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.