all his thoughts,
that he is a spot or blemish in the body or church of Christ, and
therefore to be humbled, lest for his sake God be displeased with his
people; lest such a vile and abominable sinner as he is bring wrath and
confusion upon others, and make Israel turn their back before the enemy. O
happy soul that hath such thoughts as these!

I have now done with the first part of the text, wherein I have been the
larger, because it most fitteth the work of the day.

The second follows: “Show them the form of the house,” &c.

Before I come to the doctrines which do here arise, I shall first explain
the particulars mentioned in this part of the text, so as they may agree
to the spiritual temple or church of Christ, which in the beginning I
proved to be here intended.

First, We find here the form and fashion of a house; in which the parts
are very much diversified one from another. There are, in a formed and
fashioned house, doors, windows, posts, lintels, &c.; there is also a
multitude of common stones in the walls of the house. Such a house is the
visible ministerial church of Christ, the parts whereof are _partes
dissimilares_,—some ministers and rulers; some eminent lights; others of
the ordinary rank of Christians,—that make up the walls. If God hath made
one but a small pinning in the wall, he hath reason to be content, and
must not say, Why am not I a post, or a corner-stone, or a beam? Neither
yet may any corner-stone despise the stones in the wall, and say, I have
no need of you.

Secondly, The Prophet was here to show them “the goings out of the house,
and the comings in thereof.” These are not the same but different gates,
it is plain: “When the people of the land shall come before the Lord in
the solemn feasts, he that entereth in by the way of the north gate to
worship, shall go out by the way of the south gate, &c., he shall not
return by the way of the gate whereby he came in,” Ezek. xlvi. 9. And that
not only to teach us order, and the avoiding of confusion, occasioned by
the contrary tides of a multitude, but to tell us farther, “No man, having
put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of
God,” Luke ix. 62. We must not go out of the church the way that we came
in (that were a door of defection), but hold our faces forward till we go
out by the door of death.

Thirdly, The text hath twice “all the forms thereof,” which I understand
of the outward forms and of the inward forms, which two I find very much
distinguished by those who have written of the form and structure of the
temple. The church is exceedingly beautified, even outwardly, with the
ordinances of Christ, but the inward forms are the most glorious: “For,
behold, the kingdom of God is within you,” Luke xvii. 21; and it “cometh
not with observation,” ver. 20; “The king’s daughter is all glorious
within;” yet even “her clothing is of wrought gold,” Psal. xlv. 13. When
the angel had made an end of measuring the inner house (Ezek. xlii. 15),
then he brought forth Ezekiel by the east gate, which was the chief gate
by which the people commonly entered, and measured the outer wall in the
last place. God’s method is first to try the heart and reins, then to give
to a man according to his works, Jer. xvii. 10. So should we measure, by
the reed of the sanctuary, first the inner house of our hearts and minds,
and then to measure our outer walls, and to judge of our profession and
external performances.

Lastly, The Prophet is commanded to write in their sight “all the
ordinances thereof, and all the laws thereof;” for the church is a house
not only in an architectonic, but in an economic sense. It is Christ’s
family governed by his own laws; and a temple which hath in it “them that
worship,” Rev. xi. 1, it hath its own proper laws by which it is ordered.
_Alioe sunt leges Coesarum, alioe Christi_ (saith Jerome(1387)),—Caesar’s
laws and Christ’s laws are not the same, but divers one from another.
Schoolmen say,(1388) that a law, properly so called, is both illuminative
and impulsive: illuminative, to inform and direct the judgment; impulsive,
to move and apply the will to action. And accordingly there are two names
in this text given to Christ’s laws and institutions: one(1389) which
importeth the instruction and information of our minds; another,(1390)
which signifieth a deep imprinting or engraving (and that is made upon our
hearts and affections), such as a pen of iron and other instruments could
make upon a stone. It is not well when either of the two is wanting; for
the light of truth, without the engraving of truth, may be extinguished;
and the engraving of truth, without the light of truth, may be obliterate.

All these I shall pass, and only pitch upon two doctrines which I shall
draw from this second part of the text: one concerning the will of God’s
commandment, what God requireth of Israel to do; another concerning the
will of God’s decree, what he hath purposed himself to do.

The first is this: “God will have Israel to build and order his temple,
not as shall seem good in their eyes, but according to his own pattern
only which he sets before them,” which doth so evidently appear from this
very text, that it needeth no other proof; for what else meaneth the
showing of such a pattern to be kept and followed by his people? Other
passages of this kind there are which do more abundantly confirm it.

The Lord did prescribe to Noah both the matter, and fashion, and measures
of the ark (Gen. vi. 14-16). To Moses he gave a pattern of the tabernacle,
of the ark, of the mercy-seat, of the vail, of the curtains, of the two
altars, of the table and all the furniture thereof, of the candlestick and
all the instruments thereof, &c. And though Moses was the greatest prophet
that ever arose in Israel, yet God would not leave any part of the work to
Moses’ arbitrement, but straitly commandeth him, “Look that thou make them
after their pattern, which was showed thee in the mount,” Exod. xxv. 40.
When it came to the building of the first temple, Solomon was not in that
left to his own wisdom, as great as it was, but David, the man of God,
gave him a perfect “pattern of all that he had by the Spirit,” 1 Chron.
xxviii. 11-13. The second temple was also built “according to the
commandment of the God of Israel” (Ezra vi. 14), by Haggai and Zechariah.
And for the New Testament, Christ our great Prophet, and only King and
Lawgiver of the church, hath revealed his will to the apostles, and they
to us, concerning all his holy things; and we must hold us at these
unleavened and unmixed ordinances which the apostles, from the Lord,
delivered to the churches: “I will put upon you (saith he himself) none
other burden: but that which ye have already hold fast till I come,” Rev.
ii. 24, 25.

I know the church must observe rules of order and conveniency in the
common circumstances of times, places, and persons; but these
circumstances are none of our holy things,—they are only prudential
accommodations, which are alike common to all human societies, both civil
and ecclesiastical, wherein both are directed by the same light of nature,
the common rule to both in all things of that kind, providing always that
the general rules of the word be observed: “Do all to the glory of God,” 1
Cor. x. 31; “Let all things be done to edifying,” 1 Cor. xiv. 26; “It is
good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor anything whereby thy
brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak,” Rom. xiv. 21; “Let
every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. To him that esteemeth
anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean,” Rom. xiv. 5, 14.

The text giveth some clearing to this point: There is here showed to the
house of Israel a pattern of the whole structure, and of the least part
thereof, and all the measures thereof; yet no pattern is given of the
kind, or quantity, or magnificence of the several stones, or of the
instruments of building. The reason is, because the former is essential to
a house, the latter accidental,(1391) the former, if altered, make another
building; the latter, though altered, the building is the same: therefore
where we have in the text “the forms thereof,” the Septuagint read
ὑποστασιν αὐτοῦ,—_the substance thereof_.

But to clear it a little farther, I put two characters upon those
circumstances which are not determined by the word of God, but left to be
ordered by the church as shall be found most convenient. First, They are
not things sacred, nor proper to the church, as hath been said. They are
of the same nature, they serve for the same end and use, both in sacred
and civil things; for order and decency, the avoiding of confusion and the
like, are alike common to church and commonwealth. Secondly, I shall
describe them as one of the prelates hath done, who tells us,(1392) that
the things which the Scripture hath left to the discretion of the church
are those things “which neither needed nor could be particularly
expressed. They needed not, because they are so obvious; and they could
not, both because they are so numerous, and because so changeable.”

I will not insist upon questions of this kind, but will make a short
application of the doctrine unto you, honourable and beloved. You may
plainly see from what hath been said, that neither kings, nor parliaments,
nor synods, nor any power on earth, may impose or continue the least
ceremony upon the consciences of God’s people, which Christ hath not
imposed; therefore let neither antiquity, nor custom, nor conveniency, nor
prudential considerations, nor show of holiness, nor any pretext
whatsoever, plead for the reservation of any of your old ceremonies, which
have no warrant from the word of God. Much might have been said for the
high places among the Jews, as I hinted in the beginning; and much might
have been said by the Pharisees for their frequent washings (Mark vii. 2,
3, 4, 7), which, as they were ancient, and received by the traditions of
the elders, so they were used to teach men purity, and to put them in mind
of holiness; neither was their washing contrary to any commandment of God,
except you understand that commandment of not adding to the word (Deut.
iv. 2; xii. 32; Prov. xxx. 6), which doth equally strike against all
ceremonies devised by man.

“A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump,” Gal. v. 9; and a little leak
will endanger the ship. Thieves will readily dig through a house, how much
more will they enter if any postern be left open to them. The wild beasts
and boars of the forest will attempt to break down the hedges of the
Lord’s vineyard (Psal. lxxx. 13), how much more if any breach be left in
the hedges. If, therefore, you would make a sure reformation, make a
perfect reformation, lest Christ have this controversy with England,
“Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee,” Rev. ii. 4. And so much of
our duty.

The second doctrine concerneth God’s decree, and it is this: “It is
concluded in the council of heaven, and God hath it in the thoughts of his
heart, to repair the breaches of his house, and to build such a temple to
himself, as is shadowed forth in this vision of Ezekiel.” For the
comparing of this verse with ver. 7 in this same chapter, and with chap.
xxxvii. 26, 27, will easily make it appear, that this showing of the
pattern, and all this measuring, was not only in reference to Israel’s
duty, but to God’s gracious purpose towards Israel. According to that,
Zech. i. 16, “Therefore thus saith the Lord, I am returned to Jerusalem
with mercies: my house shall be built in it, saith the Lord of hosts, and
a line shall be stretched forth upon Jerusalem.” Now this vision cannot be
said to be fulfilled in Zorobabel’s temple, as I proved before, only here
take notice that the second destruction of the temple by the Romans was
worse than the first by the Babylonians,—that desolation was repaired, but
this could never be repaired, though the Jews did attempt the building
again of the temple,(1393) first under Adrian the emperor, and afterward
under Julian the apostate. The hand of God was seen against them most
terribly by fire from heaven, and other signs of that kind; and about the
same time (to observe that by the way) the famous Delphic temple was
without man’s hand, by fire and earthquake, utterly destroyed and never
built again,—to tell the world that neither Judaism nor paganism should
prevail, but the kingdom of Jesus Christ.

Where then must we seek for the accomplishment of Ezekiel’s vision, I mean
for the new temple in which the Lord will dwell for ever, and where his
holy name shall be no more polluted? Surely we must seek for it in the
days of the gospel, as hath been before abundantly proved; but that the
thing may be the better understood, let us take with us, at least, some
few general observations concerning this temple of Ezekiel, as it
representeth what should come to pass in the church of Christ.

First of all, there is but one temple, not many, showed to him,—which is
in part, and shall be yet more fulfilled in the church of the New
Testament, according to that, Zech. xiv. 8, “And it shall be in that day,
that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem;” which is the same that we
have, Ezek. xlvii. 1. Then follows, “And the Lord shall be King over all
the earth: in that day shall there be one Lord, and his name one.” The
like promise we find elsewhere: “I will give them one heart, and one way,”
Jer. xxxii. 39; Ezek. xi. 19. It is observed, that for this very end of
uniformity, the heathens also did erect temples, that they might all
worship the same idol-god in the same manner. The plague of the Christian
church hitherto hath been temple against temple, and altar against altar,
“But thou, O Lord, how long?” Psal. vi. 3.

Secondly, Ezekiel’s temple and city are very large and capacious, as I
showed in the beginning; and the city had three gates looking toward each
of the four quarters of the world, Ezek. xlviii. 31-34: all this to
signify the spreading of the gospel into all the earth; which is also
signified by the holy waters issuing from the threshold of the temple, and
rising so high that they were waters to swim in, Ezek. xlvii. 1, 5. God
hath said to his church, “Enlarge the place of thy tent, and let them
stretch forth the curtains of thine habitations: spare not, lengthen thy
cords, and strengthen thy stakes: for thou shalt break forth on the right
hand and on the left,” Isa. liv. 2, 3. A great increase of the church
there was in the apostles’ times, Col. i. 6; but a far greater may be yet
looked for, Rom. xi. 12. Though the enemy did come in like a flood, the
Spirit of the Lord lifted up a standard against him, Isa. lix. 19; “The
sea saw it, and fled; Jordan was driven back,” Psal. cxiv. 3. But when the
gospel cometh, “like a noise of many waters” (as the Prophet calls it,
ver. 2, signifying an irresistible increase), it is in vain to build
bulwarks against it: God will even break open “the fountains of the great
deep,” and open “the windows of heaven” (Gen. vii. 11); and the gospel
will prove a second flood, which will overflow the whole earth, though not
to destroy it (as Noah’s did), but to make it glad; “For the earth shall
be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord, as the waters cover
the sea,” Hab. ii. 14; Isa. xi. 9.

Thirdly, In this temple, beside the holy of holies, were three
courts:(1394) the court of the priests; the court of the people, commonly
called _Atrium Israelis_; and, without both these, _Atrium Gentium_, the
court of the heathen, so called, because the heathen, as also many of
those who were legally unclean, might not only come unto the mountain of
the house of the Lord, but also enter within the outer wall (mentioned
Ezek. xlii. 20), and so worship in that outer court, or _intermurale_;
unto which did belong (as we learn from Josephus(1395)) the great east
porch, which kept the name of _Solomon’s porch_,—in which both Christ
himself did preach (John x. 23), and the apostles after him (Acts v. 12);
by which means the free grace of the gospel was held forth even to
heathens, and publicans, and unclean persons, who were not admitted into
the court of Israel,—there to communicate in all the holy things: “For the
Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost,” Luke xix. 10.
This outer court of the temple is meant when it is said that the Pharisees
brought a woman taken in adultery into the temple, and set her before
Christ, John viii. 2, 3. Now all this will hold true answerably of the
spiritual temple; for, _first_, As the uncircumcised and the unclean were
not admitted into the temple among the children of Israel (Ezek. xliv. 9),
so all that live in the church of Christ are not to be admitted
promiscuously to every ordinance of God, especially to the Lord’s table,
but only those whose profession, knowledge and conversation, after trial,
shall be found such as may make them capable thereof: yet as heathens and
unclean persons did enter into the outer court, and there hear Christ and
his apostles, so there shall ever be in the church a door of grace and
hope open to the greatest and vilest sinners who shall seek after Christ,
and “ask the way to Zion, with their faces thitherward,” Jer. i. 5.
_Secondly_, There shall be also somewhat answerable to the court of the
children of Israel: God can raise up even of the stones children to
Abraham (Matt. iii. 9); he will not want a people to tread in the courts
of his house, and to inquire in his temple. _Thirdly_, And as in the
typical temple there was a court for the priests, so hath the Lord
promised to the church: “Yet shall not thy teachers be removed into a
corner any more, but thine eyes shall see thy teachers,” Isa. xxx. 20; and
again, “I will give you pastors according to mine heart, which shall feed
you with knowledge and understanding,” Jer. iii. 15. _Fourthly_, And as
there was a secret and most holy place, where the ark was, and the
mercy-seat, and where the glory of God dwelt, so Christ hath his own
“hidden ones” (Psal. lxxxiii. 3), “the children of the bride-chamber”
(Matt. ix. 15), who, “with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of
the Lord, are changed into the same image, from glory to glory, even as by
the Spirit of the Lord,” 2 Cor. iii. 18. There is also a time coming when
God will open the secrets of his temple, and make the ark of his testament
to be seen otherwise than yet it hath been; which shall be at the sounding
of the seventh trumpet, Rev. xi. 15, 19.

Fourthly, The fourth thing wherein Ezekiel’s temple represented the church
of Christ is in regard of the great strength thereof: it stood “upon a
very high mountain,” chap. xl. 2. The material temple also in Jerusalem,
as it is described by Josephus, was a very strong and impregnable place.
Interpreters think that Cyrus was jealous of the strength of the temple,
and for that cause gave order that it should not be built above threescore
cubits high, whereas Solomon had built it sixscore cubits high, Ezra vi.
3. The Romans afterwards, when they had subdued Judea, had a watchful eye
upon the temple, and placed a strong garrison in the castle Antonia (which
was beside the temple), the commander whereof was called “the captain of
the temple” (Acts iv. 1); and all this for fear of sedition and rebellion
among the Jews when they came to the temple. Now the invisible strength of
the spiritual temple is clearly held forth unto us by him who cannot
deceive us: “Upon this rock,” saith he (meaning himself), “I will build my
church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it,” Matt. xvi.
18. The princes and powers of the world are more jealous than they need of
the church’s strength; and yet (which is a secret judgment of God) they
have not been afraid to suffer Babylon to be built in her full strength:
“There were they in great fear where no fear was” (Psal. liii. 5); for
when all shall come to all, it shall be found that the gospel and true
religion is the strongest bulwark, and chief strength for the safety and
stability of kings and states.

Lastly, The glory of this temple was very great, insomuch that some have
undertaken to demonstrate(1396) that it was a more glorious piece than any
of the seven miracles of the world, which were so much spoken of among the
ancients. But the greatest glory of this temple was, that “the glory of
the God of Israel” came into it, and “the earth shined with his glory,”
ver. 2; Christ, the brightness of his Father’s glory (Heb. i. 3), walking
in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks (Rev. i. 13), is and shall
be more and more the church’s glory; therefore it is said to her, “Arise,
shine, for thy light is come, and the glory of the Lord is risen upon
thee,” Isa. lx. 1. Surely as it was said of the new material temple, in
reference to Christ, so it may be said of the new spiritual temple, which
yet we look for, “The glory of this latter house shall be greater than of
the former, saith the Lord of hosts; and in this place will I give peace,
saith the Lord of hosts,” Hag. ii. 9. Christ will keep the best wine till
the end of the feast (John ii. 10); and he will bless our latter end more
than our beginning, Ezek. xxxvi. 11.

That which I have said, from grounds of Scripture, concerning a more
glorious, yea, more peaceable condition of the church to be yet looked
for, is acknowledged by some of our sound and learned writers(1397) who
have had occasion to express their judgment about it: and it hath no
affinity with the opinion of an earthly or temporal kingdom of Christ, or
of the Jews’ building again of Jerusalem and the material temple, and
their obtaining a dominion above all other nations, or the like.

I shall now bring home the point. There are very good grounds of hope to
make us think that this new temple is not far off; and (for your part)
that Christ is to make a new face of a church in this kingdom,—a fair and
beautiful temple for his glory to dwell in: and he is even now about the
work.

For, first, “The set time” to build Zion is come, when the people of God
“take pleasure in her stones, and favour the dust thereof,” Psal. cii. 13,
14, 16. The stones which the builders of Babel refused are now chosen for
corner stones, and the stones which they chose do the builders of Zion now
refuse: “They shall not take of thee a stone for a corner, nor a stone for
foundations,” Jer. li. 26. Those that have anything of Christ and of the
image of God in them begin to creep out of the dust of contempt, and to
appear like stars of the morning. Nay, to go farther than that, the old
stones, the Jews, who have been for so many ages lying forgotten in the
dust, those poor “outcasts of Israel” (Psal. cxlvii. 2), have of late come
more into remembrance, and have been more thought of, and more prayed for,
than they were in former generations.

Secondly, Are there not great preparations and instruments fitted for the
work? Hath not God called together, for such a time as this, the present
Parliament, and the Assembly of Divines, his Zorobabels, and Jehoshuas,
and Haggais, and Zechariahs? Are there not also hewers of stones, and
bearers of burdens? much wholesome preaching, much praying and fasting,
many petitions put up both to God and man? the covenant also going through
the kingdom as the chief preparation of materials for the work? Is not the
old rubbish of ceremonies daily more and more shovelled away, that there
may be a clean ground? and is not the Lord by all this affliction humbling
you, that there may be a deep and a sure foundation laid?

Thirdly, The work is begun, and shall it not be finished? God hath laid
the foundation, and shall he not “bring forth the head-stone?” Zech. iv.
7, 9. Christ hath put Antichrist from his outerworks in Scotland, and he
is now come to put him from his innerworks in England: “His work is
perfect” (Deut. xxxii. 4), saith Moses; “I am Alpha and Omega (saith
Christ), the beginning and the ending,” Rev. i. 8; “Shall I bring to the
birth, and not cause to bring forth, saith the Lord? shall I cause to
bring forth, and shut the womb, saith thy God?” Isa. lxvi. 9.

I may add three other signs whereby to discern the time, from Rev. xi. 1,
the place before cited: _First_, Is there not now a measuring of the
temple, ordinances and worshippers, by “a reed like unto a rod?” The reed
of the sanctuary in the Assembly’s hand, and the rod of power and law in
your hand, are well met together. _Secondly_, There is a court, which
before seemed to belong to the temple, left out and not measured: “From
him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath,” Matt. xxv.
29. The Samaritans of this time, who serve the Lord, and serve their own
gods too (2 Kings xvii. 33, 34), and do after the manners of idolaters,
have professed (as they of old to the Jews, Ezra iv. 2), that they would
build with you; that they will be for the true Protestant religion as you
are; that they will also consent to the reformation of abuses, for the
ease of tender consciences. But God doth so alienate and separate betwixt
you and them, by his overruling providence, discovering their designs
against you, and their deep engagements to the popish party, as if he
would say unto them, “Ye have no portion, nor right, nor memorial in
Jerusalem,” Neh. ii. 20; or as it is in the parable concerning those who
had refused to come when they were invited, yea, had taken the servants of
Christ and entreated them spitefully, and killed them,—the great king hath
said in his wrath, that they shall not taste of his supper, and he sends
forth his armies to destroy those murderers, and to burn up their city,
Matt. xxii. 6, 7; Luke xiv. 24. Surely what they have professed(1398)
concerning reformation is scarce so much as the Pope did acknowledge when
reformation did begin in Germany. However, as it is our heart’s desire and
prayer to God for them that they may be saved, so we are not out of hopes
that God hath many of his own among them, unto whom he will give
“repentance to the acknowledging of the truth.”

Lastly, The time seemeth to answer fitly: The new temple is built when the
forty-two months of the beast’s reign, and of the treading down the holy
city (that is, by the best interpretation, twelve hundred and sixty years)
come to an end. This computation, I conceive, should begin rather before
the four hundredth year of Christ than after it; both because the Roman
Emperor (whose falling was the Pope’s rising) was brought very low before
that time by the wars of the Goths and other barbarous nations, and
otherwise, which will appear from history; and further, because pope
Innocentius(1399) (who succeeded about the year 401) was raised so high
that he drew all appeals from other bishops to the apostolical see,
according to former statutes and customs, as he saith. I cannot pitch upon
a likelier time than the year 383, at which time (according to the common
calculation) a general Council at Constantinople (though Baronius and some
others reckon that Council in the year 381) did acknowledge the primacy of
the bishop of Rome,(1400) only reserving to the bishop of Constantinople
the second place among the bishops. Did not then the beast receive much
power when this much was acknowledged by a council of one hundred and
fifty bishops, though sitting in the East, and moderated by Nectarius,
archbishop of Constantinople. Immediately after this council, it is
acknowledged by one of our great antiquaries,(1401) that the bishop of
Rome did labour mightily to draw all causes to his own consistory, and
that he doth scarce read of any heretic or schismatic condemned in the
province where he lived, but straight he had recourse to the bishop of
Rome. Another of our antiquaries(1402) noteth not long before that
Council, that Antichrist did then begin to appear at Rome, and to exalt
himself over all other bishops.

Now if we should reckon the beginning of the beast’s reign about the time
of that Council, the end of it will fall in at this very time of ours. But
I dare not determine so high a point. God’s work will, ere it be long,
make a clearer commentary upon his word. Only let this be remembered, We
must not think it strange if, after the end of the twelve hundred and
sixty years, Antichrist be not immediately and utterly abolished; for when
that time is ended he makes war against the witnesses, yea, overcometh and
killeth them. But that victory of his lasteth only three days and a half,
and then God makes, as it were, a resurrection from the dead, and a tenth
part of the great city falls before the whole fall; see Rev. xi. 3, 7, 11,
13. Whether this killing of the witnesses (which seemeth to be the last
act of Antichrist’s power) be past, or to come, I cannot say: God knows.
But assuredly, the acceptable year of Israel’s jubilee, and the day of
vengeance upon Antichrist, is coming, and is not far off.

But now, is there no other application to be made of this point? Is all
this said to satisfy curious wits, or, at the best, to comfort the people
of God? Nay, there is more than so: it must be brought home to a practical
use. As the assurance of salvation doth not make the child of God the more
presumptuous, but the more humble (Ezek. xvi. 63); neither doth it make
him negligent, but diligent in the way of holiness, and in all the acts of
his spiritual warfare, Phil. iii. 13, 14; 2 Pet. i. 10; so that “every man
that hath this hope in him purifieth himself,” 1 John iii. 3: so
answerably, the assurance of the new temple, and of the sweet days to
come, serveth for a twofold practical use; even as David also applieth
God’s promise of Solomon’s building the temple, 1 Chron. xxii. 9; for thus
he speaketh to the princes of Israel, ver. 19, “Now set your heart and
your soul to seek the Lord your God; arise, therefore, and build ye the
sanctuary of the Lord God;” and this is, beside, the charge which he
giveth to Solomon.

First, then, ye must set your heart and your soul to seek God, forasmuch
as you know it is not in vain to seek him for this thing, Dan. ix. 2, 3.
When Daniel understood by books that the seventy years of Jerusalem’s
desolation were at an end, and that the time of building the temple again
was at hand, then he saith, “I set my face unto the Lord God, to seek by
prayer and supplications, with fasting, and sackcloth, and ashes.” O let
us do as he did! O let us “cry mightily unto God,” Jonah iii. 8; and let
us, with all our soul, and all our might, give ourselves to fasting and
prayer. Now, if ever, “the effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man
availeth much,” James v. 16.

Secondly, And the more actively you must go about the business. “Be ye
stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch
as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord,” 1 Cor. xv. 58.
What greater motive to action than to know that you shall prosper in it?
“Arise therefore, and be doing.”

And so I am led upon the third and last part of the text, of which I shall
speak but very little.

The doctrine is this: Reformation ends not in contemplation, but in
action. The pattern of the house of God is set before us to the end it may
be followed; and the ordinances thereof to the end they may be obeyed:
“Give me understanding (saith David), and I shall keep thy law; yea, I
shall observe it with my whole heart,” Psal. cxix. 34; “If ye know these
things (saith Christ), happy are ye if ye do them,” John xiii. 17. The
point is plain, and needeth no proof but application.

Let me therefore, honourable worthies, leave in your bosoms this one point
more: Many of the servants of God who have stood in this place, and could
do it better than I can, have been calling upon you to go on in the work
of reformation: O “be not slothful in business,” Rom. xii. 11; and forget
not to do as you have been taught. Had you begun at this work, and gone
about the building of the house of God as your first and chief business, I
dare say you should have prospered better. It was one cause, among others,
why the children of Israel (though the greater number, and having the
better cause too) did twice fall before Benjamin, because, while they made
so great a business for the villainy committed upon the Levites’
concubine, they had taken no course with the graven image of the children
of Dan (Jud. xviii. 30, 31), a thing which did more immediately touch God
in his honour.

But I am confident errors of this kind will be now amended, and that you
will, by double diligence, redeem the time. I know your trouble is great,
and your cares many, in managing the war, and looking to the safety of the
kingdom, yet mark what David did in such a case: “Behold, in my trouble
(saith he) I have prepared for the house of the Lord an hundred thousand
talents of gold, and a thousand thousand talents of silver; and of brass
and iron without weight,” 1 Chron. xxii. 14. David did manage great wars
with mighty enemies, (2 Sam. v., viii., x., xi.,) the Philistines,
Moabites, Ammonites, and Syrians; beside the intestine war made first by
Abner (2 Sam. ii. 8), and afterward by Absalom (2 Sam. xv. 10), and after
that by Sheba (2 Sam. xx. 1.) Notwithstanding of all this, in his trouble
and poverty (the word signifieth both), he made this great preparation for
the house of God; and if God had given him leave, he had, in his trouble,
built it too, for you well know he was not hindered from building the
temple by the wars or any other business, but only because God would not
permit him.

Set before you also the example of the Jews, when the prophets of God did
stir them up to the building of the temple, Ezra v. 1, 2. They say not, We
must first build the walls of Jerusalem to hold out the enemy, but the
text saith, “They began to build the house of God.” They were not full
four years in building the temple, and finished it in the sixth year of
Darius, Ezra. iv. 24 with vi. 15. Now all the rest of his reign did pass,
and all Xerxes’ reign, and much of Artaxerxes Longimanus’s reign, before
the walls of Jerusalem were built, for about that work was Nehemiah from
the twentieth year of Artaxerxes to the two and thirtieth year (Neh. v.
14); and if great chronologers be not very far mistaken, the temple was
finished fourscore and three years before the walls of Jerusalem were
finished.(1403)

It is far from my meaning to cool your affection to the laws, liberties,
peace, and safety of the kingdom. I desire only to warm your hearts with
the zeal of reformation, as that which, all along, you must carry on in
the first place.

One thing I cannot but mention: The reverend Assembly of Divines may
lament (as Augustine in another case), _Heu, heu, quam tarde
festino!_—_alas, alas, how slowly do I make speed!_

But since now, by the blessing of God, they are thus far advanced, that
they have found, in the word of God, a pattern for presbyterial government
over many particular congregations; and have found also, from the word,
that ordination is an act belonging to such a presbytery, I beseech you
improve that “whereto we have already attained” (Phil. iii. 16), till
other acts of a presbytery be agreed on afterward. Yourselves know better
than I do, that much people is perishing (Prov. xxix. 18), because there
is no vision: “The harvest truly is great, but the labourers are few,”
Luke x. 2, Give me leave, therefore, to quicken you to this part of the
work, that, with all diligence and without delay, some presbyteries be
associated and erected (in such places as yourselves in your wisdom shall
judge fittest), with power to ordain ministers with the consent of the
congregations, and after trial of the gifts, soundness and conversation of
the men. In so doing you shall both please God and bring upon yourselves
the blessing of many poor souls that are ready to perish (Job xxix. 13);
and you shall likewise greatly strengthen the hearts and hands of your
brethren in Scotland, joined in covenant and in arms with you. I say
therefore again, “Arise therefore, and be doing, and the Lord be with
thee,” 1 Chron. xxii. 16; yea, the Lord is with you (Hag. ii. 4, 5)
according to the word that he hath covenanted with you, so his Spirit
remaineth among you: Fear ye not, but “be strong in the Lord, and in the
power of his might.”

A SERMON PREACHED BEFORE THE RIGHT HONOURABLE THE HOUSE OF LORDS, IN THE
ABBEY CHURCH AT WESTMINSTER.

SERMON

PREACHED BEFORE THE

RIGHT HONOURABLE THE HOUSE OF LORDS,

IN THE ABBEY CHURCH AT WESTMINSTER,

AUGUST 27, 1645;

BEING THE DAY APPOINTED FOR SOLEMN AND PUBLIC HUMILIATION.

BY GEORGE GILLESPIE,

MINISTER AT EDINBURGH, 1642.

“Aliae sunt leges Caesarum, aliae Christi: aliud Papinianus, aliud Paulus
noster praecipit.”—_Hieron. in Epitaphio Fabioloe_

EDINBURGH:

ROBERT OGLE AND OLIVER AND BOYD

M. OGLE & SON AND WILLIAM COLLINS, GLASGOW. J. DEWAR, PERTH. W. MIDDLETON,
DUNDEE.

G. & R. KING, ABERDEEN. W. M’COMB, BELFAST

HAMILTON, ADAMS, & CO., AND JAMES NISBET AND CO., LONDON.

1645.

REPRINTED BY A. W. MURRAY, MILNE SQUARE, EDINBURGH

1844.

PREFACE TO THE READER.

I have in this sermon applied my thoughts toward these three things: 1.
The soul-ensnaring error of the greatest part of men, who choose to
themselves such a way to the kingdom of heaven as is broad, and smooth,
and easy, and but little or nothing at all displeasing to flesh and blood,
like him that tumbled down upon the grass and said, _Utinam hoc esset
laborare_. 2. The grumbling and unwillingness which appeareth in very
many, when they should submit to that reformation of the church which is
according to the mind of Jesus Christ, like them that said to the seers,
“See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak
unto us smooth things,” Isa. xxx, 10; and again, “Let us break their bands
asunder, and cast away their cords from us,” Psal. ii. 3. 3. The sad and
desolate condition of the kingdom of Scotland, then calling for our
prayers and tears, and saying, “Call me not Naomi (pleasant), call me Mara
(bitter): for the Almighty hath dealt very bitterly with me,” Ruth i. 20.
We were “pressed out of measure, above strength,” and “had the sentence of
death in ourselves, that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God
which raiseth the dead; who delivered us from so great a death, and doth
deliver; in whom we trust that he will yet deliver us,” 2 Cor. i. 8-10.
Our brethren also “helping together by prayer for us,” that for the mercy
bestowed on us by means of the prayers of many, thanks may be given by
many on our behalf. “The Lord liveth, and blessed be my Rock: and let the
God of my salvation be exalted,” Psal. xviii, 46; He is our God; and we
will prepare for him an habitation; our father’s God, and we will exalt
him, Exod. xv. 2; “Blessed be the Lord God, the God of Israel, who only
doeth wondrous things. And blessed be his glorious name for ever: and let
the whole earth be filled with his glory,” Psal. lxxii. 18, 19. Scotland
shall yet be “a crown of glory in the hand of the Lord, and a royal diadem
in the hand of thy God,” Isa. lxii. 3; and shall be called Hephzi-bah and
Beulah. Only let us remember our evil ways, and be confounded, and never
open our mouth any more because of our shame, when the Lord our God is
pacified towards us. Now are both kingdoms put to a trial, whether their
humiliations be filial, and whether then can mourn for sin more than for
judgment. And let us now hear what the Spirit speaketh to the churches,
and not turn again to folly New provocations, or the old unrepented, will
create new ones; therefore “sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto us.”

SERMON.

MALACHI iii. 2.

“But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when
he appeareth? for he is like a refiner’s fire, and like fuller’s
soap.”

If you ask, “Of whom speaketh the Prophet this, of himself or of some
other man?” (Acts viii. 34)—it is answered, both by Christian and Jewish
interpreters: The Prophet speaketh this of Christ, the Messenger of the
covenant, then much longed and looked for by the people of God, as is
manifest by the preceding verse. And as it was fit that Malachi, the last
of the prophets, should shut up the Old Testament with clear promises of
the coming of Christ (which you find in this and in the following
chapter), so he takes the rather occasion from the corrupt and degenerate
estate of the priests at that time (which he had mentioned in the former
chapter) to hold forth unto the church the promised Messiah, who was to
come unto them to purify the sons of Levi.

But if you ask again, Of what coming or appearing of Christ doth the
Prophet speak this? whether of the first, or of the last, or of any
other?—the answer of expositors is not so unanimous. Some understand the
last coming of Christ, in the glory of his Father, and holy angels, to
judge the quick and the dead. This cannot stand with ver. 34, “He shall
purify the sons of Levi, and purge them,” &c.; but at the last judgment it
will be too late for the sons of Levi to be purified and purged, or for
Judah and Jerusalem to bring offerings unto the Lord, as in the days of
old.

Others understand the first coming of Christ. And of these some understand
his incarnation, or appearing in the flesh; others take the meaning to be
of his coming into the temple of Jerusalem, to drive out the buyers and
sellers (Matt. xxi. 10-12), at which time all the city was moved at his
coming. This exposition hath better grounds than the other, because the
coming of Christ (here spoken of) did not precede, but soon follow after
the ministry of John Baptist, and therefore cannot be meant of our
Saviour’s incarnation, but rather of his appearing with power and
authority in the temple. But this also falleth short, and neither
expresseth the whole nor the principal part of what is meant in this text;
for how can it be said that the prophecy which followeth, ver. 3, 4 (which
is all of a piece with ver. 2), was fulfilled during Christ’s appearing
and sitting in the temple of Jerusalem? or how can it be conceived that
the offerings of Judah and Jerusalem were pleasant to the Lord at that
time, when the Gentiles were not, and the Jews would not be brought in, to
offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness? So that whether we
understand by Judah and Jerusalem the Jewish church or the Christian, this
thing could not be said to be accomplished while Christ was yet upon
earth. And in like manner, whether we understand by the sons of Levi the
priests and Levites of the Jews, or the ministers of the gospel, it cannot
be said that Christ did, in the days of his flesh, purify the sons of Levi
as gold and silver.

I deny not but the Lord Jesus did then begin to set about this work. But
that which is more principally here intended, is Christ’s coming and
appearing in a spiritual, but yet most powerful and glorious manner, to
erect his kingdom, and to gather and govern his churches, by the ministry
of his apostles and other ministers, whom he sent forth after his
ascension.

Of this coming he himself speaketh, Matt. xvi. 28, “Verily I say unto you,
There be some standing here which shall not taste of death till they see
the Son of man coming in his kingdom;” Mark addeth, “with power” (Mark ix.
1). Neither was that all. He did not so come at that time as to put forth
all his power, or to do his whole work. He hath at divers times come and
manifested himself to his churches; and this present time is a time of the
revelation of the Son of God, and a day of his coming. We look also for a
more glorious coming of Jesus Christ before the end be: for “the Redeemer
shall come to Sion” (Isa. lix. 20), “and shall turn away ungodliness from
Jacob” (Rom. xi. 26); and he shall destroy Antichrist “with the brightness
of his coming,” 2 Thess. ii. 8; in which place the Apostle hath respect to
Isa. xi. 4, where it is said of Christ, the rod of Jesse, “with the breath
of his lips shall he slay the wicked.” There, withal, you have the
church’s tranquillity, the filling of the earth with the knowledge of the
Lord, and the restoring of the dispersed Jews, as you may read in that
chapter. Some have observed(1404) (which ought not to pass without
observation) that the Chaldee Paraphrase had there added the word
_Romilus_: “He shall slay the wicked Romilus;” whereupon they challenge
Arias Montanus for leaving out that word to wipe off the reproach from the
Pope. However, the Scriptures teach us, that the Lord Jesus will be
revealed mightily, and will make bare his holy arm, as well in the
confusion of Antichrist, as in the conversion of the Jews, before the last
judgment and the end of all things.

By this time you may understand what is meant in the text by the day of
Christ’s coming, or εἰσοδου,—_coming in_, as the Septuagint read, meaning
his coming, or entering into his temple, mentioned in the first verse; by
which temple Jerome upon the place rightly understandeth the church, or
spiritual temple.

When this temple is built, Christ cometh into it, to fill the house with
the cloud of his glory, and to walk in the midst of the seven golden
candlesticks. The same thing is meant by his appearing: “When he
appeareth,” saith our translation; “When he shall be revealed,”; others
read, “When he shall be seen,” or “in seeing of him.” The original word I
find used to express more remarkable, divine, and glorious sights, as Gen.
xvi. 13, “Have I also here looked after him that seeth me?” xxii. 14, “In
the mount of the Lord it shall be seen.” From this word had the prophets
the name of seers, 1 Sam. ix. 9; and from the same word came the name of
visions, 2 Chron. xxvi. 5, “Zechariah, who had understanding in the
visions of God.”

Now, but what of all this? might some think. If Christ come, it is
well,—he is the desire of all nations. O but when Christ thus cometh into
his kingdom among men with power, and is seen appearing with some beams of
his glory, “Who may abide, and who shall stand?” saith the text. How shall
sinners stand before the Holy One? How shall dust and ashes have any
fellowship with the God of glory? How shall our weak eyes behold the Sun
of righteousness coming forth like a bridegroom out of his chamber? Did
not Ezekiel fall upon his face at “the appearance of the likeness of the
glory of the Lord”? Ezek. i. 28. Did not Isaiah cry out, “Woe is me, for I
am undone,” “for mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts”? Isa.
vi. 5.

But why is it so hard a thing to abide the day of Christ’s coming, or to
stand before him when he appeareth in his temple? If you ask of him, as
Joshua did, “Art thou for us, or for our adversaries?” (Josh. v. 13,) he
will answer you, “Nay; but as a captain of the host of the Lord am I now
come,” (ver. 14.) If you ask of him, as the elders of Bethlehem asked of
Samuel (while they were trembling at his coming), “Comest thou peaceably?”
He will answer you as Samuel did, “Peaceably.” What is there here, then,
to trouble us? Doth he not come to save, and not to destroy? Yes, to save
the spirit, but to destroy the flesh; he will have the heart-blood of sin,
that the soul may live for ever. This is set forth by a double metaphor:
one taken from the refiner’s fire, which purifieth metals from the dross;
the other, from the fuller’s soap; others read the fuller’s grass, or the
fuller’s herb. Some have thought it so hard to determine, that they have
kept into the translation the very Hebrew word _borith_. Jerome tells
us,(1405) that the fuller’s herb which grew in the marsh places of
Palestina, had the same virtue for washing and making white which nitre
hath. Yet I suppose the fuller’s soap hath more of that virtue in it than
the herb could have. However it is certain that ברר,—_borith_, cometh from
a word which signifieth to make clean, according to that, Mark ix. 3, “His
raiment became shining, exceeding white as snow; so as no fuller on earth
can white them.”

But to whom will Christ thus reveal himself? And who are they whom he will
refine from their dross, and wash from their filthiness? That we may know
from the two following verses: He is not a refiner’s fire to those that
are “reprobate silver,” (Jer. vi. 30,) and can never be refined; neither
is he as fuller’s soap to those whose spot “is not the spot of his
children” (Deut. xxxii. 5): nay, Christ doth not thus lose his labour, but
he refineth and maketh clean the sons of Levi, also Judah and Jerusalem.
This, I doubt not to aver, doth principally belong to the Jews, for to
them pertain the promises (Rom. ix. 4), saith the Apostle, and the natural
branches shall be graffed into their own olive-tree (xi. 24); but it
belongeth also to us Gentiles, who are cut out of the wild olive-tree, and
are graffed into the good olive-tree. God hath persuaded Japhet to dwell
in the tents of Shem; and so we are now the Judah and Jerusalem, and our
ministers the sons of Levi. God’s own church and people, even the best of
them, have need of this refiner’s fire and of this fuller’s soap.

And so much for the scope, sense, and coherence of the text. The general
doctrine which offereth itself to us from the words, is this:—

“The way of Christ, and fellowship with him, is very difficult and
displeasing to our sinful nature, and is not so easy a matter as most men
imagine.”

First of all, this doth clearly arise out of the text. As when the people
said to Joshua, “God forbid that we should forsake the Lord, to serve
other gods,” (Josh. xxiv. 16,) Joshua answered, “Ye cannot serve the Lord,
for he is an holy God; he is a jealous God,” (ver. 19.) Just so doth the
Prophet here answer the Jews, when they were very much desiring and
longing for the Messiah, promising to themselves comfort, and peace, and
prosperity, and the restoring of all things according to their heart’s
desire, if Christ were once come. Nay, saith the Prophet, not so: “Who may
abide the day of his coming, and who shall stand when he appeareth?”

Secondly, Other scriptures do abundantly confirm it: The doctrine of Jesus
Christ was such as made many of his disciples say, “This is an hard
saying; who can hear it?” John vi. 60. And from that time many of them
“went back, and walked no more with him.” A young man, a ruler, who came
to him with great affection, was so cooled and discouraged at hearing of
the cross, and selling of all he had, that he went away sad and sorrowful,
Mark x. 21, 22. The apostles themselves having heard him say, that “it is
easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man
to enter into the kingdom of God,” “they were exceedingly amazed [at this
doctrine], saying, Who then can be saved?” Matt. xix. 24, 25. As for his
life and actions, they were such that not only did the Gadarenes beseech
him to depart out of their coasts (Matt. viii. 34), but his own friends
and kinsfolks were about “to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside
himself,” Mark iii. 21. His sufferings were such, that all his disciples
did forsake him, and went away every man to his own home again. And what
shall be the condition of those that will follow him? If we will indeed be
his disciples, he hath forewarned us to sit down first, and count our
cost, Luke xiv. 28. He hath told us, It will cost us no less than the
bearing of the cross, the forsaking of all, yea, which is hardest of all,
the denying of ourselves, John v. 26; ii. 33. We must even cease to be
ourselves, and cannot be his, except we leave off to be our own, Matt.
xvi. 24. And what shall the world think of us all this while? “Know ye not
(saith James) that the friendship of the world is enmity with God?
whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God,”
James iv. 4; “Let no man deceive himself (saith Paul). If any man among
you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may
be wise,” 1 Cor. iii. 18. What do ye think now? Are not all these hard
sayings for flesh and blood to hear? I might add much more of this kind.

Thirdly, Thus it must be, to set the higher value upon Christ, and upon
the lot of God’s children: “Will I offer burnt-offerings to the Lord my
God (saith David) of that which doth cost me nothing”? 2 Sam. xxiv. 24.
And shall our lines fall to us in pleasant places? or shall we have a
goodly heritage which doth cost us nothing? How should the preciousness of
the saint’s portion be known, if we lose nothing that is dear to us to
come by it? Phil. iii. 7, “What things were gain to me, those I counted
loss for Christ;” Matt. xiii. 44-46, “The kingdom of heaven is like unto
treasure hid in a field; the which when a man hath found, he hideth, and
for joy thereof goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field.
Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a merchant-man seeking goodly
pearls; who, when he had found one pearl of great price, went and sold all
that he had, and bought it.” Jacob’s family must give away all the strange
gods, and all their ear-rings also (Gen. xxxv. 4), before they get leave
to build an altar unto the Lord at Bethel; Abraham must get him out of his
country, and from his kindred, if he will come unto the land which the
Lord will show him; Moses must forsake the court of Egypt, if he will take
him to the heritage of Jacob his father; the disciples must leave ships,
nets, fathers, and all, if they will follow Christ. And as they who come
in sight of the south pole lose sight of the north pole, so, when we
follow Christ, we must resolve to forsake somewhat else, yea, even that
which is dearest to us.

Fourthly, If it were not so, there should be no sure evidence of our
closing in covenant with Christ; for then, and never till then, doth the
soul give itself up to Christ to be his, and closeth with him in a
covenant, when it renounceth all other lovers, that it may be his only.
Shall a woman be married to a husband with the reservation of another
lover, or upon condition that she shall ever stay in her father’s house?
So the soul cannot be married to Christ, except it not only renounce its
bosom sins, lusts, and idols, but be content also to part with the most
lawful creature-comforts for his sake: “Forget also thine own people, and
thy father’s house,” Psal. xlv. 10. The repudiating of creature-comforts,
and a covenant with Christ, go hand in hand together, Isa. lv. 2, 3.
Nahash would not make a covenant with the men of Jabesh-Gilead, unless
they would pluck out their right eyes, intending (as Josephus gives the
reason) to disable them from fighting or making war; for the buckler or
shield did cover their left eye when they fought, so that they had been
hard put to it, to fight without the right eye. This was a cruel mercy in
him; but it is a merciful severity in Christ, that he will make no
covenant with us, except the right eye of the old man of sin in us be put
out.

O then, let us learn from all this how miserably many a poor soul is
deluded, imagining, as the Jews did, that Christ shall even satisfy their
carnal and earthly desires, and that the way of salvation is broad and
easy enough. If the way of Christ be such as you have now heard, then
surely they are far from it, who give loose reins to the flesh, as David
did to Adonijah (1 Kings i. 6; Eccl. ii. 10); who have not displeased
their flesh at any time, nor said, “Why hast thou done so?” who do not
withhold their heart from any joy, and whatsoever their eyes desire, they
keep it not from them; who are like the “wild ass used to the wilderness,
that snuffeth up the wind at her pleasure” (Jer. ii. 24), and like “the
swift dromedary, traversing her ways” (ver. 23); who cannot endure to be
enclosed into so narrow a lane as ministers describe the way to heaven to
be. These are like fed oxen, which have room enough in the meadows, but
they are appointed for slaughter, when the labouring oxen, which are kept
under the yoke, shall be brought home to the stall and fed there. Was it
not so with the rich man and Lazarus? Luke xvi. 25. Nay, and many of the
children of God fall into this same error, of making the way of Christ
broader and easier than ever Christ made it, and taking more liberty than
ever he allowed; therefore mark ye well our Saviour’s words: “Enter ye in
at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that
leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: because
strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and
few there be that find it,” Matt. vii. 13, 14. There be but few that seek
it, and yet fewer that find it, but fewest of all that enter in at it.

But how doth all this agree with Matt. xi. 30, “For my yoke is easy, and
my burden is light;” and 1 John v. 3, “His commandments are not grievous.”

I answer, 1. That is spoken to poor souls that are labouring and heavy
laden; a metaphor taken from beasts drawing a full cart,—which both labour
in drawing, and are weary in bearing. But my text speaketh to those that
are like undaunted heifers, and like bullocks unaccustomed to the yoke.
The same Christ is a sweet and meek Christ to some, but a sour and severe
Christ to others.

2. Christ’s yoke is easy in comparison of the yoke of the law, which
neither we nor our fathers were able to bear.

3. As wisdom is easy to him that understandeth, so is Christ’s yoke easy,
and his burden light, to those that are well acquainted with it, and have
good experience of it: “When thou goest, thy steps shall not be
straitened; and when thou runnest, thou shall not stumble,” Prov. iv. 12:
this is spoken of the way of wisdom. But he saith, “When thou goest,” not
“when thou beginnest,” or “when thou enterest.” If thou art but once upon
thy progress, going and running, thou shalt find the way still the easier,
and still the sweeter.

4. Mark Christ’s own words: It is a yoke, though an easy one, and a
burden, though a light one: a yoke to the flesh, but easy to the spirit; a
burden to the old man, but light to the new man. He poureth in wine and
oil into our wounds: oil to cherish them, and wine to cleanse them. He can
both plant us as trees of righteousness, and at the same time lay the axe
to the root of the old tree: he will have mercy upon the sinner, but no
mercy upon the sin; he will save the soul, but yet so as by fire.

And thus much, in general, of the difficulty and hardship of the way of
Christ,—the great point held forth in this text; which I have the rather
insisted upon, as a necessary foundation for those particulars which I am
to speak of. Were this principle but rightly apprehended, it were easy to
persuade you when we come to particulars.

Some Papists have alleged this text for their purgatory. Here is indeed a
purgatory, and a fire of purgatory, and such a purgatory that we must
needs go through it before we can come to heaven. But this purgatory is in
this world, not in the world to come. The flesh must go through it, and
not the soul separated: and it must purge us from mortal, not from venial
sins; and by a spiritual, not a material fire.

I will now come to the particulars: Christ is to us as a refiner’s fire,
and as fuller’s soap, three ways: in respect of, 1. Reformation; 2.
Tribulation; 3. Mortification;—which make not three different senses, but
three harmonious parts of one and the same sense.

I begin with _reformation_; concerning which I draw this doctrine from the
text:—

“The right reformation of the church, which is according to the mind of
Jesus Christ, is not without much molestation and displeasure to men’s
corrupt nature. It is a very purgatory upon earth: it is like the fire to
drossy silver, and like fuller’s soap to slovenly persons, who would
rather keep the spots in their garments than take pains to wash them
out.”(1406)

Look but upon one piece of the accomplishment of this prophecy, and by it
judge of the rest. When Christ cometh to Jerusalem, “meek, and sitting
upon an ass” (as the Prophet said), all the city is troubled at his
coming, Matt. xxi. 5,10; when he had but cast out the buyers and sellers
out of the temple, the priests and scribes begin to plot his death, Luke
xix. 45, 47; nay, where Christ and the gospel cometh, there is a shaking
of heaven and earth, Hag. ii. 6. The less wonder if I call reformation
like a refiner’s fire. The dross of a church is not purged away without
this violence of fire.

This is the manner of reformation held forth in Scripture, and that in
reference, 1. To magistrates and statesmen; 2. To ministers; 3. To a
people reformed; 4. To a people not reformed.

In reference to magistrates and statesmen, reformation is a fire that
purgeth away the dross: Isa. i. 25, “And I will turn my hand upon thee,
and purely purge away thy dross, and take away all thy tin.” Here is the
refiner’s fire; and the Chaldee Paraphrase addeth the fuller’s _borith_.
Then followeth, ver. 26, “And I will restore thy judges as at the first,
and thy counsellors as at the beginning: afterward thou shalt be called,
The city of righteousness, The faithful city.” Interpreters note upon that
place, that no effectual reformation can be looked for till rulers and
magistrates be reformed; and that therefore the Lord promiseth to purge
away the dross and tin of corrupt rulers and judges, and to give his
people such judges and rulers as they had of old, Moses, Joshua, the
judges, David, Solomon, and the like.

In reference to ministers the doctrine is most clear. The next words after
my text tell you, that this refining fire is specially intended for
purifying the sons of Levi. The same thing we have more largely, though
more obscurely, in 1 Cor. iii. 12-15. I do not say that the Apostle there
meaneth only of times of reformation, but this I say, that it holdeth
true, and most manifestly, too, of times of reformation; and that this is
not to be excluded, but to be taken in as a principal part of the Holy
Ghost’s intendment in that scripture.(1407) He is speaking of the
ministers of the gospel and their ministry, supposing always that they
build upon Christ, and hold to that true foundation. Upon this foundation
some build gold, silver, precious stones; that is, such preaching of the
word, such administration of the sacraments, such a church discipline, and
such a life as is according to the word, and savoureth of Christ: others
build wood, hay, stubble; whereby is meant whatsoever in their ministry is
unprofitable, unedifying, vain, curious, unbeseeming the gospel; for the
ministers of Christ must be purified, not only from heresy, idolatry,
profaneness, and the like, but even from that which is frothy and
unedifying, which savoureth not of God’s Spirit, but of man’s. Now, saith
the Apostle, “Every man’s work shall be made manifest, for the day shall
declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire, and the fire shall try
every man’s work of what sort it is.” The church shall not always be
deluded and abused with vanities that cannot profit. A time of light and
reformation discovereth the unprofitableness of those things wherewith men
did formerly please and satisfy themselves. There is a fire which will
prove every man’s work, even an accurate trial and strict examination
thereof, according to the rule of Christ; a narrow inquiry into, and exact
discovery of every man’s work (for so do our divines(1408) understand the
fire there spoken of), whether this fiery trial be made by the searching
and discovering light of the word in a time of reformation, or by
afflictions, or in a man’s own conscience at the hour of death. If by some
or all of these trials, a minister’s work be found to be what it ought to
be, he shall receive a special reward and praise; but if he have built
wood, hay, and stubble, he shall be like a man whose house is set on fire
about his ears; that is, he shall suffer loss, and his work shall be
burnt, yet himself shall escape, and get his life for a prey, “so as by
fire;” that is, so that he can abide that trial and examination whereby
God distinguisheth between sincere ones and hypocrites; or, so that he be
found to have been otherwise a faithful minister, and to have built upon a
right foundation.

In the third place, you shall find reformation to be a refining fire in
reference to a people or church reformed: “He that is left in Zion, and he
that remaineth in Jerusalem, shall be called holy,” saith the Prophet;
“when the Lord shall have washed away the filth of the daughters of Zion,
and shall have purged the blood of Jerusalem from the midst thereof, by
the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning,” Isa. iv. 3, 4.
Where you may understand(1409) by the filth of the daughters of Zion,
their former idolatries, and such like abominations against the first
table (which the prophets call often by the name of filth and pollution);
and by the blood of Jerusalem, the sins against the second table. These
the Lord promiseth to purge away by the spirit of judgment; that is, by a
spirit of reformation (according to that John xii. 31, “Now is the
judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out”).
Which spirit of reformation is also a spirit of burning; even as the Holy
Ghost is elsewhere called fire (Matt. iii. 11), and did come down upon the
apostles in the likeness of cloven tongues of fire (Acts ii. 3). The
spirit of reformation may be the rather called the spirit of burning,
because ordinarily reformation is not without tribulation (as we shall
hear) and by the voice of the rod doth the Spirit speak to men’s
consciences. When the Lord hath thus washed away the filthy spots, and
burnt away the filthy dross of his church, then (Isa. iv. 5) she becomes a
glory or a praise in the earth; and the promise is, that “upon all the
glory shall be a defence:” but, you see, she is not brought to that
condition till she go through the refiner’s fire. It is no easy matter to
cast Satan out of a person,—how much less to cast his kingdom out of a
land? Another place for the same purpose we find, Zech. xiii. 9: When two
parts of the land are cut off, the remnant which escape, the third part
which is “written to life in Jerusalem,” even they must be brought through
the fire. “I will bring the third part through the fire (saith the Lord),
and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is
tried.” This is the fiery trial of affliction, but the fruit of it is a
blessed reformation, to make the church as most pure refined gold: “They
shall call on my name, and I will hear them;” that is, they shall no
longer worship idols, but me only, and they shall offer to the Lord an
offering in righteousness, which shall be accepted. And what more? “I will
say It is my people; and they shall say, The Lord is my God.” Behold, a
reforming people and a covenanting people. But he that hath his fire in
Zion, and his furnace in Jerusalem (Isa. xxxi. 9), doth first refine them
and purify them. We are not reformed, in God’s account, till the refining
fire have purged away our dross; till we be refined as silver is refined,
and tried as gold is tried.

Lastly, In reference to a people not reformed, hear what the Prophet
saith: Jer. vi. 28-30, “They are brass and iron; they are all corrupters.
The bellows are burnt, the lead is consumed of the fire, the founder
melteth in vain; for the wicked are not plucked away. Reprobate silver
shall men call them, because the Lord hath rejected them.” The Chaldee
Paraphrase expoundeth it of the prophets who laboured in vain, and spent
their strength for nought, speaking to the people in the name of the Lord,
to turn to the law and to the testimony; but they would not turn.

I might draw many uses from this doctrine; but I shall content myself with
these few:—

First of all, it reproveth that contrary principle which carnal reason
suggesteth: Reformation must not grieve, but please; it must not break nor
bruise, but heal and bind up; it must be an acceptable thing, not
displeasing; it must be “as the voice of harpers harping with their
harps,” but not “as the voice of many waters,” or “as the voice of great
thunders.” Thus would many heal the wound of the daughter of Zion
slightly, and daub the wall with untempered mortar, and so far comply with
the sinful humours and inclinations of men, as, in effect, to harden them
in evil, and to strengthen their hands in their wickedness; or at least,
if men be moralised, then to trouble them no farther. Saith not the
Apostle, “If I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ”?
Gal. i. 10; and again, “The carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is
not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be,” Rom. viii. 7. So
that either we must have a reformation displeasing to God, or displeasing
to men. It is not the right reformation which is not displeasing to a
Tobiah, to a Sanballat, to a Demetrius, to the earthly-minded, to the
self-seeking politicians, to the carnal and profane; it is but the old
enmity between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent (Gen.
iii. 15): nay, what if reformation be displeasing to good men, in so far
as they are unregenerate, carnal, earthly, proud, unmortified (for “who
can say, I have made my heart clean, I am pure from my sin,” Prov. xx. 9)?
What if a Joshua envy Eldad and Medad (Num. xi. 27-29)? What if an Aaron
and a Miriam speak against Moses (xii. 1, 2)? What if a religious Asa be
wroth with the seer (2 Chron. xvi. 10)? What if a David will not alter his
former judgment, though very erroneous, and will not (no, not after better
information) have it thought that he was in an error (2 Sam. xix. 29)?
What if a Jonah refuse to go to Nineveh when he is called (Jonah i. 3)?
What if the disciples of Christ must be taught to be more humble (Mark ix.
33-35)? What if Peter must be reproved by Paul for his dissimulation (Gal.
ii. 11)? What if Archippus must be admonished to attend better upon his
ministry (Col. iv. 17)? What if Christ must tell the angels of the
churches that he hath somewhat against them (Rev. ii., iii.)? If
reformation displease both evil men, and, in some respect, good men, this
makes it no worse than “a refiner’s fire;” and so it must be, if it be
according to the mind of Christ.

My second and chief application shall be unto you, my noble lords. If you
be willing to admit such a reformation as is according to the mind of
Christ, as is like the “refiner’s fire” and “fuller’s soap,” then, in the
name of the Lord Jesus Christ (who will say, ere long, to every one of
you, “Give an account of thy stewardship; for thou mayest be no longer
steward,” Luke xvi. 2), I recommend these three things unto you,—I mean,
that you should make use of this “refiner’s fire” in reference to three
sorts of dross: 1. The dross of _malignancy_; 2. The dross of _heresy and
corruption in religion_; 3. The dross of _profaneness_.

Touching the first of these, take the wise counsel of the wise man, Prov.
xxv. 4, 5, “Take away the dross from the silver, and there shall come
forth a vessel for the finer. Take away the wicked from before the king,
and his throne shall be established in righteousness.” Remember, also, the
fourth article of your solemn league and covenant, by which you have
obliged yourselves, with your hands lifted up to the most high God, to
endeavour the discovery, trial, and condign punishment of all such as have
been, or shall be incendiaries, malignants, or evil instruments, by
hindering the reformation of religion, dividing the king from his people,
or one of the kingdoms from another, or making any faction or parties
among the people contrary to this covenant. There was once a compliance
between the nobles of Judah and the Samaritans, which I hope you do not
read of without abominating the thing: You find it, Neh. vi. 17, 19, “In
those days the nobles of Judah sent many letters unto Tobiah, and the
letters of Tobiah came unto them. Also (saith Nehemiah) they reported his
good deeds before me, and uttered my words to him.” But you have also the
error of a godly man set before you as a rock to be avoided, 2 Chron. xix.
2, “Shouldest thou help the ungodly, and love them that hate the Lord?
therefore is wrath upon thee from before the Lord.” I am not to dwell upon
this point: “I speak as to wise men, judge ye what I say.”

In the second place, think of the extirpation of heresy and of unsound
dangerous doctrine, such as now springeth up apace, and subverted the
faith of many. There is no heretic nor false teacher which hath not some
one fair pretext or another; but bring him once to be tried by this
refining fire, he is found to be “like a potsherd covered with silver
dross,” Prov. xxvi. 23. “What is the chaff to the wheat?” saith the Lord
(Jur. xxiii. 28), and what is the dross to the silver? If this be the way
of Christ which my text speaketh of, then, sure, that which now passeth
under the name of “liberty of conscience” is not the way of Christ. Much
hath been written of this question; for my part I shall, for the present,
only offer this one argument: If liberty of conscience ought to be granted
in matters of religion, it ought also to be granted in matters civil or
military; but liberty of conscience ought not to be granted in matters
civil or military, as is acknowledged, therefore neither ought it to be
granted in matters of religion. Put the case: Now there be some
well-meaning men, otherwise void of offence, who, from the erroneous
persuasion of their consciences, think it utterly sinful, and contrary to
the word of God, to take arms in the Parliament’s service, or to
contribute to this present war, or to obey any ordinance of the lords and
commons, which tendeth to the resisting of the king’s forces. Now compare
this case with the case of a Socinian, Arminian, Antinomian, or the like:
they both plead for liberty of conscience; they both say our conscience
ought not to be compelled, and if we do against our conscience, we sin. I
beseech you, how can you give liberty of conscience to the heretic, and
yet refuse liberty of conscience to him that is the conscientious recusant
in point of the war? I am sure there can be no answer given to this
argument which will not be resolved into this principle: Men’s consciences
may be compelled for the good of the state, but not for the glory of God;
we must not suffer the state to sink, but if religion sink we cannot help
it. This is the plain English of it.

When I speak against liberty of conscience, it is far from my meaning to
advise any rigorous or violent course against such as, being sound in the
faith, and holy in life, and not of a turbulent or factious carriage, do
differ in smaller matters from the common rule. “Let that day be darkness;
let not God regard it from above, neither let the light shine upon it”
(Job. iii. 4), in which it shall be said that the children of God in
Britain are enemies and persecutors of each other. He is no good Christian
who will not say Amen to the prayer of Jesus Christ (John xvii. 21), that
all who are his may be one in him. If this be heartily wished, let it be
effectually endeavoured; and let those who will choose a dividing way
rather than a uniting way bear the blame.

The third part of my application shall be to stir you up, right
honourable, to a willing condescending to the settling of
church-government, in such a manner, as that neither ignorant nor
scandalous persons may be admitted to the holy table of the Lord. Let
there be, in the house of God, fuller’s soap, to take off those who are
“spots in your feasts,” and a refining fire to take away the dross from
the silver. Psal. cxix. 119, “Thou puttest away all the wicked of the
earth like dross,” saith David. Take away, therefore, the wicked from
before the King of glory, for they shall not stand before him who hateth
“all workers of iniquity,” Psal. v. 5. You see God puts all profane ones
in one category, and so should you. There is a like reason against seven,
and against seventy scandals; or, if you please to make a catalogue of
seven, you may, provided it be such as God himself makes in the fifth
verse of this chapter, where seven sorts are reckoned forth, as some
interpreters compute; but the last of the seven is general and
comprehensive, καὶ τοὺς φοβουμένους με, as the Septuagint have it,—_and
those that fear not me_,—those, saith one, who are called in the New
Testament ἀσεβείς,—_ungodly_. Jerome noteth upon the place,(1410) that
though men shall not be guilty of the aforementioned particulars, yet God
makes this crime enough, that they are ungodly. Nay, I dare undertake to
draw out of Erastus himself, the great adversary, a catalogue of seven
sorts of persons to be kept off from the Lord’s table, and such a
catalogue as godly ministers can be content with. But of this elsewhere.

Most horribly hath the Lord’s table been profaned formerly in this
kingdom, by the admission of scandalous persons. God will wink at it no
longer,—now is the opportunity of reformation. The Parliament of England,
if any state in the world, oweth much to Jesus Christ; and he will take it
very ill at your hands, if ye do him not right in this. I say do him
right; for, alas! what is it to ministers? It were more for their ease,
and for pleasing of the people, to admit all; but a necessity is laid upon
us, that we dare not do it; and woe unto us if we do it. And for your
part, should you not establish such a rule as may put a difference between
the precious and the vile, the clean and the unclean, you shall in so far
make the churches of Christ in a worse condition, and more disabled to
keep themselves pure, than either they were of old under pagan emperors,
or now are under popish princes, you shall also strengthen, instead of
silencing, the objections both of Separatists(1411) and Socinians,(1412)
who have, with more than a colour of advantage, opened their mouths wide
against some reformed churches, for their not exercising of discipline
against scandalous and profane persons, and particularly for not
suspending them from the sacrament of the Lord’s supper. Nay, which is yet
more, if you should refuse that which I speak of, you shall come short of
that which heathens themselves, in their way, did make conscience of, for
they did interdict and keep off from their holy things all such as they
esteemed profane and scandalous, whom therefore they called ἐναγεῖς, that
is, accused or delated persons. In this manner was Alchibades
excommunicate at Athens, and Virginia at Rome, the former recorded by
Plutarch, the latter by Livius. I trust God shall never so far desert this
Parliament as that, in this particular, pagan and popish princes,
Separatists, Socinians and heathens shall rise up in judgment against you.
I am persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation;
and, namely, that you will not suffer the name and truth of God to be,
through you, blasphemed and reproached.

Do ye not remember the sad sentence against Eli and his house, “Because
his sons made themselves vile, and he restrained them not,” 1 Sam. iii.
13. The Apostle tells us, that the judgment of God abideth not only on
those that commit sin, but those also who consent with them, Rom. i. 32.
Aquinas upon that place saith, We may consent to the sins of others two
ways: 1. Directly, by counselling, approving, &c.; 2. Indirectly, by not
hindering when we can. And so did Eli consent to the vileness of his sons,
because, though he reproved them, he did not restrain them.

There is a law, Exod. xxi. 29, “But if the ox were wont to push with his
horn in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner, and he hath
not kept him in, but that he hath killed a man or woman; the ox shall be
stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death.” It could be no excuse
to say, I intended no such thing, and it is a grief of heart to me that
such mischief is done. That which I aim at is this: The Directory which
you have lately established saith, “The ignorant and the scandalous are
not fit to receive this sacrament of the Lord’s supper;” and therefore
ministers are appointed to warn all such in the name of Christ, that they
presume not to come to that holy table. It is now desired that this, which
you have already acknowledged to be according to the word of God and
nature of that holy ordinance, may be made effectual, and, for that end,
that the power of discipline be added to the power of doctrine, otherwise
you are guilty, in God’s sight, of not restraining those that make
themselves vile.

In the third and last place, I shall apply my doctrine to the sons of
Levi, and that in a twofold consideration: 1. Actively; 2. Passively.

Actively, because, if we be like our Master, even followers of Jesus
Christ, or partakers of his unction, then our ministry will have not only
light, but fire in it,—we must be burning as well as shining lights (John
v. 35), not only shining with the light of knowledge, and of the doctrine
which is according to godliness, but burning also with zeal for reforming
abuses, and purging of the church from the dross thereof. Which made
Augustine(1413) to apply propologically to ministers, that which is said
of the angels of heaven, Psal. civ. 4, “Who maketh his angels spirits; his
ministers a flaming fire.” Satan hath many incendiaries against the
kingdom of Christ. O that we were Christ’s incendiaries against the
kingdom of Satan! If we will indeed appear zealous for the Lord, let it
not seem strange if the adversaries of reformation say of us, as they said
of the apostles themselves, “These that have turned the world upside down
are come hither also,” Acts xvii. 6. Yet it shall be no grief of heart to
us afterward, but peace and joy unspeakable, that we have endeavoured to
do our duty faithfully.

Passively also the application must be made, because the sons of Levi
must, in the first place, go through this refining fire themselves, and
they, most of all other men, have need to be, and must be, refined from
their dross. I find in Scripture that these three things had a beginning
among the priests and prophets: 1. Sin, error, and scandal, beginneth at
them, Jer. l. 6, “Their shepherds have caused them to go astray;” xxiii.
15, “From the prophets of Jerusalem is profaneness gone forth into all the
land.” 2. Judgment begins at them, Ezek. ix. 6, “Slay utterly old and
young,—and begin at my sanctuary.” 3. The refining work of reformation
beginneth, or ought to begin, at the purging and refining of the sons of
Levi; so you have it in the next words after my text, and where Hezekiah
beginneth his reformation at the sanctifying of the priests and Levites, 2
Chron. xxix. 4, 5, &c. But as it was then in Judah, it is now in England,
some of the sons of Levi are more upright to sanctify themselves than
others. The fire that I spake of before will prove every man and his work.

I am sorry I have occasion to add a third application. But come on, and I
will show you greater things than these. What will you say, if any be
found among the sons of Levi, that will neither be active nor passive in
the establishing of the church-refining and sin-censuring government of
Jesus Christ, but will needs appear upon the stage against it. This was
done in a late sermon now come abroad, which hath given no small scandal
and offence. I am confident every other godly minister will say, let my
tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth before I do the like.

I have done with that which the text holds forth concerning reformation.
The second way how Christ is like a refiner’s fire, and like fuller’s
soap, is in respect of tribulation, which either followeth or accompanieth
his coming into his temple. Affliction is indeed a refining fire: Psal.
lxvi. 10, “For thou, O God, hast proved us: thou hast tried us, as silver
is tried;” ver. 12, “We went through fire and through water;” 1 Pet. i. 6,
7, “Ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations; that the trial of
your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though
it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise,” &c. Affliction is also
the fuller’s soap to purify and make white: Dan. xi. 35; xii. 10, “Many
shall be purified, and made white, and tried;” where the same word is used
from which I said before the fuller’s soap hath its name.

The doctrine shall be this: “Tribulation doth either accompany or follow
after the work of reformation or purging of the house of God.” So it was
when Christ himself came into his temple: Luke xii. 49, 51, “I am come to
send fire on the earth. Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth?
I tell you, Nay; but rather division;”—so it was when the Apostles were
sent forth into the world: Peter applieth to that time the words of Joel,
“And I will show wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath;
blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke: the sun shall be turned into
darkness, and the moon into blood,” Acts ii. 19, 20. The meaning is, such
tribulation shall follow the gospel, which shall be like the darkening of
the great lights of the world, and, as it were, a putting of heaven and
earth out of their course, so great a change and calamity shall come. The
experience both of the ancient and now reformed churches doth also
abundantly confirm this doctrine. Neither must we think that all the
calamities of the church are now overpast. Who can be assured that that
hour of greatest darkness, the killing of the witnesses, is past, and all
that sad prophecy, Rev. xi., fulfilled? And if some be not much
mistaken,(1414) it is told, Dan. xii. 1, that there shall be greater
tribulation about the time of the Jews’ conversion than any we have yet
seen: “At that time,” saith the angel to Daniel, “there shall be a time of
trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same
time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall
be found written in the book.”

I make haste to the uses; and, first, let me give unto God the glory of
his truth. If we have been deceived, surely he hath not deceived us; for
he hath given us plain warning in his word, and hath not kept up from us
the worst things which ever have or ever shall come upon his church. And
now when the sword of the Lord hath gotten a charge against these three
covenanting and reforming kingdoms, is this any other than the word of the
Lord, that when Christ cometh into his temple, “Who may abide the day of
his coming, and who shall stand when he appeareth? for he is like a
refiner’s fire, and like fuller’s soap.”

And for the invasion of Scotland by such an enemy after a reformation, is
it any new thing? May we not say, that which is hath been? Did not
Sennacherib invade Judah after Hezekiah’s reformation? 2 Chron. xxxii. 1.
And though, after the reformation of Asa, and after the reformation of
Jehoshaphat also (2 Chron. xiv. 9; xx. 1), the land had a short rest and a
breathing time, yet not long after a foreign invasion followed both upon
the one reformation and the other. Nay, look what is the worst thing which
hath befallen to Scotland as yet;—as much, yea, worse, hath formerly
befallen to the church and people of God toward whom the Lord had thoughts
of peace, and not of evil,—to give them an expected end. I say it not for
diminishing anything either from the sin or shame of Scotland; the Lord
forbid:—we will bear the indignation of the Lord, because we have sinned
against him; we will lay our hand upon our mouth, and accept the
punishment of our iniquity; we will bear our shame for ever, because our
Father hath spit in our face, our rock hath sold us, and our strength hath
departed from us;—but I say it by way of answering him that reproacheth in
the gates, and by way of pleading for the truth of God. Some have objected
to our reproach, that when the Lord required the Israelites to appear
before him in Jerusalem thrice a year, he promised that no man should
invade their habitations in their absence, Exod. xxxiv. 23, 24; “which
gracious providence of his, no doubt (says one(1415)), continues still
protecting all such as are employed by his command;” yet it hath not been
so with Scotland during the time of their armies being in England. I
answer, besides that which hath been said already, even in this the word
and work of God do well agree; and that Scripture ought not to be so
applied to us, except the Canaanites, and the Amorites, and the Jebusites
of our time had been all cast out of our borders (we find this day too
many of them lurking there, and waiting their opportunity); for the
Septuagint, and many of the interpreters(1416) read that text thus: “For
when I shall cast out the nations before thee, and enlarge thy borders, no
man shall desire thy land when thou shalt go up to appear before the Lord
thy God thrice in the year:” and this is the true sense, read it as you
will; for the promise is limited to the time of casting out the nations,
and enlarging their borders (which came not to pass till the days of
Solomon). It is certain that, from the time of making that promise, the
people had not ever liberty and protection for keeping the three solemn
feasts in the place of the sanctuary; as might be proved from divers
foreign invasions and spoilings of that land for some years together;
whereof we read in the book of the Judges. But I go on.

In the second place, let God have the glory of his just and righteous
dealings. Let us say with Job, “I will leave my complaint upon myself,”
[and say unto God,] “Show me wherefore thou contendest with me,” Job x. 1,
2. But, by all means, take heed you conceive not an ill opinion of the
covenant and cause of God, or the reformation of religion, because of the
tribulation which followeth thereupon. Say not it was a good old world
when we burnt incense to the queen of heaven, “for then we were well and
saw no evil.” “But (said the people to Jeremiah) since we left off to burn
incense to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink-offerings unto her,
we have wanted all things, and have been consumed by the sword and by the
famine,” Jer. xliv. 18. To such I answer, in the words of Solomon, “Say
not thou, What is the cause that the former days were better than these?
for thou dost not inquire wisely concerning this,” Eccl. vii. 10. Was the
people’s coming out of Egypt the cause why their carcasses did fall in the
wilderness? Or was it their murmuring and rebelling against the Lord which
brought that wrath upon them? If thou wilt inquire wisely concerning this
thing, read Zephaniah, chap. i. In the days of Isaiah, even in the days of
Judah’s best reformation, the Lord sent this message by the Prophet: “I
will utterly consume all things from off the land,” Zeph. i. 2; “And I
will bring distress upon men, that they shall walk like blind men, because
they have sinned against the Lord: and their blood shall be poured out as
dust, and their flesh as the dung,” ver. 17. What was the reason of it? It
is plainly told them (and let us take it all home to ourselves), because,
notwithstanding of that public reformation, there was a remnant of Baal in
the land, and the Chemarims, and those who halt between two opinions; who
swear by the Lord (or to the Lord, which is expounded of the taking of the
covenant in Josiah’s time), but they swear by Malcham also, ver. 4, 5.
There are others who do not seek the Lord, nor inquire after him, and many
that turn back from the Lord in a course of backsliding (ver. 6); others
clothed with strange apparel (ver. 8); others, exercising violence and
deceit (ver. 9); a number of atheists also, living among God’s people
(ver. 12). For these and the like causes doth the land mourn. It is not
the covenant, but the broken covenant; it is not the reformation, but the
want of a real and personal reformation, that hath drawn on the judgment.
Blessed are they who shall keep their garments clean, and shall be able to
say, “All this is come upon us; yet have we not forgotten thee, neither
have we dealt falsely in thy covenant,” Psal. xliv. 17.

Thirdly, Give God the glory of his wisdom. Many are now crying, “How long,
Lord? wilt thou hide thyself for ever? shall thy wrath burn like fire?”
Psal. lxxxix. 46. Your answer from God is, that the rod shall be indeed
removed, and even cast into the fire in your stead, but when? It shall be
“when the Lord hath performed his whole work upon mount Zion, and on
Jerusalem,” Isa. x. 12. If the judgment have not yet done all the work it
was sent for, then “they shall go out from one fire, and another fire
shall devour them” (Ezek. xv. 7), saith the Lord. God is a wise refiner,
and will not take the silver out of the fire till the dross be purged away
from it. He is a wise father who will not cast the rod of correction till
it have driven away all that folly which is bound up in the hearts of his
children: “Behold, therefore (saith the Lord) I will gather you into the
midst of Jerusalem. As they gather silver, and brass, and iron, and lead,
and tin, into the midst of the furnace, to blow the fire upon it, to melt
it; so will I gather you in mine anger and in my fury, and I will leave
you there, and melt you,” Ezek. xxii. 19, 20. He speaks it to those who
had escaped the captivity of Jehoiakim, and also the captivity of
Jehoiachin, and thought they should be safe and secure in Jerusalem when
their brethren were in Babylon: I will gather you, saith the Lord, even in
the midst of Jerusalem, and when you think you are out of one furnace, you
shall fall into another; and, if you will not be refined from your dross,
you shall never come out of that furnace, but I will melt you there, and
leave you there: which did so come to pass; for the residue that escaped
to Egypt, and thought to shelter themselves there, as likewise those that
remained in Jerusalem, and held out that siege with Zedekiah,—even all
these did fall under the sword, and the famine, and the pestilence, till
they were consumed, Jer. xxiv. 8, 10. Let those that are longest spared
take heed they be not sorest smitten. Say not with Agag, “The bitterness
of death is past.” The child chastised in the afternoon weeps as sore as
the child chastised in the forenoon. Remember the Lord will not take away
the judgment till he have performed his work, yea, his whole work, and
that upon Mount Zion and Jerusalem itself. It is no light matter; the rod
must be very heavy before our uncircumcised hearts can be humbled, and the
furnace very hot before our dross depart from us. We have need of all the
sore strokes which we mourn under, and if one less could do the turn, it
would be spared, for the Lord doth not afflict willingly: we ourselves
rive every stroke out of his hand.

But, in the fourth and last place, let us give God the glory of his mercy
also; he means to do us good in our latter end. It is the hand of a
father, not of an enemy: it is a refining, not a consuming fire. The poor
mourners in Zion are ready to say, “Our bones are dried, and our hope is
lost: we are cut off for our parts” (Ezek. xxxvii. 11); we are like to lie
in this fire and furnace for ever, because our dross is not departed from
us; we are still an unhumbled, an unbroken, an unmortified generation;
yea, many like Ahaz, in the time of affliction, trespassing yet more
against the Lord, many thinking of going back again to Egypt. To such I
have these two things to say for their comfort: First, There is a remnant
which shall not only be delivered, but purified, and shall come forth as
gold out of the fire. The third part shall be refined, and the Lord shall
say, “It is my people,” Zech xiii. 9. And a most sweet promise there is
after the saddest denunciation of judgment: Ezek. xiv. 22, 23, “Yet,
behold, therein shall be left a remnant that shall be brought forth, both
sons and daughters; behold, they shall come forth unto you, and ye shall
see their ways and their doings: and ye shall be comforted concerning the
evil that I have brought upon Jerusalem, even concerning all the evil that
I have brought upon it. And they shall comfort you, when ye see their ways
and their doings: and ye shall know that I have not done without cause all
that I have done in it, saith the Lord God;” Dan. xii. 10, “Many shall be
purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and
none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.” After
the promise of delivering those that were carried away to Babylon, there
is another promise added of that which was much better: Jer. xxiv. 7, “I
will give them an heart to know me, that I am the Lord; and they shall be
my people, and I will be their God; for they shall return unto me with
their whole heart;” Psal. cxxx. 8, “He shall redeem Israel from all his
iniquities;” Zeph. iii. 12, 13, “I will also leave in the midst of thee an
afflicted and poor people, and they shall trust in the name of the Lord.
The remnant of Israel shall not do iniquity, nor speak lies; neither shall
a deceitful tongue be found in their mouth.” Let your souls now apply
these and the like promises, and cry, Lord, remember thy promise, and let
not a jot of thy good word fall to the ground. Secondly, As the promises
of spiritual and eternal blessings, so the promises of peace and temporal
deliverances are not legal, but even evangelical. If we be not refined and
purged as we ought to be, that is a matter of humiliation to us, but it is
also a matter of magnifying the riches of free mercy: Isa. xlviii. 9-11,
“For my name’s sake will I defer mine anger, and for my praise will I
refrain for thee, that I cut thee not off. Behold, I have refined thee,
but not with silver; I have chosen thee in the furnace of affliction. For
mine own name’s sake, even for mine own sake, will I do it.” The Lord is
there arguing with his people, to humble them, to convince them, and to
cut off all matter of glorying from them; and among other things, lest
they should glory in this, that whatever they were before, they became
afterward as silver refined seven times in the furnace:(1417) Nay, saith
the Lord, I have refined you in some sort, but not as silver, not so as
that you are clean from your dross; but I have chosen you, and set my love
upon you, even while you are in the furnace not yet refined; and I will
deliver you, even for my own name’s sake, that you may owe your
deliverance for ever to free mercy, and not to your own repentance and
amendment. A land is accepted, and a people’s peace made with God, not by
their repentance and humiliation, but by Christ believed on: Mic. v. 5,
“This man shall be the peace, when the Assyrian shall come into our land.”
There were sin-offerings and burnt-offerings appointed in the law for a
national atonement (Lev. iv., xiii., xxi.; Num. xv. 25, 26) which did
typify pardoning of national sins through the merit of Jesus Christ. We
must improve the office of the Mediator, and the promise of free grace, in
the behalf of God’s people, as well as of our own souls, which, if it be
indeed done, will not hinder, but further a great mourning and deep
humiliation in the land. And so much of tribulation.

The third thing held forth in this text (of which I must be very short) is
mortification. This also is a refining fire: Matt. iii. 11, “He shall
baptise you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire;” Mark ix. 49, “For every
one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with
salt.” He hath been before speaking of mortification, of the plucking out
of the right eye, the cutting off the right hand, or the right foot, and
now he presseth the same thing by a double allusion to the law,—there was
a necessity both of fire and salt; the sacrifice was seasoned with salt
(Lev. ii. 13), and the fire upon the altar was not to be put out, but
every morning the wood was burnt upon it, and the burnt-offering laid upon
it (Lev. vi. 12, 13). So if we will present ourselves as a holy and
acceptable sacrifice to God, we must be seasoned with the salt, and our
corruptions burnt up with the fire of mortification.

The doctrine shall be this: “It is not enough to join in public
reformation, yea, to suffer tribulation for the name of Christ, except we
also endeavour mortification.” This mortification is a third step distinct
from the other two, and without this the other two can make us but “almost
Christians,” or, “not far from the kingdom of God.” In the parable of the
sower and the seed, as we find it both in Matthew (chap. xiii.), Mark
(chap, iv.), and Luke (chap, viii.), this method may be observed, That of
the four sorts of ground, the second is better than the first, the third
better than the second, but the fourth only is the good ground, which is
fruitful, and getteth a blessing. Some men’s hearts are like the highway,
and the hardbeaten road, where every foul spirit, and every lust hath
walked and conversed, their consciences, through the custom of sin, are,
as it were, “seared with a hot iron;” in these the word takes no place,
but all that they bear doth presently slip from them. Others receive the
word with a present good affection and delight, but have no depth of
earth; that is, neither having had a work of the law upon their
consciences for deep humiliation, nor being rooted and grounded in love to
the gospel, nor, peradventure, so much as grounded in the knowledge of the
truth, nor having counted their cost, and solidly resolved for suffering;
thereupon it comes to pass, when suffering times come, these wither away,
and come to nothing. There is a third sort, who go a step farther; they
have some root, and some more solid ground than the former, so that they
can suffer many things, and not fall away because of persecution, yet they
perish through want of mortification. One may suffer persecution for
Christ, not being sore tried in that which is his idol lust, yet enduring
great losses and crosses in other things: of such it is said, that “the
cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts of
other things entering in, choke the word, and it becometh unfruitful,”
Mark iv. 19. Mark that, “the lusts of other things;” that is, whether it
be the lust of the eyes, or the lust of the flesh, or the pride of life;
and he speaks of the “entering in;” meaning of some strong tentation
coming upon a man to catch him in that which is the great idol of his
heart, and his beloved lust, whatever it be; such a tentation he never
found before, and therefore thought the lust had been mortified, which was
but lurking. Did not Judas suffer many things with Christ during the time
of his public ministry? Did not Ananias and Sapphira suffer, for a season,
with the apostles and church at Jerusalem? What was it then that lost
them? They neither made defection from the profession of the truth, nor
did they fall away because of persecution; but having shined in the light
a sound profession, having also taken up the cross, and borne the reproach
of Christ, they made shipwreck at last upon an unmortified lust.

I shall enlarge the doctrine no further, but touch upon some few uses, and
so an end.

First, Let all and every one of us be convinced of the necessity of our
further endeavouring after mortification. The best silver which cometh out
of the earth hath dross in it, and therefore needeth the refiner’s fire;
and the whitest garment that is worn will touch some unclean thing or
other, and therefore will need the fuller’s soap. The best of God’s
children have the dross of their inherent corruptions to purge away; which
made Paul say, “I keep under my body, and bring it unto subjection; lest
that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a
castaway,” 1 Cor. ix. 27. It is a speech borrowed from reprobate silver
which is not refined from dross, and so is the word used by the
Septuagint, Isa. i. 22, τὸ ἀργύριον ἰμῶν ἀδόκιμον “Thy silver is become
dross.” The Apostle therefore sets himself to the study of mortification,
lest, saith he, when I have been refining and purifying others, I myself
be found to be drossy silver. And as there is _inherent_ dross, so there
is _adherent_ uncleanness in the best; and who can say that he hath kept
his garments so clean that he is “unspotted of the world” (Isa. i. 27), or
that he hath so separated himself from the pollutions of the world as that
he hath touched no unclean thing: so that there is an universal necessity
of making use both of the refiner’s fire, and of the fuller’s soap.

Secondly, Let us once become willing and contented, yea, desirous to be
thoroughly mortified. A man’s lusts and corruptions are indeed so strongly
interested in himself, and his corruptions are his members, therefore,
when we leave off sin, we are said to live no more “to ourselves,” 2 Cor.
v. 15; and mortification is the greatest violence that can be done to
nature, therefore it is called a cutting off of the chief members of the
body (Mark ix. 43, 45, 47), a salting with salt, and a burning with fire
(ver. 49), a circumcision (Col. ii. 11), a crucifying (Rom. vi. 6): so
that nothing can be more difficult or displeasing, yea, a greater torment
to flesh and blood. Yet now art thou willing, notwithstanding of all this,
to take Christ on his own terms? to take him not only for righteousness
and life, but to take him as a refiner’s fire, and as fuller’s soap? O
that there were such a heart in thee! When Christ bids thee pluck out thy
right eye, and cut off thy right hand, say not in thy heart, How shall I
do without my right eye, and my right hand? Nay, thou shalt do well
enough, thou shalt even enter into life without them, thou shalt be a
gainer, and no loser. Say not thou, How shall I go through this refining
fire? Fear not, thou shall lose nothing but thy dross. Thus get thy heart
wrought to a willingness, and a condescending, in the point of
mortification.

Lastly, If you say, But after all this, how shall I attain unto it? Put
thyself in the hands of Jesus Christ, trust him with the work; if you mark
the text here, and the verse that followeth, Christ is both the refiner,
and the refiner’s fire: thou shalt be refined by him, and thou shalt be
refined in him. Thou deceivest thyself if thou thinkest to be refined any
other way but by this refiner, and in this refiner’s fire. The blood of
Christ doth not only wash us from guilt, but purge our consciences “from
dead works, to serve the living God,” Heb. ix. 14; “And they that are
Christ’s, have crucified the flesh, with the affections and lusts.” Gal.
v. 24. Here you may see the thing is feasible and attainable, and not only
by an apostle or some extraordinary man, but by all that are Christ’s.
Being his, and in him, they are enabled, through his strength, to crucify
the flesh, with the affections and lusts thereof.

FOOTNOTES

1 It is right to state that a large proportion of those who ultimately
formed the presbyterian party, had been brought up in the Church of
England, and had received episcopal ordination.

2 There is another anecdote commonly repeated respecting a signal
defeat which Gillespie is said to have given to one of the
Independent divines, when recent from his travel to London. That he
did repeatedly refute their arguments is quite certain, of which
both Lightfoot’s notes and his own record many instances, but no
such event could have occurred as that with which the anecdote is
commonly introduced; for both Henderson and Gillespie arrived at the
same time, and were received formally, and with great respect into
the Assembly, before any of the controverted points had begun to be
discussed at all. It is easy to conceive how imaginary incidents may
be added by tradition, to an anecdote essentially true; and our
endeavour has been to restore the anecdote to its true position and
character. We may add that Gillespie’s expression, “Can ye not admit
a pinning?” is one which tradition has preserved; but we find the
same word used in his Aaron’s Rod, in a similar sense, which
confirms the tradition.

3 The present Erastian Establishment in Scotland might do well to
consider whether theirs be the church of which Gillespie was a
distinguished minister.

4 The above anecdote is sometimes given with this variation:—that when
the youngest member consented, he requested the rest to engage in
prayer, while he retired to make the attempt. They did so, and in a
short time he returned with the answer exactly as it now appears. We
prefer the anecdote as given in the text, both as equally likely,
and as much more beautiful.

5 These interesting documents are printed in this Series at the
conclusion of the Part containing his “Sermons and Controversial
Pieces.”

6 Preface to Stevenson’s History.

7 This refers to his opposition to the intrigues of the Engagers, and
their invasion of England under Hamilton.

8 Gillespie must have left London at that time to attend the General
Assembly which was summoned to meet at Edinburgh on the 22d of
January, 1645.

9 The death rattle in the throat of the dying man.

10 Bodin. Meth. Hist., cap. 4, p. 47.

11 Rep to the Ans. p. 269.

12 Enar in Luc. xvii.

13 De Civ. Dei., lib. 18, cap. 51.

14 Lib. contra Const. Aug.

15 Synops. Papis., cont. 13, quest. 7, p. 593.

16 Davenant. in col. 2, 8, p. 186

17 Osiand. Hist. Eccles., cent. 4, in Ep. Dedic.

18 Lib. 5, cap. 20.

19 Enarrat in Matt. xv.

20 Eccl. Pol., lib. 5, sect. 65.

21 Praef. of the Answ., p. 14.

22 Popish Praejud., cap. 10.

23 Cent. 2, cap. 2, col. 109.

24 Cron. Turcic., tom.3, lib. 4, p. 63.

25 Aug. de Civ. Dei. lib. 3, cap. 25.

26 Ib., cap. 26.

27 Ovid. Metam., lib. 15.

28 Apud Binium, tom. 4; Concil., part 1, p. 630.

29 No Peace with Rome, sect. 2.

30 Lib. Epist., col. 298.

31 Medit. in Rev. ii., iii.

32 Hist. Eccl. lib. 3 cap. 11.

33 Eccl. Pol., lib. 1, sect. 10.

34 Natal. Comit. Mythol., lib. 2, cap. 7.

35 Praelict., tom. 1, p. 367.

36 Ibid., p. 372.

37 Sermon on John xvi. 7.

38 Apolog., cap. 4.

39 Conrad. Pscilen. Clav. Theol., art. 9, p. 373.

40 Comm. in Eph. v. de subject.

41 Of the Church, lib. 4, cap. 34.

42 Aquin., 1a, 2a, quest. 43, art. 1; Stella in Luke xvii. 1.

43 Speed. Hist. of Brit., book 6, chap. 9, sect. 9.

44 Lactant., lib. 5, cap. 20.

45 P. Mart. in 1 Reg. 8. de Templ. dedic.

46 Epist. to the Pastors of the Church of Scotland.

47 Serm. at Perth Assem. insert. by Dr Lindsey.

48 Practic. Def. cap. 3, sect. 20.

49 Dr Forb. Iren. lib. 1, cap. 5, sect 6; cap. 7, sect. 1, 9; cap. 9,
sect. 6.

50 Cassand. Ang. p. 270, 11.

51 Ans to the Repl. pref. p. 43.

52 Ib. p. 53.

53 De Cas. Cons. lib. 4, cap. 11, cas. 3.

54 Ubi supra.

55 De cult. Sanct. cap. 10.

56 De Orig. Fest. Christian. cap. 2.

57 Repl. to the Ans. p. 258.

58 Calv. Com. in hunc locum.

59 De Exam. part 1, de Bon. Oper. p. 180.

60 Synt. part 2, disp. 27, thes. 30.

61 Bell. Enerv. tom. 1, lib. 3. cap. 7.

62 Ubi supra, thes. 31.

63 Annot. in Act. xv. 29.

64 Cens. lit. Angl. cap. 2.

65 Comm. in 1 Cor. vii. 23.

66 Synt. part. 2, disp. 44, thes. 33.

67 Ubi supra.

68 Hom. 1, in Ep. ad Tit.

69 Synt. Theol. lib. 6, cap. 38.

70 Instit. lib. 3, cap. 19, sect. 7.

71 Ib. cap. 10.

72 Chem. Exam. part. 2. de rit. in adm. Sac. p. 33.

73 Zanch. comm. in Col. ii. 20.

74 Apol. part. 3, cap. 1, sect. 5.

75 Comm. in 1 Cor. vii. 23.

76 De haeret. Baptiz.

77 B. Lind. Epist. to the Pastors of the Church of Scotland.

78 Spots. Sermon at Perth Assembly.

79 Of the Cross, cap. 5, sect. 11.

80 Of the Church, lib. 4, cap. 34.

81 Apol. part 3. cap. 1, sect. 4. So Dr Forb. Iren. lib. 1, cap. 11,
sect. 5, 6.

82 Manuduct. p. 42.

83 Thes. Theol. de Libert. Christ thes. 10.

84 Prel. in Mat. xviii. 7, tom. 2. p. 340.

85 Ubi supra.

86 Ubi supra.

87 Sermon of the worshipping of Imaginations.

88 Til. Synt. part. 2, disp. 27, thes. 38.

89 Thuan. Hist. lib. 124, p. 922.

90 Of the Church, lib. 4, cap. 33.

91 De Cens. lib. 1, cap. 2.

92 Treat. of Cons. cap. 2, sect. 3.

93 Theol. Cas. cap. 2.

94 Ames. de Cons. lib. 1, cap. 3.

95 Instit. lib. 4, cap. 10, sect. 5.

96 Synt. part. 2, disp. 32, thes. 4.

97 De Rep. Eccl. lib. 5, cap. 2, n. 12.

98 Til. Synt. p. 2, disp. 27, thes. 39.

99 Chem. examp. 2, de Bon. Oper. p. 179.

100 Marc. Ant. de Dom. de Rep. Ec. lib. 6, cap. 10, num. 67.

101 Apud Field, of the Church. lib. 4, cap. 34.

102 Animad. in Bel. contr. 3, lib. 4, cap. 16, nota 87.

103 Synt. p. 2, disp. 27, thes. 39.

104 Instit. lib. 4, cap. 10, sect. 32.

105 Decr. part. 1, dict. 61, cap. 8.

106 Ubi supra, art. 21.

107 De Cons. lib. 1, cap. 2.

108 Theol. Casuum. cap. 2.

109 Synt. per Theol. disp. 35, thes. 19.

110 Ames. Bell. Enerv. tom. 1, lib. 3, cap. 7.

111 De Pol. Christ. lib. 5, cap. 1.

112 De Orig. Fest. Christ, cap. 2.

113 Comm. in 1 Cor. xiv. 40.

114 Thes. Theol. de Libert. Christ. thes. 11.

115 Treat. of Cons. cap. 2, sect. 8.

116 Theol. Cas. cap. 2.

117 Synt. part. 2, disp. 27, thes. 9.

118 Calv. Resp. ad Libel. de pii viri officio, p. 413.

119 T. Bez. Conf. cap. 5, art. 18. Perk. ubi supra, et Meisner Philos.
Sobr. part. 3, sect. 2, quest. 12.

120 Of the Church, lib. 4, cap. 33.

121 De Pont. Rom. lib. 4, cap. 20.

122 Ubi supra.

123 Of the Cross, cap. 5, sect. 14, 15.

124 Præl. tom. 1, de Potest: Eccl. cont. 2, p. 371.

125 Ibid. p. 366.

126 Par. Com. in Rom. xiv. dub. 7.

127 Par. Com. in Rom. xiv. dub. 7.

128 In Dan. vi.

129 De Pont. Rom. lib. 4, cap. 20.

130 Ubi supra.

131 Com. in 1 Pet. v. 3.

132 Euchyrid. class. 3, cap. 14.

133 Synt. pur. Theol. disp. 35, thes. 17.

134 Comment. in Rom. xiv. 5.

135 Theol. Cas. cap. 2.

136 Enchyr. class. 2, cap. 7.

137 Bald. de Cons. Cas. lib. 1, cap 8.

138 De Cons. Cas. lib. 1, cap. 7.

139 1 an. 2 an. quest. 19, art. 5.

140 Ames. de Cons. lib. 1, cap 4.

141 Manual. lib. 4, cap. 4.

142 Zanch. Comm. in Illum Locum.

143 Ubi supra.

144 Ubi supra.

145 Perth Assem. p. 8-10, and B. Lindsey, in the Proceedings set down by
him, p. 63, 64.

146 Park, of the Cross, cap. 5, sect. 10.

147 Camer. Prael. tom, 1, de Potest. Eccl. contr. 2.

148 Apol. part. 3, cap. 1, sect. 25.

149 Exam. part. 3, de Ceclib. Sacer. p. 38.

150 Animad. in Bel. cont. 3, lib. 4, cap. 16.

151 Hist. of the Coun. of Trent, lib. 2.

152 Polit. Christ, lib. 5, cap. 3.

153 Ep. 64.

154 In Apologet.

155 Chem. Exam. part. 1, de Bon. Oper. p. 180.

156 Synt. pur. Theol. disp. 49, thes. 72.

157 Magd. cen. 1, lib. 2, cap. 4, co. 443.

158 Decr. part. 1, dist. 12, cap. 1.

159 Aquin. 2, 2 ae. 4, 147, art. 4.

160 Comm. in 1 Cor. x. 15.

161 Comm. in 1 Thes. v. 21.

162 Eccl. Pol. lib. 5. n. 71.

163 Par. æs. ad Sco. cap. 16. p. 64.

164 Comm. in Illum Locum.

165 Præl. in Eundem Locum.

166 Pro. in Perth Assem. par. 3, p. 13.

167 Ubi supra.

168 Ib. p. 26, 27.

169 Apud Bald. de Cas. Cons. lib. 2, cap. 12, cas. 1.

170 Prael. tom. 1, de Pot. Eccl. contr. 2.

171 Ubi supra, p. 16.

172 Ag. the Rhem. annot. on Gal. iv. 10.

173 Ubi supra, p. 16, 17.

174 Paran. ad Sco. cap. 16, p. 64.

175 Ubi supra, p. 25.

176 Ibid. p. 17.

177 Ibid. p. 27.

178 Calv. Comm. in illum locum.

179 Zanch. Comm. ibid.

180 Proc. in Perth Assembly, part. 3, p. 43.

181 Annot. on Col. ii. 16.

182 Annot. on Gal. iv. 10.

183 Annot. ibid.

184 De Cult. Sanct., cap. 10.

185 De Orig. Fest. Christ. cap. 2.

186 De Templ. et Fest. in Enchyrid contr. inter Evang. et Pontif.

187 Ubi supra.

188 Epist. 118, ad Januar.

189 De Orig. Fest. Christ. cap. 2.

190 Paren. ad Scot. cap. 16, pp. 66.

191 Comm. in illum locum

192 Annot. in Gal. iv. 3.

193 Comm. in illum locum.

194 Ubi supra, p. 40.

195 Comm. in Col. ii. 17.

196 Infra. part 3, in the arg. of Superstition.

197 Anim. in Bel. cont. 3, lib. 4, cap. 16, nota 20.

198 Comm. in illum locum.

199 Annot. ib.

200 Anim. ad Bel. contr. 3, lib. 4. cap. 16, nota 32.

201 Ubi supra.

202 Bell. de Euch. lib. 6, cap. 13.

203 Annot. on Matt. vi. 15, sect. 5.

204 Comm. in Col. ii. 16.

205 Ubi supra, p. 7.

206 Supra, cap. 7, sect. 7.

207 Infra, part. 2, cap. 2.

208 Paræn. ad Scot. cap. 16. p. 65.

209 Cent. 2, cap. 6, col. 119.

210 Lib. 5, cap. 22.

211 Lib. 12, cap. 32.

212 Lib. 7, cap. 19.

213 In Gal. iv.

214 Hospin. de Orig. Fest. Christ p. 71.

215 Annot. on Matt. xv. 9.

216 Ubi supra.

217 Part 3.

218 Calv. Ep. et Resp. edit. Genev. an. 1617, col. 137.

219 Ibid. 138.

220 Ib. col. 119.

221 Paraen. cap. 16, p. 68.

222 Sermon, Jer. iv. 2.

223 Ubi supr, p. 84.

224 Alsted. in Cronol. Testium Veritatis.

225 AEn. Sylv. apud Didocl. alt. Damasc. p. 707.

226 Paraen., cap. 16, p. 64.

227 Sermon at Perth Assembly.

228 Ubi supra, p. 83.

229 Ibid. p. 138.

230 Ubi supra, p. 91.

231 Ibid. p. 41.

232 Ibid. p. 95.

233 Ubi supra, p. 83.

234 Calv. Ep. et Resp. col. 592.

235 Serm. at Perth Assembly insert. by B. Lindsey.

236 Ans. to the Repl. praef. p. 43.

237 Repl. to the Ans., p. 270.

238 Cassand. Ang., p. 46.

239 Ib. p. 23.

240 Ibid., p. 8.

241 Ib., p. 9-11.

242 Infra, part 3. chap. 1.

243 Ubi supra, p. 24, 28.

244 Ibid. p. 52.

245 Ibid. p. 28.

246 Ibid. p. 62.

247 Ibid. p. 63.

248 Page 67.

249 P. 68-70.

250 Page 85, 93, 110.

251 Hist. of the Wald., part. 3, lib. 1, cap. 6. Thuan. Hist. lib. 6, p.
189.

252 Thuan. ibid. p. 186.

253 Alsted. Chron. Rolib. p. 550.

254 See his treatise entitled _Vera Ecclesiæ Reformandæ Ratio._

255 Alsted. ibid.

256 Sleid. Com., lib. 21, p. 388.

257 Sleid., ibid., p. 393.

258 Polan. Synt., lib. 7, cap. 17.

259 Calv. Inst., lib. 4, cap. 10, sect. 32.

260 Chem. Exam. par. 2, p. 121.

261 Fenner Theol., lib. 2, cap. 2.

262 Pareus in 1 Cor. xiv. 26.

263 Calv. Ep. et Resp., col. 478.

264 Calv. in 1 Cor. x. 23. Taylor on Tit. i. 15, p. 295.

265 Ubi supra, p. 55.

266 Pareus in 1 Cor. vi. 12.

267 Calv. in 1 Cor. x. 23, & Pareus ibid.

268 Serm. on Job xvi. 7.

269 Serm. at Perth Assembly.

270 Fresh Suite, cap. 2, p. 12.

271 In 1 Cor. x. 23.

272 Thuan. Hist. lib. 39, p. 367.

273 Pareus in 1 Cor. viii. 13.

274 Page 44, 45.

275 Pareus in 1 Cor. x. 23.

276 Alsted. Theol. Cas. cap. 12, 199.

277 Pareus in Rom. iii. 8.

278 Page 210, 211.

279 Ubi supra.

280 Bald. de Cas. Cons., lib. 4, cap. 11, cas. 3.

281 Sleid. Com. lib. 21, p. 381.

282 Ibid. lib. 25, p. 485.

283 Partic. Def. cap. 1, sect. 1.

284 Paraen., cap. 16, p. 65.

285 Proc. in Perth Assembly, part 3, p. 7.

286 Ibid. P. 121.

287 Apol. part 3, cap. 3, sect. 45, 51.

288 Sleid. Com. lib. 20, p. 365, 371. Alsted in Chron. Religionis, an.
1548.

289 Sleid. Com. lib. 21, p. 377.

290 Ibid. p. 388.

291 Ibid. p. 393.

292 Reg. Eccles. lib. 7, cap. 12, num. 107.

293 Ibid. num. 120.

294 Ibid. num. 132. See to the same purpose D. Potter, in his book
called, “Want of Charity justly charged,” p. 76.

295 Field, of the Church, append. to the third book, cap. 11, p. 298. B.
Andr. Serm. on Jer. xxiii. 6, p. 79-82.

296 Sleid. Com. lib. 21, p. 377.

297 De Laicis, cap. 19.

298 Annot. 1 Tim. vi. 20.

299 Rep. Eccl. lib. 7, cap. 12, num. 134.

300 Park., of the Cross, part 2, p. 80.

301 P. 32.

302 Ibid. p. 34.

303 Ibid. p. 41.

304 Ibid. p. 42.

305 Jun. Animad. in Bell. de Cult. Sanct. lib. 3, cap. 5.

306 Natal. Comit. Mythol. lib. 1, cap. 15.

307 Bell. de Effect. Sacram. cap. 31.

308 Hooker, Eccl. Pol. lib. 4, num. 1.

309 Hospin. Epist. Dedic. Praefix. Libris de Orig. Monach.

310 Censur. Liturg. Angl. cap. 9.

311 Exam. part 2, de Rit. In Administ. Sacr. p. 32.

312 Com. in John iv. 24.

313 Popish Prejud. cap. 10.

314 Calv. Com. in Exod. xx. 5.

315 Com. in illum locum.

316 De Divers. Grad. Ministr. Evang. contr. Bez. cap. 24, sect. 25.

317 Popish Prejud. cap. 10.

318 Camero, ibid.

319 Hospin., ubi supra.

320 Rev. xvii. 7.

321 Com. in illum locum.

322 Praef. of the Ans. p. 17.

323 Sarav. N. Fratri et Amico, art. 17.

324 Socrat. lib. 3, cap. 12.

325 Decr. part 2, caus. 7, quest. 1, cap. 36.

326 The Pastor and the prelate, p. 36.

327 Hist. of the Waldenses, lib. 1, cap. 3.

328 Calv. Epist. et Resp. col. 132.

329 Way to the Church, ans. to sect. 33.

330 Epist. ad Regin. Fes. lib. 1, Epistol. p. 112.

331 Of the Cross, cap. 9, sect. 1.

332 Expos. Conf. Ang. art. 37, et problem, 2 de prædest.

333 Maldon. Com. in Matt. viii. 3.

334 De Verb. Dom., serm. 6.

335 Conrad. Schlusselburg. apud Park. of the Cross, part 2, p. 97.

336 De Cas. Consc., lib. 4, cap. 11. cas. 3.

337 De Laicis, cap. 19.

338 Calv. Epist. et Resp. col. 451, 452.

339 Plutin In vita Innoc. VII.

340 Sleid. com. lib. 21, p. 376.

341 Epist. to the Pastors of the Kirk of Scotland.

342 Sarav. N. Fratri et Amico, art. 17.

343 Park., of the Cross, cap. 6, sect. 21.

344 Ibid. sect. 22.

345 Serm. At Perth Assembly.

346 Part 1, p. 63.

347 Ibid. p. 64.

348 Nature Hist. lib. 10. cap. ult.

349 Serm. on 1 Cor. xi. 16.

350 Thuan. Hist. lib. 16, p. 506.

351 Plin. Natur. Hist. lib. 4. cap. 1.

352 Com. in Matt. lib. 2 lib. 15.

353 Synt. Theol. lib. 6 cap. 3 col. 19.

354 Aquin. 2, 2 an. quest. 43 art. 1 Marc. Ant. de Dom. de Rep. Leel
lib. 5 cap. 10 num. 44.

355 Marc. Ant. de Dom. de Rep. Eccl. lib. 1, cap. 11, num. 18.

356 Com. In 2 m. 2 an. quest. 43, art. 7.

357 Hemming. Enchir. Theol. class. 3, cap. 17, Magdeburg cont. 1, lib.
2, cap. 4, col. 448, 449.

358 Ames, lib. 5, de Consc. cap. 11, quest. 6.

359 Ames. Ibid. quest. 3.

360 Camero, Prael. In Matt. xviii. 7, de scand.

361 Com. in illum locum.

362 Com. ibid.

363 Com. ibid.

364 Of the Cross, part 2. p. 57.

365 Eccl. Pol. p. 246.

366 Supra, cap. 1.

367 Maldonat. Com. in illum locum.

368 Pareus, Com. ibid.

369 Com. in Eph. iv. 13.

370 Polan. Synt. Theol. lib, 6, cap. 3, col. 19.

371 Aquin. 2, 2 an. quest. 43. art. 2.

372 Marc. Ant. de Dom. de Rep. Eccl. lib, 1, cap. 11, num. 18.

373 Cent. 1, lib. 2, cap. 4, col. 450.

374 Com. in Dan. i. 8.

375 De Rep. Eccl. lib. 5, cap. 10, num. 44.

376 Com. in 1 Thes. v. 22.

377 Of the Cross, cap. 3, sect. 6.

378 Annot. on Gal. iv. 10.

379 Confer. with Rain. cap. 8, div. 2, p. 408, 410.

380 Com. in 1 Cor. x. 28.

381 Lib. 1, epist. 41.

382 Can. 5.

383 Ubi supra.

384 Bald, de Cas. Cons. lib. 2, cap. 14, cas. 7.

385 N. Fratri et Amico, art. 13.

386 Annot. on Acts viii. sect. 5.

387 Park, of the Cross, part 2, p. 57; 1 Thes. v. 14; Rom. xiv. 16; 1
Cor. lx. 12; 1 Thes, ii. 7; Acts xx 34; Matt xviii. 6.

388 Cornel Jansen. Conc. Evang. cap 71.

389 Aug. de Morib. Manich. lib. 2, cap. 14; Rom. xiv. 30.

390 Ames lib. 5, de Consc. cap. 11, quest. 6.

391 Dr Forebesse, Iren. lib. 2. cap. 20, num. 27.

392 Alt. Damasc. cap. 9, p. 556.

393 Parker, of the Cross, part 2, p. 75.

394 Com. upon this place.

395 Tom. 1, an. 55, num. 39.

396 De Rep. Eccl., lib. 1, cap. 11, num. 18.

397 Serm. at Perth Assembly.

398 “Non enim solum scandalizure, sed ... dulizari peccatum est, quia
... est,” saith Maldonat upon Matt. xviii. 7.

399 2 2an., quest. 43, art. 1.

400 Pareus, Com. la. illum locum.

401 Epist. to the Pastors of the Church of Scotland.

402 Com. in 1 Cor. viii. 9.

403 Lib. 2, cap. 20, num. 5, 6.

404 Supra, sect 4-6.

405 Ibid., num. 7.

406 Num. 10-14.

407 Num. 15, 16.

408 Num. 17.

409 Iren., lib. l. cap. 10, sect. 2.

410 Supra, cap. 8, sect. 6.

411 Ibid. lib. 2, cap. 20, num. 14.

412 Supra. cap. 8, sect. 5, cap. 9, sect. 10.

413 Ibid, sect 7.

414 Mosney Myster. of Iniq. In the conclus.

415 Aquin. 3, quest. 66, art. 8, Rhein Annot. on Matt. xvi. sect. 5,
Bell de Pontif. Rom., lib. 4, cap. 18; and De Sacrif. Missæ, lib. 6,
cap 13.

416 Eccl. Pol., lib. 4, 11, 12.

417 Cap. 1, sect. 3.

418 Expos. of the Creed, Art. of Christ’s Birth.

419 Com. on Gal. iv. 10.

420 Parker, of the Cross, cap. 6, sect. 10.

421 Sect. 7.

422 Apol., part 3, cap 5.

423 Com. in Matt. xviii. 6.

424 Com. 1 Cor. viii.

425 Ames., lib. 5, de Consc., cap. 11.

426 Supra, cap. 1.

427 Cent. 1, lib. 2, cap. 10, col. 560.

428 De Auserib Papae, consider. 12.

429 Com. in illum locum.

430 Ubi Supra, p. 441.

431 Of the Cross, part 2, p. 79.

432 Serm. on John xvi. 7.

433 Pareus, Com. in Rom. xv. 1.

434 Serm. on John xvi. 7.

435 Fresh Suite ag. Cerem., cap. 9, p. 96, 100.

436 Lib. 1, de Vit. Ext. Cult. Oppos., col. 501, 502.

437 Aquin. 2. 2, quest. 92, art. 1.

438 Syn. Pur. Theol., disp. 44, thes. 53.

439 Cent. 4, cup. 6, col. 427.

440 De Cas. Consc., lib. 2, cap. 12, Cas. 13.

441 Concil. Laodic., can. 58.

442 Hist. of the Waldenses, part 3, lib. 1, cap. 6.

443 Eccles. Pol., lib. 5, sect. 3.

444 Apud Aquin. 2. 2, quest. 93, art. 2.

445 J. Rainold’s Confer. with J. Hart, cap. 8, divis. 4, p. 489.

446 Stella, Com. in Luke xvii. 20.

447 Eccl. Pol., lib. 5, 70.

448 Ibid., sect. 69.

449 Ibid., sect. 65.

450 Of the Lawfulness of Kneeling, cap. 3.

451 Aquin. 3, 4, 25, art. 4.

452 Ubi Supra, cap. 15, p. 42.

453 Ibid., p. 41.

454 Aquin. 2. 2, quest. 95, art. 2.

455 De Vera Eccl. Reform., p. 367.

456 Annot. on Matt. xv., sect. 5.

457 3, quest. 68, art. 6.

458 2. 2, quest. 147, art. 4.

459 3, quest. 66, art. 10.

460 De Sacr. Missae, lib. 6, cap. 13.

461 De Pont. Rom., lib. 4, cap. 18.

462 Conc. Evan., cap. 60.

463 Iren., lib. 1, cap. 5, sect. 6; cap. 7, sect. 7.

464 Apud Zanc. Epist., lib. 1, p. 111.

465 Eccl. Pol., lib. 5, sect. 60.

466 Hist. of the Counc. of Trent., lib. 2.

467 Confess., cap. 5, art. 41.

468 Proc. in Perth Assembly, part 3, p. 18.

469 Alt. Damasc., cap. 10, p. 878.

470 Ubi Supra, p. 29.

471 Ibid., p. 28.

472 Theol., lib. 6, cap. 3

473 Synt., lib. 6, cap. 51, p. 433.

474 Syn. Pur. Theol. Disp. 21, thes. 7.

475 Fresh Suite, cap. 5, p. 59.

476 Comm. in 1 Reg. viii. de Tempt. Dedic.

477 Hist. of the Waldenses, lib. 1, cap. 1.

478 Cent. 4, cap. 6, col. 480.

479 De Orig. Temp., lib. 4, cap. 2.

480 Cent. 4, cap. 6, col. 409.

481 Com. in Mal. i. 11.

482 Eccles. Pol., lib. 5, sect. 16.

483 Confer. with J. Hart, cap. 8, divis. 4, p. 491.

484 Ubi Supra.

485 Eccl. Pol., lib. 5, sect. 69.

486 Annot. on 1 Tim. iv. 5.

487 De Cult. Sanct, cap. 10.

488 Ubi Supra, p. 21.

489 Ep. to the Pastors of the Church of Scotland.

490 On P. 5.

491 Bonifac. VIII., de Reg. Juris, reg. 51.

492 Hook. Eccl. Pol., lib. 5, sect. 12.

493 Serm. on Matt. vi. 16.

494 Ubi Supra, p. 25.

495 De Cult. Sanct, cap. 10.

496 Zanc. in 4 Præc, p. 682.

497 Pareus Com. in Gen ii. 3.

498 Ubi Supra, p. 20.

499 Ubi Supra p. 29.

500 On Præc. 4.

501 See Serm. on Gal. iv. 4; Serm. on Luke ii. 10, 11; Serm. on Lam. i.
12; Serm. on John xx. 19; Serm. on Job xix. 23; Serm. on John xx.
17; Serm. on Heb. xiii. 20, 21; Serm. on Matt. vi. 16; Serm. on Acts
ii. 16; Serm. on John v. 6, &c.

502 P. 67.

503 Ubi Supra, p. 23.

504 Serm. on Matt. xii. 39, 40.

505 Serm. on Luke iv. 18, 19.

506 Serm. on Matt. vi. 16.

507 Synop. Pur. Theol., disp. 19, thes. 30.

508 Manduct, lect. 2, p. 38.

509 Com. in illum locum.

510 Jude 23.

511 Com. In Thess. v. 22.

512 Anal. in illum locum.

513 Expos. upon Rev. ii. 14.

514 In Praec. 2, p. 534.

515 Annot. on 1 Cor. x. 21.

516 Com. in illum locum.

517 Anal. in 1 Cor. x.

518 Ibid.

519 Annot. Ibid.

520 De Bono Conjugall, cap. 16.

521 Com. In illum locum.

522 Apud Wolphinm, com. in 2 Reg. xviii. 4.

523 Calv. Epist. et Resp., p. 79.

524 Serm. on Phil. ii. 10.

525 Com. in illum locum.

526 G. Sanctus, com. ibid.

527 Com. in 2 Reg. xxiii. 6.

528 Com. in Isa. xxvii. 9.

529 Calv. Com. in Exod. xxiii. 24.

530 Ubi Supra.

531 N. Fratri et Amico, art. 17.

532 Iren. lib. 1. cap. 7, 9, 6.

533 Resp. ad Versipel., p. 41-44.

534 Ubi Supra.

535 Supra, cap. 1, sect. 11.

536 Com. in Deut. xii. 2.

537 In 4 Praec., col. 709.

538 Magdeb., cent. 4, cap. 16, col. 1538, 1539.

539 Cent. 6, cap. 15, col. 1511.

540 Danæus Polit. Christ., lib. 3, p. 229; Polan. Synt. Theol., lib. 10,
cap. 65.

541 Epist. Hist., lib. 1.

542 Com. in 2 Reg. x. 27.

543 Calv. Res. ad Versipel., p. 413.

544 De Imagin., col. 402.

545 Tho Naogeorgus in 1 John v. 21.

546 Calv. Epist. et Resp., p. 86.

547 Ibid., col. 136.

548 Com. in Col. ii. 17.

549 De Imagin., col. 403.

550 Com. in 2 Kings xviii. 4.

551 Proc. in Perth Assembly, part 2, p. 120.

552 Com. in illum locum.

553 Aquin. 2, 2 an., quest. 43, art. 1.

554 Confer, with J. Hart, cap. 8, divis. 4, p. 509.

555 Apol., part 3, cap. 4, sect. 15-17.

556 Supra, sect. 9.

557 Supra, sect. 6.

558 Epist. ad Regin. Elizab. Epistolar., lib. 1, p. 112.

559 Ibid., p. 111.

560 Sleid. Com., lib. 25, p. 481.

561 Apol., part 3, cap. 4.

562 Proc. in Perth Assembly, part 2, p. 118, 119.

563 Ibid., p. 22.

564 Ration., lib. 5, Tit. de Prima et lib. 6, Tit. de Die Sancta Pasc.

565 Annot. on Matt. viii., sect. 3; and on 1 Cor. xi., sect. 18.

566 Way to the Church, Answer to sect. 51.

567 Exam. Conc. Trit. de Euchar., can. 6, p. 86.

568 Of the Lawfulness of Kneeling, cap. 21, p. 65.

569 Ibid., p. 69.

570 Concil. Laodicaen., can. 19. See also Conc. Tolet. 4, can. 17.

571 Ubi Supra, p. 61.

572 Ubi Supra, p. 118.

573 Ubi Supra.

574 Eccl. Pol. lib. 4, sect. 6.

575 Apol., part 3, cap. 4, sect. 5.

576 In Praec. 2, p. 543.

577 Com. in illum locum.

578 Ubi Supra.

579 Eccl. Pol., lib. 4, sect. 6.

580 Ubi Supra.

581 Com. in Lev. xix. 27, 28.

582 Aquin., 2, 2ae, quest. 103, art. 4.

583 De Cas. Cons., lib. 2, cap. 14, cas. 7.

584 Com. in illum locum.

585 Annot. ibid.

586 Ag. the Rhem., Annot. on 1 Cor. x., sect. 8.

587 Apud Gratian. Decr., p. l, dist. 37, cap. 15.

588 De Corona Militis.

589 Partic. Def., cap. 1, sect. 1.

590 Magd., cent. 3, cap. 6, col. 147.

591 Concil. Laodicen., can. 37.

592 Apud Theod., lib. 1, cap. 10.

593 Epist. 86, ad Casulan.

594 Lib. 1, epist. 41.

595 Apud Bell. de Effect. Sacr., lib. 2, cap. 31.

596 Conc. African., can. 27; Conc. Tolet. 4, can. 5, et 10; Conc. Brac.
2, can. 73.

597 Magd., cent. 4, cap. 6, col. 458.

598 Eccl. Pol., lib. 4, sect. 7.

599 Can. 5.

600 Can. 40.

601 Sims. Hist. of the Church, lib. 4, cent. 6.

602 Eccl. Pol., lib. 3, sect. 1.

603 Decr., part 2, causa 26, quest. 7, cap. 13.

604 Ibid., cap. 14.

605 Ibid., cap. 17.

606 Aquin. 1, 2ae, quest. 102, art. 6, resp. ad 6m.

607 Ibid., resp. ad 11m.

608 Baruch. 6, 3 Reg. xviii.

609 Ibid., resp. ad 8m.

610 Rhem. Annot. on 2 Cor. vi. 14.

611 Rhem. on 1 Tim. vi., sect. 4.

612 Rhem. on Apoc. i. 10.

613 Rhem. on 2 John x.

614 De Effect. Sax., lib. 2, cap. 31.

615 Magd. Cent. 4, cap. 6, col. 406.

616 Hosp. de Orig. Templ., lib. 2, cap. 7, p. 115.

617 Confer. with J. Hart, divis. 4, cap. 8.

618 Antith. Pap. et Christ., art. 9.

619 In 2 Praec., col. 363.

620 Com. in Psal. xvi. 4.

621 Com. in 1 Cor. x. 14.

622 Synops. Purior. Theol., disp. 19.

623 Usher, of the Relig. Prof. by the Anc. Irish, cap. 4.

624 Apud Hosp. de Orig. Imag., p. 200.

625 De Vit. Pil. 4.

626 Bel. de Effect. Sacr., lib. 2, cap. 31.

627 Annot. in illum locum.

628 Annot. ibid.

629 Com. ibid.

630 Sect. 48.

631 Elench. Relig. Papist. in Praefat.

632 Part 2, cap. 6.

633 Supra, cap. 1.

634 De Imag. Sanct., cap. 29.

635 Proc. in Perth Assemb., part 2, p. 22.

636 Rhem. Annot. on Act. ii. 1.

637 Rain. Confer. with J. Hart, cap. 8, divis. 4, p. 496.

638 Zanch., lib. 1, in 4 Praec, col. 674.

639 Aquin., 1, 2ae, quest. 102, art. 6, resp. ad 11m.

640 N. Fratri et Amico, resp. ad art. 12m.

641 Ubi Supra, p. 510.

642 Supra, part 2, cap. 9, sect. 14.

643 Infra, cap. 4, sect. 26-28.

644 Of the Cross, cap. 2, sect. 2.

645 Upon Gen. xxxv. 4.

646 Expos. in Col. iii. 5.

647 Of the Lawfulness of Kneeling, cap. 18, p. 62.

648 History of the Church of Scotland, lib. 1, p. 181.

649 Part 1, quest. 3.

650 Charact. of the Superstit., lib. 2.

651 Com. In 1 Kings ii.

652 A. Polan. Synt. Theol., lib. 6, cap. 3; D. Pareus Explic. Catech.,
part 1, quest. 71; Scarpius Curs. Theolog. de Peccato, cap. 8.

653 Ibid., ver. 44.

654 De Rep. Eccl., lib. 7. cap. 12, num. 88.

655 Ibid., num. 89.

656 Eccl. Pol., lib. 5, sect. 65.

657 Cornel. a Lapide; Com. in Hag. ii. 24.

658 Confer. with Hart, chap. 8, divis. 5, p. 509.

659 Eccl. Pol., lib. 5, sect. 66.

660 Eram., part 2, de Rit. in Admin. Sacr., p. 32.

661 Lib 1, de Viti. Ext. Cult. Oppos., col. 505.

662 Eccl. Pol., lib. 5, sect. 69

663 Supra, part 1, cap. 1.

664 Supra, cap. 1.

665 Infra, cap. 5.

666 Of the Lawfulness of Kneeling. p. 115, 116.

667 De Rep. Eccl., lib. 5, cap. 6, num. 126.

668 De Rep. Eccl., lib. 5, cap. 6, num. 138.

669 Proc. in Perth Assembly, part 2, p. 22.

670 Serm. at Perth Assembly.

671 Of the Lawfulness of Kneeling, cap. 10, p. 17.

672 Apol., part 3, sect. 16.

673 Cap. 1, sect. 35.

674 Of the Lawfulness of Kneeling, cap. 22, p. 85.

675 Ibid., cap. 23.

676 Annot. on Heb. xi. 21.

677 Expos. Artic. Confes. Angel., art. 28.

678 De Sacr. Euchar, lib. 4, c. 29.

679 Zanch., lib. 1, De Viti. Ext. Cult. Oppos., col. 504.

680 Bell. ubi supra.

681 Cartwright on 1 Cor. xi., sect. 8.

682 De Orig. Imag., p. 245.

683 Ans. to the Les. Chal. of the Real Pres., p. 74.

684 Of the Lawfulness of Kneeling, p. 116.

685 Proc. in Perth Assembly, part 2, p. 92.

686 Ubi supra.

687 Ubi supra.

688 Gener. Def., cap. 3.

689 Rejoynd., p. 296.

690 Cornel. à Lapide, Com. in Mal., cap. xi.

691 Part 3, cap. 3, sect. 29.

692 De Fugiend. Idolat., homil. 1.

693 Homines qui ex corpore et spiritu sunt constituti, corpore colunt
materialiter, spiritu formaliter, as Junius saith upon Deut. xii.

694 Com. in illum locum.

695 Lindsey, ubi supra, p. 18.

696 Ibid., p. 92.

697 Ibid.

698 Of the Lawfulness of Kneeling, cap. 32, p. 115.

699 De Rep. Eccl., lib. 7, cap. 12, num. 42.

700 Com. 1, disp. 50, sect. 3.

701 See Dr Usher’s Ans. to the Jesu. Chall. of Images, p. 499.

702 Allud est picturam adorare; allud per picturæ historiam quid sit
adorandum addiscere, saith Durand, Ration, lib. 1, Tit. de Pictur.

703 Manual, lib. 3, cap. 2, quest. 5.

704 Ubi supra.

705 Zanch, lib. 1, De Viti. Ext. Cult. Oppos., col. 510.

706 Ubi supra p. 88.

707 Ubi supra, p. 69.

708 Partic. Def., cap. 3 sect. 20.

709 Part 3, cap. 3, sect. 45.

710 Ubi supra p. 72, 73.

711 Ans. to the Chall. of the Real Pres. p. 50, 51.

712 Ubi supra p. 55.

713 Ibid. p. 61.

714 Alt. Dam., p. 809.

715 Ea (veneratio) potest esse etiam sine cultu, saith Scaliger, De
Subtil. ad Card., exert. 317, dist. 3.

716 De Sacram. Confirm., cap. 13.

717 Part 3, cap. 3, sect. 50.

718 Of the Lawfulness of Kneeling, cap. 8.

719 De Rep. Eccl., lib. 5, cap. 6, num. 137, et lib. 7, cap. 12, num.
48.

720 Ubi supra, p. 70.

721 Ubi supra, cap. 21, p. 73.

722 Cartright on 1 Cor. xi., sect. 18.

723 De Rep. Eccl., lib. 7, cap. 12, num. 50.

724 Didoclav., ubi supra, p. 803.

725 Lib. 1, De Viti. Ext. Cult. Oppos., col. 504, 505.

726 Sermon at Perth Assembly.

727 Ubi supra, p. 142.

728 Aquin. 3, quest. 25, art. 2.

729 De Rep. Eccl., lib. 7, cap. 12, num. 43.

730 Franc. à S. Clara, Expos. Artic. Confess. Angl., art. 28.

731 Of the Church, lib. 5, sect. 15.

732 Aquin. 1, quest. 13, art. 1.

733 Cent. Flosc Tur. Disput. Flosc., 26.

734 Of the Lawfulness of Kneeling, cap. 23, p. 88.

735 Synt. lib. 6, cap. 16, col. 125.

736 Eccl. Pol. lib., sect. 55.

737 Ubi supra.

738 Zanch., tom. 8, col. 521.

739 We adore Christ as well in the preaching of the gospel and sacrament
of baptism, as in the sacrament of the supper, saith Cartwright on 1
Cor. xi. sect. 18.

740 Ubi supra.

741 De Rep. Eccl. lib. 7 cap. 11 num. 7.

742 Supra, sect. 13.

743 Zanch., lib. 1, De Vitit. Ext. Cult. Oppos., col. 504.

744 Marc. Ant. de Dom. Ostens. Error. Fr. Suarez, cap. 2, num. 13.

745 Burges, of the Lawfulness of Kneeling, cap. 32, P. 113, Paybody,
part 3, cap. 3, sect. 4.

746 Ubi supra, p. 94.

747 Bishop Lindsey, ubi supra, p. 76.

748 Ibid., p. 91.

749 Ubi supra, sect. 15.

750 Paybody, part 3, cap. 3, sect. 4.

751 Paybody, ibid., sect. 5.

752 Ib., part 2, cap. 1, sect. 7.

753 Dr Forbesse, Iren., lib. 1, cap. 1.

754 Jos. Hall, Apol. against Brown, sect. 36.

755 Dr Forbesse, ubi supra.

756 Dr Forbesse, ibid.

757 Dr Forbesse, ubi supra.

758 Com. in 1 Cor. xi. 26.

759 Ubi supra, p. 104.

760 Didoc. Alt. Dam., p. 803.

761 Ubi supra, p. 112.

762 Ibid., p. 101.

763 Ubi supra.

764 Partic. Def, cap. 3, sect. 38.

765 Alt. Dam, p. 756, 782, 794.

766 Of the Lawfulness of Kneeling, cap. 22.

767 De Corona Militis.

768 De Jejun., cap. 2, 14.

769 Haeres, 75.

770 Hist. Eccl. cent. 4, lib. 2, cap. 22, p. 160.

771 Magd. cent. 3, cap. 6, col. 135.

772 Epiphan, ubi supra.

773 Ubi supra, cap. 22, et 23.

774 Rep. Eccl. lib. 5, cap. 6.

775 Lib. 1, cap. 1.

776 Alt. Dam, p. 784.

777 Cent. Magd. 3, cap. 6, col. 133.

778 De Orig Templ, lib. 2, cap. 28.

779 Pareus in 1 Cor. xi. 21, et Calv, ibid.

780 Cartwright in 1 Cor. xi., sect. 6.

781 Lib. 5. c. 22.

782 Quia Paulus has epulas sacram caenam vocarit Et quia scriptum est
apud Lucain, similiter et cali ceni postquam caen ivit Quae etiam
fucrunt ut arbitror causae, cur illi Ægyptu de quibus loquitur
Socrates, lib. 5, prius quam ad mysteria accedercut, laute
caenarent, saith Casaubon Exerc. 16. 31.

783 Conc. Laodic., can. 28.

784 N. Fratri et Amico, art. 17.

785 Patric. Def., cap. 1, sect. 6.

786 Eccl. Pol., lib. 5, sect. 65.

787 Of the Lawfulness of Kneeling, cap. 17, p. 52.

788 Apol. for Kneeling, part 3, cap. 2, sect. 15.

789 Sarav. de Divers. Grad. Minist. Evang., cap. 24, sect. 25; Dr Field,
of the Church, lib. 4, cap. 31, p. 396; Ant. de Dom. Rep. Eccl.,
lib. 5, cap. num. 48, sect. 2.

790 Apol., part 3, cap. 2.

791 Eccl. Pol., lib. 4, sect. 1.

792 Ames. Fresh Suite, p. 223.

793 Supra, cap. 4, sect. 4.

794 Ibid., sect. 5.

795 Antith. Papal. et Christian., art. 11.

796 On Luke xxiv. 50.

797 Synt. Theol., lib. 9, cap. 38.

798 Com. on Gal. iii. 24.

799 Exam., part 2, De Rit. in Admin. Sacram., p. 32.

800 Animad. in Bell. de Cult. Sanct., cap. 5.

801 Luke xvi. 16.

802 Ames, Fresh Suite, p. 266.

803 Synt. Theol., lib. 6, cap. 10, p. 58, 59.

804 Synop. Pur. Theol., disp. 19, thes. 4.

805 Supra, cap. 4, sect. 9.

806 Of the Lawfulness of Kneeling, p. 116.

807 Apol., part 3, cap. 2, sect. 4.

808 Homil. 27, in 1 Cor.

809 Camer. Prælict., tom. 3, p. 37.

810 Calv. in Matt. xxi. 25.

811 Hist. of the Church of Scotland, lib. 1, p. 157-159.

812 Calv. in Josh. xxii.

813 Ibid.

814 On 1 Cor. xi, sect. 6.

815 Com. in illum locum.

816 Eccl. Pol., lib. 5, sect. 69.

817 On Præc. 4.

818 Epist. to the Pastors of the Church of Scotland.

819 Of the Lawfulness of Kneeling, p. 3.

820 Ibid, p. 11.

821 Ibid, p. 4.

822 Ibid., p. 14.

823 Ibid., p. 6, 7.

824 Fresh Suite, p. 153.

825 De Effect. Sacr., lib. 2, cap. 31.

826 In Praefat. Elench. Relig. Papistic.

827 De Cas. Consc., lib. 4, cap. 11.

828 Ames, Bell. Enerv., tom. 1, lib. 3, cap. 7.

829 Ubi supra.

830 Com. in illum locum.

831 On Matt. xix., sect. 9.

832 Iren., lib. 2, cap. 7, p. 6, 7.

833 Eccl. Pol. lib. 5, sect. 65.

834 De Imag. Sanct., cap. 29.

835 Com. in illum locum.

836 Com. in Ezek. ix. 4.

837 Ibid.

838 Gram. Hebr., part 1, cap. 1.

839 Com. in illum locum.

840 Animad. ad Bell. de Imag. Sanct., cap. 29.

841 Serm. on that place.

842 Lib. 5, cap. 22.

843 In Epist. ad quendam qui a Reform. Relig. ad Papism. defecerat.

844 Proc. in Perth Assembly, part. 3, p. 30.

845 Sermon on Esth. ix. 31.

846 De Pol. Mosis, cap. 7.

847 Moses and Aaron, lib. 3, cap. 11.

848 De Orig. Festor, cap. 2, ad finem.

849 Ubi supra, p. 31.

850 Annot. on John x.

851 Annot. on John x. 22.

852 Ubi supra, p. 31.

853 Com. in ilium locum.

854 Prælect. in Matt. xix. 3, de Pharis.

855 Antiq. Jud., lib. 13, cap. 24.

856 Antiq. Jud., lib. 17, cap. 3.

857 Ubi supra, p. 32.

858 In John x. 22.

859 Com. ibid.

860 Annot. ibid.

861 Aulmad. in Bell., contr. 3, lib. 4, cap. 17, nota. 6.

862 De Orig. Templ., lib. 4, cap. 22.

863 Calv. in Act. xviii. 21.

864 Sermon on 1 Cor. xi. 16.

865 Epist. 80, ad Eustath. Medic.

866 Ad Pompeium contra Epist. Stephani.

867 De Bapt. contra Donatist, lib. 4, cap. 5.

868 Ep. 31.

869 Decr., part 1, dist. 8, cap. 7.

870 Decr., part 2, caus. 35, quest. 9. cap. 3.

871 J. Lips., Lib. de Una Relig. Advers. Dialogistam.

872 Calv. Epist. et Resp., col. 484, 485.

873 Iren., lib. 1, cap. 8, sect. 3.

874 Annot. on 1 Cor. xi. 16.

875 Supra, cap. 2.

876 Of the Church, lib. 4, cap. 31.

877 Lib. 4, cap. 6, 34.

878 Supra, cap. 6, sect. 3.

879 Ep. to the Pastors of the Church of Scotland.

880 Lib. 5, cap. 22.

881 Lib. de Baptismo.

882 Prael., tom. 1, de Potest. Eccl., contr. 2.

883 Epist. to the Pastors of the Church of Scotland.

884 Sermon on Esth. ix. 31.

885 Of the Church, lib. 4, cap. 31.

886 De Polit. Mos., cap. 7.

887 De Sacram., lib. 2, cap. 29.

888 Bell. Enerv., tom. 3, lib. 1, cap. 8.

889 Manuduct., p. 33.

890 Prælect., tom. 1, p. 367.

891 In Apologet.

892 Chemnit. Exam., part 2, p. 121.

893 Calv. Instit, lib. 4, cap. 10, sect. 32.

894 Calv. Epist. et Resp., col. 478.

895 Manuduct., p. 37.

896 Of the Lawfulness of Kneeling, p. 2.

897 Cap. 1.

898 Supra, part 1, cap. 4, 6.

899 Fr. Jun. de Polit. Mos., cap. 1.

900 Apol., part 3, cap. 1, sect. 25.

901 Just., lib. 4, cap. 10, sect. 17.

902 Letter to the Regent of Scotland.

903 Eccl. Pol., lib. 2.

904 Praelect, tom. 1, p. 369.

905 Epist. to the Pastors of the Church of Scotland.

906 Course of Conformity, p. 153.

907 Epist. 118.

908 Com. in 1 Reg. viii. 65.

909 Supra, cap. 1, sect. 6.

910 In 2 Praec., col. 363.

911 Ib., col. 502.

912 Annot. on Phil. ii. 10.

913 Epist. ad Protect. Angl.

914 Causa 11, quest. 3, cap. 101.

915 In 4 Praec., col. 791.

916 De Jud. Controv., cap. 14, p. 76.

917 Of the Church, lib. 4, cap. 34, p. 400.

918 Gerard, Loc. Theol., tom. 6, p. 1280; Polan. Synt., lib. 10, cap.
162, col. 960.

919 Lib. 6, cap. 5, num. 3, 174.

920 Ostens. Error. Fr. Suarez, cap. 3, num. 23.

921 De Rep. Eccl., cap. 6, num. 38.

922 Ostens. Error. Fr. Suarez, cap. 3, num. 23.

923 Lib. 6, cap. 5, num. 174.

924 Ibid., num. 177.

925 J. Wolph. in 2 Reg. xii.

926 Id., ibid.

927 Zanch. In 3 Præc. 575-558.

928 Supra, cap. 6.

929 Prompt Morall, in Domin 1, quadrag. text 10.

930 Proc. in Perth Assembly.

931 Onuphr. de Vit. Hadr., 6.

932 De Imper. aut, lib. 2, cap. 55.

933 Praelect, tom. 1, p. 370, 372; tom. 2, p. 41.

934 Calv. in Psal. ii.

935 Taylor on Tit. iii. 1, p. 543.

936 Pareus in illum locum.

937 Iren., lib. 2, cap. 4, sect. 3.

938 Lib. 1.

939 Pareus in Rom. xiii. 4.

940 Dr Forb. Iren., lib. 2, cap. 4, sect. 10.

941 Taylor on Tit. i. 15, p. 295.

942 Animad. in Bell. Cont. 1, lib. 3, cap. 10.

943 Zanch. in Phil. 1. 10.

944 Ibid.

945 Cap. 14, p. 77.

946 Ibid., cap. 26, p. 152.

947 Danaeus Pol. Christ., lib. 6, cap. 3.

948 Zanch. in 4 Praec., col. 791; Polan. Synt., lib. 10, cap. 65.

949 Martyr. in 1 Reg. viii. 31.

950 Ibid., 1 Reg, viii. 32.

951 Ibid.

952 Hospin. De Orig. Templ., lib. 1, cap. 1, Wolph. in 2 Reg. xii. 4.

953 Hospin., ibid., p. 3.

954 De Justit. Actual., cap. 41.

955 De Judice Controv., cap. 26, p. 153.

956 De Imper. Author, lib. 2, cap. 52.

957 Animad. in Bell. contr. 4, lib. 1, cap. 12, 18.

958 Cartwr. on Matt. xxii., sect. 3.

959 Of the Church, lib. 5. cap. 53.

960 Decr., part 1, dist. 3, cap. 4.

961 Aquin. 1a, 2ae, quest. 92, art. 2.

962 Bald. de Cas. Consc., lib. 4, cap. 11, cas. 1.

963 Ibid.

964 Ibid., cas. 2.

965 Praelect., tom. 2, p. 50.

966 Til. Synt., part 2, disp. 32, th. 33.

967 Danaeus Pol. Christ., lib. 6, cap. 1.

968 Fr. Jun. Ecclesiat., lib. 3, cap. 4.

969 De Judice Controv., cap. 14, p. 70.

970 Gerard. locor. Theol., tom. 6, p. 840.

971 Zanch. in Eph. iv. 12.

972 De Cas. Consc., lib. 6, cap. 11, cas. 2.

973 Lib. 1, cap. 8.

974 Pol. Christ., lib. 6, cap. 3.

975 In 2 Reg. xii. 5.

976 Ubi supra.

977 Perk. on Rev. iii. 7.

978 Aquin, 3a, quest. 85, art 2.

979 Apud Parker of the Cross, cap. 5, sect. 6.

980 De Judice Controv., cap. 16, p. 92.

981 Praelect, tom. 1, p. 25.

982 Locor. Theol., tom. 6, p. 963.

983 De Judice Controv., cap. 16, p. 86, 87.

984 Perkins on Rev. i. 5.

985 Iren, lib. 2, cap. 4, sect. 3.

986 Just, lib. 4, cap. 20, sect. 9.

987 Cart, on Acts viii. seq 7.

988 G. Buchan. Hist. Rer. Scot, lib. 5, p. 152.

989 Confess., cap. 5, art. 20.

990 Epist. ad Regin. Elisab. Epistolar., lib. 1, p. 112.

991 De Effect. Sacr., cap. 31.

992 Rat., lib. 1; Tit. de Pictur. et Cortin.

993 Fr. Jun. Animad in Bell., con. 5. lib. 1, cap. 11.

994 Lib. 4, dist. 24.

995 De Rep. Eccl., lib. 2, cap. 3, num. 47.

996 Loc. Theol., tom. 6, p. 374-376.

997 Tertullian also maketh mention of them, Apologet., cap. 39; and
Clemens, epist. 1, ad Jacob.

998 On 1 Tim. v. 1.

999 On 1 Tim. v. 17.

1000 Zanch. in 4 Praec, col. 766, 767.

1001 Jun. Anim. in Bell., cont. 5, lib. 1, cap. 13.

1002 Jun. ubi sup., cap. 7, nota. 17; Bald. de Cas. Cons., lib. 4, cap.
5, cas. 5; Ger. Loc. Theol., tom. 6, p. 835, 132.

1003 In 4 Praec., col. 794.

1004 Anim. in Bell., cont. 5, lib. 1, cap. 7, nota. 59.

1005 Charity Mistaken, sect. 5, p. 145.

1006 De Cleric., lib. 1, cap. 7.

1007 Ubi supra., nota. 55.

1008 Loc. Theol., tom. 6, p. 151.

1009 On Acts xiv. 23.

1010 Ubi supra., nota. 63, 64.

1011 Dec., part. 1, dist. 62.

1012 Thuar. Hist., lib. 83, p. 85.

1013 Hist. Eccl., cent. 4, lib. 3. cap. 38.

1014 In Acts xiv. 23.

1015 Ubi supra., p. 178.

1016 Ubi supra., nota. 16.

1017 Jun., ubi supra., nota. 24.

1018 In Tim. iv. 14.

1019 Ubi supra., cap. 3.

1020 De Gubern. Eccl.

1021 De Rep. Eccl., lib. 2, cap. 3, num. 54; et cap. 4, num. 13, 19; et
lib. 2, cap. 5, num. 48.

1022 Ubi supra., cap. 7. nota. 59.

1023 Exam., part 2, p. 221.

1024 Ubi supra.

1025 Supra, cap. 5.

1026 Supra., cap. 2.

1027 Anim. in Bell, cont. 5, hb. 1. cap 3.

1028 Ger. Loc. Theol, tom 6, p. 135; Bald. de Cas. Consc, lib. 4, cap. 6,
cas. 4.

1029 On Rom. x. 15.

1030 On Rom. x. 15.

1031 Ubi Supra.

1032 Syn. Pur. Theol., disp. 42, thes. 32, 37.

1033 Com. in Tit. i.

1034 Gerhard Loc. Theol., tom. 6, p. 134, 164.

1035 Jun, ubi sup., nota. 5, 12, Syn. Pur. Theol., disp. 42, thes. 37.

1036 Serm. on Rev. i. 20.

1037 Iren., lib. 2, cap. 11, p. 161.

1038 Epist. ad Evagr.

1039 Jun., ubi sup., nota. 22.

1040 Ibid., nota. 10.

1041 Iren., lib. 2, cap. 11, p. 165.

1042 Dist. 23, cap. 8.

1043 Ubi sup., p. 175, et seq.

1044 Apud Forbesse, ubi sup., p. 177.

1045 Ibid, p. 194-196.

1046 Disp. 49, thes. 20.

1047 Ibid, thes. 21.

1048 Thes. 22.

1049 Thes. 23.

1050 Thes. 21.

1051 M. Ant. de Dom. de Rep. Eccl., lib. 6. cap. 5, num. 89.

1052 Animad. In Bell., cont. 4, lib. 1, cap. 12, not. 4, 18.

1053 De Rep. Eccl., lib, 6, cap. 5, num. 16.

1054 Animad. in Bell., cont. 4, lib. 1, cap. 19, not. 12.

1055 De Rep. Eccl., lib. 7, cap. 3, not. 43.

1056 Jun., cont. 1, lib. 3, cap. 4, not. 17.

1057 M. Ant. de Dom. de Rep. Eccl., lib. 7, cap. 3, not. 32.

1058 Davenant de Jud. Controv., cap. 25; Jun., ubi supra.

1059 Of the Church, lib. 5, cap. 53.

1060 De Jud. Controv., cap. 16, p. 92.

1061 Ibid., cap. 14, p. 75.

1062 Animad. in Bell., cont. 4, lib. 1, cap. 23, nota. 15.

1063 De Rep. Eccl., lib. 6, cap. 5, num. 8, 30.

1064 De Rep., num. 33.

1065 Decr., part 2, causa 2, quest. 7, cap. 41.

1066 On 1 Cor. v. 4.

1067 De Cas. Consc., lib. 4, cap. 10, cas. 9.

1068 Cent. 5, cap. 4, col. 383.

1069 Loc. Theol., tom. 6, p. 236, 237.

1070 In Matt. xviii. 17.

1071 On Jude 3.

1072 De Tripl. Episc. Gen., p. 42, 43.

1073 In 1 Cor. v. 4.

1074 Animad. in Bell., cont. 4, lib. 2, cap. 16, n. 6.

1075 Jun. ubi supra., n. 7.

1076 Id., cont. 3, lib. 4, cap. 16, n. 37.

1077 Ubi supra.

1078 Supr. Digr.

1079 Apud Zanch. in 4 Præc., col. 745.

1080 In 4 Præc., col. 741.

1081 Cont. 3, lib. 1, cap. 6, n. 19.

1082 Prælect, tom. 1. p. 23.

1083 Calv. et Cart. on Matt. xviii 17; Par. in 1 Cor. v.

1084 Loc. Theol., tom. 6, p. 137.

1085 Trelcat. Inst. Theol., lib. 1, p. 291.

1086 In 1 Cor. v. 4.

1087 Com. in illum locum.

1088 De Divers Minist. Grad., cap. 8, p. 85.

1089 On 2 Cor. ii. 6.

1090 Ubi supra.

1091 Exam., part 4; de Indulg., p. 53.

1092 Com. in hunc locum.

1093 Annot., ibid.

1094 Trelcat. Inst. Theol., lib. 2, p. 287, 288; Pareus in 1 Cor. v., de
Excom.

1095 In 4 Praec., col. 756.

1096 Lib. Epistolar., col. 180.

1097 Iren., lib. 2, cap. 12.

1098 Zanch. in 4 Praec., col. 756; Dr Fulk on 1 Cor. v. 4.

1099 De Tripl. Episc. Gener., p. 43.

1100 De Divers. Minist. Grad., p. 85, 86.

1101 Zanch., ubi supra; Synop. Pur. Theol., disp. 48, thes. 9.

1102 Loc. Theol., tom. 6, p. 463.

1103 Ubi Supra.

1104 Lib. 3, Contra. Epist. Parmen.

1105 Ant. de Dom. de Rep. Eccl., lib. 5, cap. 12, n. 67.

1106 Ib. cap. 9, n. 8.

1107 In 2 Cor., hom. 18.

1108 Apologet., cap. 39; See Rhenanus’ Annotation upon that place, and M.
Ant. de Dom. de Rep. Eccl., lib. 5, cap. 12, n. 6, 7.

1109 Lib. 3, epist. 14-16, et lib. 5, epist. 12.

1110 Epist. ad Evagr.

1111 In Matt. xvi.

1112 Decr., part 2, causa 11, quest. 3, cap. 108, 110.

1113 Iren., lib. 2, cap. 11, p. 195.

1114 Ib., p. 191.

1115 P. 195, n. 25.

1116 Lib. 6, cap. 9.

1117 Calv., Lib. Epistolar. Lar., col. 169; Gratian, caus. 11, quest. 1,
cap. 20.

1118 Contr. 4, lib. 1, cap. 20, n. 8.

1119 Fenner. Theol., lib. 7, cap. 7, p. 153.

1120 Hemmin. Enchir., class. 3, cap. 11, p. 390, 391.

1121 Can. 11.

1122 Hist. Ecc., cent. 4, lib. 2. cap. 48, p. 242.

1123 Loc. Theol., tom. 6, p. 838.

1124 De Cas. Consc., lib. 4, cap. 5, cas. 12.

1125 Ecclesiast., lib. 3, cap. 3.

1126 Apud Forb. Iren., lib. 2, cap. 11, p. 177.

1127 Defens., lib. 1, p. 8.

1128 Bonifac. VIII., De Regal. Juris. reg. 79.

1129 Of the Church, lib. 5, cap. 53, p. 682.

1130 Novel. 83. cap. 1.

1131 Supra, cap. 6, sect. 1.

1132 Eccl. Pol., lib. 4, sect. 1.

1133 Zanch., lib. 1, De Lege Dei. Thess., col. 190.

1134 A. Pol. Synt., lib. 6, cap. 9, col. 49; D. Pau., Explic. Catech.,
part. 3, quest. 92, p. 503.

1135 Fr. Irn. de Pol. Mos.

1136 Id., ibid.

1137 Instit., lib. 1, tit. 2.

1138 De Rep. Eccl., lib. 6, cap. 2, n. 35.

1139 Schol. in Instit., lib. 1, tit. 2.

1140 1, 2, quest. 91, art. 2.

1141 Ubi supra.

1142 Antiquit. Rom., lib. 8. cap. 1.

1143 Ubi supra., quest. 95, art. 4.

1144 Schol. in Instit., lib. 1, tit. 2.

1145 Rosin. ubi supra; Synops. Pur. Theol., disp. 18, thes. 16; Til.
Synt., part 1, disp. 35, thes. 16; Jun. de Pol. Mos., cap. 1.

1146 Aquin. ubi supra., quest. 94, art. 2.

1147 Zanch. ubi supra., col. 188, 189; Jun. ubi supra.; Sharp. Curae
Theol. de Lege Del., p. 299.

1148 De Subtil., exerc. 9, dist. 8.

1149 Lib. 3, Offic.

1150 Par. Com. in illum locum.

1151 Jun. de Pol. Mos. cap. 1; Par. Com. in Rom. i. 19.

1152 1a., 2æ., quest. 91, art. 4.

1153 Jun., ubi supra.

1154 Jun., ibid.

1155 De Subtil., everc. 77, dict. 2.

1156 Jun. ubi supra.

1157 Ubi supra.

1158 Disp. 18, thes. 26.

1159 1a., 2ae., quest. 94, art. 4.

1160 Ubi supra., thes. 9.

1161 In Luke vi. 31.

1162 Lib. 2, Confess., cap. 4.

1163 Com. in illum locum.

1164 Lib. 10, Confess., cap. 6.

1165 Com. in illum locum.

1166 De Subtil., exerc. 2.

1167 Lib. 2, de Nat. Deor.

1168 Jun. ubi supra.

1169 De Benef., lib. 5, cap. 16.

1170 1. 2ae., quest. 18, art. 9.

1171 Bald. de Cas. Consc., lib. 2, cap. 9, cas. 9.

1172 Iren., lib. 1, cap. 13, sect. 7.

1173 Ibid., sect. 10.

1174 Ubi supra.

1175 Ubi supra., ap. 13, sect. 7.

1176 Questio, quid est; de quolibet individuo contento sub specie, non
petit quidditatem ejus singuarem, sed communem totius speciei, saith
P. Fonseca, Com. in Metaph. Arist., lib. 7, cap. 15, quest. unic.,
sect. 2.

1177 Aquinas 1, 2, quest. 21, art. 2.

1178 De Subtil., exerc. 307, dict. 27.

1179 1a., 2ae, quest. 10, art. 1.

1180 Ubi supra., cap. 13, sect. 7.

1181 Aquin. 1, 2, quest. 31, art. 8.

1182 Ubi supra.

1183 Ubi supra.

1184 Ubi supra., lib. 2, cap. 5, num. 1.

1185 Schol. in lib. 2, de Benif.

1186 Jun. de Pol. Mos., cap. 5.

1187 Aquin. 1, 2, quest. 18, art. 3.

1188 Camer. Prael., tom. 2, p. 49.

1189 Dr Burges of the Lawf. of Kneel., cap. 1.

1190 Com. in illum locum.

1191 Pareus Com. in illum locum.

1192 Calv. Com. in illum locum.

1193 In Rom. xiv. 7, 8.

1194 Iren., lib. 1, cap. 12, sect. 16.

1195 Expos. in Col. iii. 17.

1196 Ubi supra., cap. 11, sect. 36.

1197 In Acts xv., n. 18.

1198 Annot. on Acts xv., sect. 10.

1199 Zanch. in Eph. vi. 5, 6.

1200 Taylor on Tit. i. 15, p. 295.

1201 Id. Ibid., p. 289.

1202 Cal. in Rom. iv. 5.

1203 Ames., lib. 3; de Consc., cap. 8, quest. 5.

1204 Aquin. 1, 2, quest. 18, art. 8.

1205 Ibid., art. 9.

1206 Hist. of the Council of Trent., lib. 2, p. 196.

1207 Com. in 1 Cor. vi. 12.

1208 In Rom. xiv., dub. 1.

1209 Iren., lib. 1, cap. 13, sect. 7, 9, 10.

1210 Com. in Rom. xiv. 23.

1211 Prael., tom. 2, p. 345.

1212 G. Sanctius in Acts xvi. 3.

1213 De Instit. Actual., cap. 42, p. 490.

1214 Apol., part 1, cap. 9, sect 1.

1215 Lib. 2, epist. 3.

1216 Proc. in Perth Assemb., part. 2, p. 38, 40.

1217 Ubi supra.

1218 Supra., part 3, cap. 6, sect, 12.

1219 Com. in Matt. xxvi. 27.

1220 Ubi supra, p. 62.

1221 Maldon., ubi supra.

1222 De re Sacram., lib. 2, p. 31.

1223 Com. in Matt. xxvi. 26.

1224 Com. in 1 Cor. xi. 21.

1225 Instit., lib. 4, cap. 17, sect. 35.

1226 Apud Didoclav., p. 794.

1227 Disp. 3, de Symb., Coenae Dom., thes. 4.

1228 Ubi supra.

1229 Aquin. 3, quest. 81, art. 1.

1230 De Sacr. Eucharist., lib. 4, cap. 30.

1231 Concord Evang., cap. 129.

1232 In Luke xxii. 19.

1233 Apol., p. 2, cap. 3, sect. 5.

1234 Joseph., lib. 7; de Bello Jud., cap. 17.

1235 Moses and Aaron, lib. 3, cap. 4.

1236 Com. in Matt. xxvi. 21.

1237 Ubi supra.

1238 Com. in John xiii. 2.

1239 Ubi supra.

1240 Annot. in 1 Cor. xi. 13.

1241 Ubi supra.

1242 Par., ubi supra.

1243 Jansen. Conc. Evan., cap. 131.

1244 Iren., lib. 2, p. 55, 361, 362.

1245 Alt. Dam., p. 739.

1246 Hadr. Jun. in Nomenclat.

1247 Ubi supra., p. 46.

1248 Tract, die Festo Virid., p. 256.

1249 In Luke xxii. 14.

1250 Præletc., tom. 3, p. 27.

1251 Partic Def., cap. 3, sect. 4.

1252 Annot. on 1 Cor. xi. 23.

1253 Ubi supra., p. 11.

1254 See Alt. Dam., p. 742.

1255 Ubi supra., p. 40.

1256 Eccl. Pol., lib. 5, sect. 68.

1257 Pareus in 1 Cor. xi. 24.

1258 De Symb. Coenae Dom., disp. 2, thes. 5.

1259 Part 2, p. 55-57.

1260 Ibid.

1261 Com. in Matt. xxvi. 26.

1262 Ames. Bell. Ener., tom. 3, lib. 1, cap. 2, quest. 1.

1263 Cartwr. on Matt. xxvl., sect. 6.

1264 Defence of the English Translation, cap. 17, n. 5.

1265 Com. in Mal. i. 11.

1266 G. J. Voss. de Symb. Coenae Dom., disp. 2, thes. 2.

1267 Instit. Theol., lib. 2, p. 258.

1268 Ames., ubi supra.

1269 Ames. ubi supra., lib. 4, cap. 6.

1270 Apud Ames. ibid., lib. 1, cap. 2.

1271 Aquin. 3, quest. 60, art. 8.

1272 In Euchir. Contr. inter Evang. et Pontif.

1273 Ubi supra.

1274 Alsted Theol. Cas., cap. 15, p. 170.

1275 Decret. Greg., lib. 2, tit. 24, cap. 8.

1276 Iren., lib. 1, cap. 9, sect. 2.

1277 Dr Forbesse, ibid., sect. 3.

1278 In Jos. ix. 19.

1279 Com. in Jos. ix.

1280 Contempl., lib. 8, of the Gibeon.

1281 Com. in Jos. ix.

1282 Ames., lib. 4, de Consc., cap. 22, quest. 9.

1283 Part 2, p. 5.

1284 Supra, part 3, cap. 7, sect. 5.

1285 Ubi supra, p. 16.

1286 Iren., lib. 1, cap. 7, sect. 3, 4, 6.

1287 Ibid., sect. 4, 6.

1288 Aquin., 2a., 2ae., quest. 49, art. 3.

1289 Zanch. in 3 um. Praec., p. 599.

1290 Polan. Synt, Theol., lib. 9, cap. 23, p. 802; Zanchius in 3 um.
Praec., p. 599.

1291 Aquin., 2a., 2ae., quest. 89, art. 9.

1292 Aquin., ubi supra., quest. 48, art. 2.

1293 Detr. Greg, lib. 2, tit. 24, cap. 35.

1294 Ubi supra., p. 9.

1295 Ibid., p. 12.

1296 Ubi supra.

1297 Zanchius giveth the name of ecclesiastical discipline to the rights
and policy of the church and laws made thereanent in 4 Praec., col.
763.

1298 Ubi supra., p. 10.

1299 Supra., cap. 3.

1300 Aquin., 1a., 2ae., quest. 95, art. 3.

1301 Com. in illum locum.

1302 Com., ibid.

1303 Cent. 3, cap. 4, col. 86.

1304 Ibid.

1305 Supra, part 1, cap. 3, 4.

1306 Supra, part 1, cap. 6, 9, sect. 4.

1307 Apud Park. of the Cross, cap. 3, sect. 6.

1308 De Cas. Consc., lib. 4, cap. 11, cas. 3.

1309 Cent. 1, lib. 2, cap. 4, col. 441.

1310 Com. in Rom. xiv., dub. 1.

1311 De Imagn., p. 390.

1312 Exam., part 1, p. 179.

1313 Epist. 86, ad Casulam.

1314 1 Cor. viii. 8, 9.

1315 Supra, part 2, cap. 9.

1316 Supra, cap. 1.

1317 Ibid., cap. 1.

1318 Supra, part 3, cap. 2.

1319 Lib. 1, de Cult. Dei Extern., col. 46.

1320 Synt. Theol., lib. 9, cap. 38.

1321 Lib. 7, Contempl. of the Brazen Serpent.

1322 Com. in Eph. v.; de Bapt., cap. 7.

1323 Supra, cap. 5-7; part 1, cap. 8, 9, sect. 2; part 3, cap. 1, sect.
3, 4, 5, 28; part 2, cap. 9, sect. 14.

1324 Ration., lib. 6, tit. de Die Sanct. Pasch.

1325 Supra, part 3, cap. 3.

1326 Supra, part 3, cap. 1.

1327 Supra, part 3, cap. 5, 6, sect. 3, 7; sect. 5, 10-14.

1328 De Cult. Dei Extern., col. 494.

1329 Calv. Epist. et Resp., col. 119.

1330 Grotii Apologet, cap. 5. “Extranci autem quo rum maximus esse
debuerut usus in pace concili anda ex partium altera erant
conquisiti. Et infia losa mandata externis data damnationem remon
strautium præ se ferebant, ut et orationes habitæ ante causam
cognitam.” The Arminians, in their Presbyterorum Censuræ, cap. 25,
p. 286, 287, hold this as a necessary qualification of those that
are admitted into synods, that they be not astricted to any church,
not to any confession of faith.

1331 In our first paper presented to the Grand Committee.

1332 Bellarm. de Cler., lib. 1, cap. 1.

1333 יחד _una simul_, from יחד _unire_.

1334 Maldonatus, Mercerus.

1335 Melancthon.

1336 Jansenius, Diodati.

1337 D. Jermin.

1338 Pædag., lib. 2, cap. 12.

1339 Religionis Christianae brevis Institutio. Anno 1634, ca. 23. Quid
est regium munus? Resp. Est munus ipsi à Deo commissum omnes
creaturas intelligentia praeditas, ac imprimis homines et ecclesiam
ex iis collectam, summa cum auctoritate ac potestate gubernandi.
Jac. Martini Synops. Relig. Photin., cap. 23. Etiamsi non negemus
Christo jam ad dextrum Dei sedenti subjecta esse omnia, inimicosque
ipsi subjici tanquam scabellum pedum suorum, &c. Proprie tamen
dicitur Rex suae ecclesiae, uti etiam ecclesia, proprie loquendo
ejus regnum est. Sic enim de ipso vaticinatus est Zecharias, cap.
ix. 9, &c. Unde etiam nos cum Hasenreffero officium Christi regium
definimus, quo Christus cives suos Verbi ministerio usque ad mundi
finem colligit, eosque praeclaris donis ornat, contra hostes (in
quorum medio dominatur) fortiter defendit, ac tandem aeterna gloria
et honore coronat. Fr. Gomar. Aral. prop. Obad. vers. ult. Is autem
Jesus Christus, in N.T. exhibitus Rex. Qui ut cum patre habet regnum
generale omnipotentiae: ita habet speciale, de quo hic agitur,
mediationis.

1340 Gualther Archetyp in 1 Cor. v. 5 Decrevi impurum hunc tradendum ease
Satanæ, id est ejiciendum ex ecclesta, &c. Ratio locutionis quia
extra ecclesiam Satan regnat, in ver 6, lta vero in nuit disciplinam
necessariam esse, ne contagium peccandi serpat, in ver 9-11,
Catalogus eorum qui debent excommunicari, ibid, Imo non sufficiunt
ministri nisi publica authoritate juventur Ideo Paulus Corinthios
tam multis monet, ut ecclesiæ disciplinam instaurent, et formentum
omne ex purgent, in ver 13, Tollite, &c. Si Christiam eatis si
ecclesiam vultus habere puram, utimini jure vestro Bullinger in 1
Cor. v. 3-5 Viri ergo Apostolici et veterea quique contuinaces et
eccle slastica censura dignos e contubernio sanctorum abjecerent,
excludentes eoa a sacris cætibus, et communione corporis et
sanguinis mystici. And a little after Quod si his quoque addas
ordinationem Christi ex Matthæo, vidobis cam hue quoque spectare, ut
publice mulctetur quis pretis commonitionibus amicis, in honcate
perrexerit vivere Esae cum ethnicum et publicanum, est deleri e
catalogo ecclesiastico et reccasori haberiquc futer factnorosos
quibus nihil neque officii, nequc sinceri tuto cominittas.

1341 Aret. Theol. Probl. loc. 133. A Deo originem habet, et a Christo
confirmata fuit. And after Supra de origine dixi, indicans a Deo
indictam fuisse hauc disciplinam, &c. Demum Christus filius Dei
eandem ecclesiæ suæ commendavit.

1342 Wolphius Com. in Lib. Esdræ, p. 21: Atque hoc exemplo veteris
Testamenti discimus quid facto opus sit in novo Tiempe ut crebris
synodis ac censuris, in vocationem in doctrinam, in vitam æc mores
ecclesiustarum inspiciatur.

1343 In ecclesiis ditionis Tigurinæ, deliguntur seniores, qui una cum
pastore vitia corrigant. Postea magistratus de facinorosis veluti
blasphemia, per juris, pætias sumit.

1344 Bullinger in 1 Cor. v.: Et hac tenus de castigatione scelerum
ecclesiastica. Hic tamen diligenter admonitos volo fratres,
vigilent, et omni diligentia curent, ut salutare hoc pharmacum, e
cætu sanctorum pontificis avaritia eliminatum, reducatur, hoc est ut
scelera offendentia plectantur. Hic enim unicus est
excommunicationis finis, ut mores excolatur et florcant sancti,
prophani vero coerceantur, ne mali porro impudentia ac impietate
grassentur. Nostrum est ista o fratres, summa cum diligentia curare.
Videmus enim et Paulum cessantes hoc loco incitare. Aretius, ubi
supra: Magistratus jugum non admittunt, timent honoribus, licentiam
amant, &c. Vulgus quoque et pleba dissolutior: major para
corruptissima est, &c. Interea non desperandum esse libenter fateor
dabit posterior ætas tractabiliores forte animas, mitiora pectora,
quam nostra habent secula. Lavater in Nebem, homil. 52: Quia
pontifices Romani excommunicatione ad stabiliendam suamt yranuidem
abusi sunt, factum est ut nulla fere justa disciplina amplius in
ecclesiis justitul possis nisi autem flagitiosi coerceautur, omnia
ruaut in pejus neccesse est.

1345 Math Martinius in Lex Philol Maledico malum loquor alvo juste sine
Injuria.

1346 Lib. 2. cap. 4.

1347 Illeron Bustochio.

1348 Κυρῶσαι Quod propemodum valet ac si dicas, facite ut pondus et
auctoritatem habeat charitas erga illum. Loquitur enim velut ad
judices et concionem, quorum suffragiis velit absolvi eum, qui
traditus fuerat Satanae. Nam κυρία concionem significat, in qua
creantur magistratus, quae Latini vocant comitia, et diem alicujus
rei causa praestitutum, et jus aliquod agendi. Quin et κύριον Graeci
dicunt scriptum authenticum, authoribus Hesychio et Suida. Mihi
videtur et ea sententia quae vicisset in suffragiis dicta fuisse
κυρία.

1349 Hesych., Ἐπιτιμᾶ, τιμωρείται, ὁ τὴν τιμὴν νύξει.

1350 Julius Pollux, lib. 8, cap. 5, Εί δὲ τὴν δίκην καὶ τιμωρίαν χρὴ
λέγεις, φητίον δίκη, τιμωρία, πέλα σις, ζημία, ἐπιζήμιον, τίμημα,
προστίμημα, ἐπιτίμημα. Καὶ ώς Αντιφός, ἐπιτίμιον, ἐπιζολὴ, εὐθύνη,
ὃφλημα, &c.

1351 Clemens Alexandrinus, Paedag, lib. 1, cap. 10, useth promiscuously
ἐπιτίμιον and ἐπιτιμία, in one and the same sentence, to express
punishment: Τὸ ἐπιτίμιον τῶν ἁμαρτωλῶν, καὶ τὸ εὐδιαφόρητον αὐτῶν,
καὶ τὸ ὑπενέμιον δείξας ὁ παιδαγωγὲς, ἐπιτρίψατο τῆς αἰτίας διὰ τῆς
ἐπιτιμίας. Which Gentianus Hervetus, his interpreter, readeth thus:
_Cum peccatorum poenas, et facilem et tanquam ventis perflabilem
eorum dissipationem ostendisset poedagogus, per poenam a causa
dehortatus est._ Again, Paedag, lib. 3, cap. 2, _ad finem_: Αλλα και
Σικιμιτας κολαζονται καταπεπτωκοτες. The interpreter thus: _Quin
etiam Sichimitoe puniuntur, qui lapsi sunt, sanctoe virgini probrum
inferentes. Sepulchrum eis est supplicium, et poenoe monimentum nos
ducit ad salutem._

1352 Concil. Antioch sub Constantio, can. 4. Si quis episcopus a synodo
depositus, vel diaconus a proprio episcopo, sacrum celebrare ausus
fuerit, &c. Concil. Hispal. 2, can. 6, Ut nullus nostrum sine
concilii examine, dejicere quemlibet presbyterum vel diaconum
audeat. Episcopus enim sacerdotibus et ministris solus honorem dare
poteat: auferre solus non potest. Vide etiam Conc. Afric., can. 20;
Conc. Carthag. 4, can. 23.

1353 Salinas. Appar. ad lib. de Primat., p. 298, 299. Non enim potestatem
quam in ordinatione accepit per impositionem manuum, potest eripere
princeps, cum nec eam possit dare. Si princeps igitur velit
ministrum aliquem ob sua peccata proreus degradari et ministerium
simul cum ejus functione amittere, per pastores ipsos id faciendum
debet curare, qui Judices veri ipsius sunt, et auferre soli possunt
quod per ordinationem dederunt. Imperatores Romani quos per vim
ejicerent, quia intelligebant potestatem ministerii fungendi non
aliter iis adimere posse, in exilium eos mittebant. Quod possemus
infinitis testimoniis demonstrare. Relegatus hoc modo episcopus
remanebat nihilominus episcopus, non ordine excidebat episcopali,
nec ad laicorum ordinem redigebatur.

1354 Gerhard. loc. Com., tom. 6, p. 201. Probari nequit illorum
pseudopoliticorum opipio, qui ad jura regalia magistratus remotionem
ministrorum pertinere censent. See Fr. Junius, Ecclesiast., lib. 3,
cap. 3; et Animad. in Bell. Contr., 4, lib. 1, cap. 20, not. 8;
Balduin., de Cas. Conscient., lib. 4, cap. 5, cas. 12.

1355 Vide apud Synod Dordrac, sess. 25, Conditiones synodi legitime
instituendæ quas remonstrantes, &c., condit. 9.

1356 Ut de controversis articulis non fiat decisio, sed accommodationi
studeatur: cujus tamen via et ratio rata non habeatur, nisi
accedente utriusque partis consensu.

1357 System. Log., lib. 3, cap. 5.

1358 Aret. Probl. Theol., loc. 8. Privatis satis est ferre utrinque
utrosque (infirmos et palam sceleratos) emendare autem quoties fert
examplo et doctrina. Si parum vel nihil etiam proficiat, non habet
ob id causam secedendi. Nec est quod contaminationem metuat, modo
non consentiat sceleribus, &c., nihil ad me attinet in communione
coenae Domini, in caetu publico cum audio verbum Dei (which last
clause Mr Coleman leaves out without so much as &c.), quales singuli
sint mecum participantes.

1359 Aug. de Fide et Operibus, cap. 2, Et Phinees sacerdos adulteros
simul inventos ferro ultore confixit. Quod utique degradationibus et
excommunicationibus significatum est esse faciendum in hoc tempore,
cum in ecclesiae disciplina visibilis fuerat gladius cessaturus.

1360 Tert. Apologet., cap. 39. Ibidem etiam exhortationes, castigationes,
et censura divina. Nam et judicatur magno cum pondere, ut apud
certos de Dei conspectu: summumque futuri judicii praejudicium est,
si quis ita deliquerit, ut a communicatione orationis, et conventus,
et omnis sancti commercii relegetur. Praesident probati quique
seniores, honorem iatum non pretio sed testimonio adepti.

1361 Liberty of Conscience, p. 34, 35.

1362 Armagh, Serm. at Oxford, March 3, p. 17, 19, 27.

1363 Grotius, de Jure Belli ac Pacis, lib. 1, cap, 4, sect 7. Haec autem
lex de qua agimus (_de non resistendo supremis potestatibus_)
pendere videtur a voluntate eorum qui se primum in societatem
civilem consociant, a quibus jus porro ad imperantes manat. Hi vero
si interrogarentur an velint omnibus hoc onus imponere, ut mori
praeoptent, quam ullo casu vim superiorum armis arcere, nescio an
velle se sint responsuri. Ibid., sect. 13, Si rex partem habeat
summi imperii, partem alteram populus aut senatus, regi in partem
non suam involanti, vis justa opponi poterit. I might add the
testimonies of Bilson, Barclaus, and others.

1364 J. Baptista, Villalpandus Explan. Ezek., tom. 2 part 2, lib. 1,
Isag., cap. 9, 12, 13 Corn à Lapide, in Ezek. xl.

1365 C. à Lapide himself reckoneth the city to be twenty seven miles
distant from the temple.

1366 See also Codex Middoth, cap. 3, sect. 1.

1367 Polanus et Sanctius.

1368 Lib. 4, cap. 67.

1369 Lib. 13, in Ezek.

1370 Hom. 13, in Ezek.

1371 Compare Ezek. xxxvii. 27 with Rev. xxi. 3; Ezek. xl. 2 with Rev.
xxi. 10; Ezek. xl. 3-5 with Rev. xi. 1, xxi. 15; Ezek. xliii. 2 with
Rev. xiv. 2; Ezek. xlv. 8, 9 with Rev. xvii. 16, 17, xxi. 24; Ezek.
xxxviii. 2, xxxix. 1 with Rev. xx. 8; Ezek. xlvii. 12 with Rev.
xxii. 2; Ezek. xlviii. 1-8 with Rev. vii. 4-9; Ezek. xlviii. 31-34
with Rev. xxi. 12, 13, 16; Ezek. xl. 4 with Rev. i. ll, iv. l.

1372 Codex Middoth cum Commentariis Const. L’Empereur. Arias Montanus, in
his Libanus. J. Baptista Villalpandus, Explan. Ezck. tom. 2, par. 2;
tom. 3. Tostatus, in 1 Reg vi. Lud Capellus, in Compendlo Hist.
Judaicæ. Ribera, de Templo, hb. 1; and others.

1373 Polanus, in Ezek. xlv. De Reformatione Status Civilis agitur, v.
8-10. In quibus prædictio est, etiam principes et magistratus
politicos, adducendos ad obedientiam fidel in Christum, aut saltem
coercendos et in officio continendos, ne amplius opprimant populum
Dei.

1374 It is not בוש, _bosch_, but כלם, _calam_. Which two some Hebricians
distinguish by referring the former to the Greek αῖδὸς and the Latin
_verecundia_: the latter to the Greek αῖσχώνη, and the Latin
_pudor_.

1375 Vide Martyr in Rom. vi. 21.

1376 Decad. 3, 1. 7.

1377 Aug., Epist. 119, c. 19. Omnia itaque talia quæ neque sacrarum
Scripturarum auctoritatibus continentur nec in Episcoporum Conciliis
statuta inveniuntur, nec consuetudine universæ ecclesiæ roborata
sunt, sed diversorum locorum diversis moribus innumerabiliter
variantur, ita ut vix aut omnino nunquam inveniri possint causæ,
quas in eis instituendis homines secuti sunt, ubi facultas
tribuetur, sine ulla dubitatione, resecanda existimo.

1378 Arnob., adversus Gentes, lib 2. Com igitur et vos ipso modo ilios
mores, modo alias leges, fueritis secuti, multaque vel erroribus
cognitis, vel animadversione meliorum sint a vobis repudiata: quid
est a nobis factum, contra sensum judiciumque commune, si majora et
certiora delegimus?

1379 Greg. Nazia. Orat. 28. Primariæ sedis dignitatem nobis eripient?
quam prudentum etiam quispiam aliquando admiratus est: nunc autem
eam fugere ut mihi quidem videtur primæ et singularis est prudentiæ:
propter hanc enim res omnes nostræ jactantur ac concutiuntur:
propter hanc fines orbis terræ suspicione et bello flagrant &c.
Utinam autem ne ullus quidem sedis principatus esset, nec ulla loci
prælatio, et tyrannica prærogativa, ut ex sola virtute
cognosceremur. Vide etiam Orat. 27, 32; Carm. 12, ad Constantinop.

1380 Bp. Hall, lib. 7, Contempl.

1381 Bp. Andrew’s Sermon on Phil. ii. 10.

1382 Καὶ αὐταὶ λήψονται τὴν κόλυσιν αὐτῶς ὑπίρ πάντων ῴν ἐπίησαν.

1383 Brightman on Rev. iii. 17, Rogers, of Faith, chap. 10.

1384 Casaubon and Beza.

1385 Confess., lib. 4. Per idem tempus annorum novem, &c., seducebamur et
seducebamus, falsi atque fallentes in variis cupiditatibus, &c.
Irrideant me arrogantes, el nondum salubriter prostrati et elial a
te Deus mens: ego tamen confiteor tibi dedecora mea, in laude tua.

1386 Gellius, lib. 19, cap. 6. Pudor est timor justæ reprehensionis. Ita
enim philosophi definiunt.

1387 In Epitaphio Fabiola.

1388 Suarez. de Leg., lib. 1, cap. 5. Caspensis, Curs. Theol., tract. 13,
disp. 1, sect. 1.

_ 1389 Torah_, from _jarah_, demonstravit, docuit.

_ 1390 Chok_, from _chakah_, which is _insculpere lapidi vel ligno_.

1391 Illa quasi naturam aedificii substantiamque denotant, haec
accidentia. Illa si tollas deerit fabrica: haec quamvis
desiderentur, manet tamen aedificium. Illa si invertas aut mutes,
non idem aedificium manebit, sed aliud: haec quamvia tollas, idem
manere potest aedificium: haud secus quam de homine quoquam, deque
ejus vestimentis philosopheris. Villalpan., tom. 2, part 2, lib. 1,
Isa., cap. 12.

1392 The bishop of Down, of the Authority of the Church, p. 29.

1393 Wolph., Lection. Memor., cent. 16, p. 962.

1394 Vid. Joseph. Antiq., lib. 15, cap. 14; Tostat., in 1 Reg. vi.,
quest. 21; A. Montan., de Sacr. Fabric., p. 15; L’Empereur, Ann. in
Cod. Middoth., cap. 2, sect. 3.

1395 Antiq., lib. 20, cap. 8. Suasit (populus) regi ut orientalem
instauraret porticum. Ea tempi extima claudebat, profundae valli et
angustae imminens, &c. Opus Solomonis regis qui primus integrum
templum condidit. Compare this with lib. 15, cap. 14.

1396 Villalp., tom. 2, part 2, lib. 5, cap. 61-63.

1397 Walaeus, de Opinione Chiliastaerum, tom. 1, p. 558. Haec quidem
(ruinae Babylonis et deletio hostium) a nobis expectari, et
fortassis non longe absunt succedetque laetior aliquis ecclesiae
status, et amplior. Vide ibid., p. 541; Rivetus, Explic. Decal., p.
229. Posset etiam dici, et fortasse non minus apte vaticiniae de
regno Christi suam habere latitudinem nec semper intelligi debere de
eo quod vel continuo vel omni tempore fieri debet, sed de aliqua
periodo temporis, quae et si nondum advenerit, adveniet nihilominus.
Fieri enim potest, ut quemadmodum expectatur adhuc Judaeorum
generalis conversio, ita etiam ecclesia sua tempore ea pace fruitura
sit, in qua ad literam implebuntur, quae hujus vaticinii verbis
(Isa. ii. 4) significantur. Others of this kind might be cited.

1398 In ehortu evangelicae doctrinae, legatus Hadriani pontificis in
comitiis Nerobergae habitis, publice confessus est, in doctrina et
vita spiritualium, recessum esse a regula verbi divini:
reformationem ecclesiae in capitibus et membris esse necessariam: ut
hac confessione cursum evangelii impediret. Lavater, hom. 9, in lib.
Ezrae.

1399 Innoc., Epist. 2, ad Victricium Rothomag. Majores causae in medium
devolutae, ad sedem apostolicam, sicut synodus, statuit, et baeta
consuetudo exigit post judicium episcopale, referantur. Vide Myster.
Iniq., edit. Salmur, 1611, p. 51.

1400 Can. 5.

1401 Mornay, Myster. Iniq., p. 46.

1402 Wolphius, Lection, Memorab., tom. 1, p. 113. Hoc scilicet tempore
jam gliscebat Antichristus Romae.

1403 Vide Funcc. Chron., fol. 51-53.

1404 Broughton on Rev. ix.

1405 In Jer. ii. 2.

1406 Gualt., hom. 8, In Malach.: Vult enim docere propheta, venturum
quidem Christum, sed reformatorem fore, et acerrimum divini cultum
vindicem.

1407 Gualther on the place. Martyr on the place. Accessione temporis
declarantur. Experimur hodie retegi complura quæ a multis annis
latuerunt,—Gualther. Orietur dies, id est, clarior lux veritatis,
quæ omnia protrabet,—Tossanus. Mundus tandem agnoscet vanitatem
traditionum humanarum.

1408 Chamier-Panst., tom. 3, lib. 26, cap. 13, 14.

1409 Bullinger on the place.

1410 Grotius, Annot. in Mal. iii.

1411 See Mr Robinson’s _Apology_, cap. 12.

1412 Faustus Socinus wrote a book to prove that all those in the reformed
churches of Poland, who desire to be truly godly, ought to separate
themselves, and join with the assemblies, who (saith he) are falsely
called Arians and Ebionites. One of his arguments is this, because,
in those reformed churches, there is a great neglect of church
discipline, whereby it cometh to pass that scandalous persons are
admitted to the Lord’s table. The same argument is pressed against
some Lutheran churches by Schlichtingius, _Disput pro Socino Contra
Memerum_, p. 484. Licet vero dolendum sit talis promiscue passim que
fieri, et abiisse in morem pejus tamen adhuc est quod malis istis,
præter conciones interdam ali quas, quibuedam in locis, nulla
adhibeatur medici na, nec rectores ecclesiarum hæc cura tangat, ut
vi tia tam late grassantia, disciplina et censura ecclesiastica, ab
ipso Christo et apostolis instituta coer ceantur. Unde factum est ut
non solum ista pec cata, qua leviora videntur, acd etiam alia
graviora, puta comessationes, compotationes, chrietates,
acortationes, libidines, iræ, inimicitiæ, vimæ, obtrectationes, ædes
ac bella, diluvio quodam ecclesiastico iundarint.

1413 Enar in Psal. civ: Cum audis, ignis est minister Dei, incensurum
illum putas? Incendat licet sed foenum tuum, id est, carnalia omnia
tua desideria.

1414 Brightman and Alstod, in Dan. xii. 1.

1415 Answer to Mr Prynne’s Twelve Questions.

1416 Cajetan in Exod. xxxiv. 24: Non obligabat (præceptum apparendi ter
in annot.) usque ad dilatatos terminos terræ promissæ, quando secura
universa regio futura erat. D. Rivet. Comment in illum loc., Tum
quia Deus ejecturua erat hostes ex eorum terminis: tum quia
dilataturus erint fines populi sul, ot vicinoa non tam haberent
hostes, quam subditos et tributarios.

1417 Bulling., Gual., and Aricularius on the place.

*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Works of Mr. George Gillespie (Vol. 1 of 2)" ***

Home