[Page] A DISPVTE AGAINST THE ENGLISH-POPISH CEREMONIES, O [...]RVDED VPON THE CHVRCH OF SCOTLAND. WHEREIN Not only our owne [...]RG [...]MEMTS against the same are strongly [...] [...] likewise the AN­SVVERES and DEFENC [...] of our Opposites, SVCH AS HOOKER, MORTOVNE, BVRGES, SPRINT, PAYBODY, ANDREWES, SARAVIA, TILEN, SPOTSWOOD, LINDSEY, FORBESSE, &c. particularly confuted.

JEREM. Chap. 9. vers. 12. 13. 14.

VERS. 12. Who is the wise man that hee may understand this, and who is hee to whom the mouth of the LORD hath spoken, that hee may declare it, for what the Land perisheth. 13. And the LORD saith; Because they have forsaken my Law, which I set before them, and have not obeyed my voyce, neither walked therein. 14. But have walked after the Imagination of their owne heart, and after Idolls.

Printed in the yeare of our Lord 1637.

TO ALL AND EVERY ONE IN THE REFORMED CHVRCHES OF SCOTLAND, ENGLAND, AND IRELAND, vvho love the LORD IESVS, and meane to adhere unto the Reformation of Religion: Grace, Mercy, and Peace, from GOD our Father, and from the Lord. IESVS CHRIST.

AS Sathans malice, and mans wickednesse, cease not to molest the thrice happy estate of the Church of CHRIST, so hath the eternall councell of the only wise GOD, predetermined the com­ming of Offences, Persecutions, Heresies, Schis­mes, and Divisions, that Professors may be pro­ved before 1. Cor. 11. 19. they be as approved, & made mani­fest. And hence, Math. 18. 17. it must needs be that offences come: neither hath the Church ever enjoyed both purity and peace any long time to­gither. But whiles the Church of God thus disquieted, as well with dangerous alterations, as with dolefull altercations, is presented in the Theatre of this World, and crieth out to beholders, Lament, 1. 12. Have yee no regard, all yee that passe by? A pitty it is to see the crooked and sini­strous courses of the greattest part, every man moving his period within the enormous confines of his owne exorbitant desires. The Atheisticall Nullifidian, nothing regardeth the assoyling of Eccle­siasticall controversies: he is of Act. 18. 17. Gallio's humour, and cares for none of those things. The sensuall Epicurean and riotous Russian, (goe Church matters as they will) eates and drinkes, and takes him plea­sure. The Cynicall Critick spe [...]eth out bitter aspersions, gybeth, and justleth at every thing that can be said or done in the cause of [Page] Religion. The Scenicall Iester playeth fast and loose, and can utter anything in sport, but nothing in earnest. The a varitious worldling hath no tune but Give, Give, and no antheme pleaseth him but Have, Have. The aspyring Diotrephes puffeth downe every course which can not puffe up. The lofly Favourite taketh the patterne of his religion from the Court [...]chnographie, and if the Court swimme, he cares not though the Church sinke. The subdolous Machiavellian accounteth the shew of religion profitable, but the substance of it troublesome: he studieth not the Oracles of God, but the Principles of Satanicall guile, which he learneth so well, that he may goe to the Divell to be Bishopped. The turne-coa [...] Temporizer wagges with every winde, and (like Diogenes turning about the mouth of his voluble hoggeshead, after the course of the sunne,) wheresoever the bright beames of corruscant Authority doe shine and cherish, thither followeth and flitteth he. The gnathonick Parasite sweareth to all that this benefactor holdeth. The mercenary Pensioner will bowe before he breake. He, who only studieth to have the praise of some witty invention can not stricke upon another anwile. The silly Idiote, (with 2. Sam. 15. 11. Absolons two hundreth) goeth in the simplicity of his heart, after his perverse leaders. The lapped Nicodemite, holdes it enough to yeeld some secret assent to the trueth, though nei­ther his profession nor his practise testify so much. He, whose minde is possessed with praejudicate opinions against the truth, when con­vincing light is holden forth to him, looketh asquint, and therefore goeth aw [...]y. The Pragmaticall A diaphorist with his spanne-broad faith, and elve-broad conscience, doth no small harme: the poore pandect of his plagiary profession, in matters of faith, reckoneth litle for all, and in matters of practise all for litle. Shortly, if an expur­gatory Index were compiled of those, and all other sortes of men, who either through their carelesse and newtrall on looking, make no help to the troubled and disquieted Church of Christ, or through their nocent accession, and overthwart intermedling, worke out her greater harme! alas. How few feeling members were there to be found behind, who truly lay to heart her estate and condition? Ne­verthelesse 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 Trueth, & to the purity of his holy worship, and are grieved for the affliction of Ioseph, as beeing themselves also in the body. In confidence whereof, I take Boldnesse to stirre 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 parge ting verdict of those who are wealthy and well at ease, and mounted aloft upon the uncogged wheeles of prosperous fortune (as they call it.) [Page] Those whom the love of the world hath not inhaunced to the ser­ving of the time, can give you the soundest Iudgment. It is Bo [...]in. m [...]h. hist. cap. 4. p 47. no­ted of Dionysius Halicarnasseus (who was never advanced to magi­stracie in the Romane Republike,) that he hath written farre more truly of the Romans, then Fabius, Salustius, or Cato, who flourished among them with riches and honours.

After that it pleased God, by the light of his glorious Gospell to dispell the more then Cimmerian darknesse of Antichristianisme, and by the antidote of Reformation, to avoide the poyson of Po­perie; for as much as in England and Ireland, every noysome weed which Gods hand had never planted, was not pulled up, therefore we now see the faces of those Churches overgrowne with the repul­lulating twigges and sprigges of Popish superstition. Rep. to the answ. p. 269. Mr. Sprint aknowledgeth the Reformation of England to have beene defective, and saith, It is easie to imagine of what difficulty it was, to reforme all things at the first, where the most part of the privy Councell, of the Nobility, Bishops, Iudges, 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. The Church of Scotland was blessed with a more glorious and perfect Reformation, then any of our nighbour Churches. The Doctrine, Discipline, Regiment, and Policie established here by Ecclesiasticall and Civill Lawes, and sworne and subscribed unto by the Kings Majesty, the severall Presbetries, and Parish Churches of the Land; as it had the applause of forraine Divines, so was it in all points agreeable unto the Word; neither could the most rigid Aristarchus of these times, challenge any irregularity in the same. But now alas, even this Church, which was once so great a praise in the earth, is deeply corrupted, and hath Exod. 32. 8. turned aside quickely out of the way. So that this is the Lords controversie against Scotland: Ierem. 2. 21. I had planted thee a noble vine, wholly a right seed: How then art thou turned into the degenerat plant of a strange vine unto mee?

It is not this day feared but felt, that the rotten dregges of Poperie, which were never purged away from England and Ireland, and having once beene spewed out with detestation, are licked up againe in Scotland; prove to be the unhappy occasions of a woefull recidiva­tion. Neither is there need of Lyncean eyes, for if we be not pore­blind, it can not be hid from us, what dolefull and disasterous mu­tation (to be bewailed with teares of blood) hath happened to the Church and Spouse of Christ in these Dominions? Her comely countenance is miscoloured with the farding lustre of the mother of Harlotes. Her shamefaste forehead hath received the marke of the Beast. Her lovely-lockes are frizled with the crisping pins of An­tichristian fashions. Her chaste Eares are made to listen to the friends of the great Whoore, who bring the bewitching Doctrine of en­chaunting Traditions. Her doves Eyes looke pleasantly upon the [Page] well attired Harlot. Her sweet Voice is mumming and muttering some missall and magicall Liturgies. Her faire Necke beareth the halter-like tokens of her former captivity, even a burden some chaine of superfluous and superstitious Ceremonies. Her undefiled Gar­ments are stained with the meretricious braverie of Babylonish or­naments, and with the symbolizing badges of conformity with Rome. Her harmelesse Hands reach bricke and mortare to the building of Babel. Her beautifull Feet with shooes, are all besmeared, whiles they returne apace in the way of Egypt, and wade the ingruent broo­kes of Popery. Oh transformed Virgine! whether is thy beauty gon from thee? Oh forlorne Princes Daughter! how art thou not asha­med to looke thy Lord in the face? Oh thou best beloved among Women what hast thou to doe with the inveagling appurtenan­ces and abilement of Babylon the Whoore?—But among such things as have beene the accursed meanes of the Churches desolation, those which peradventure might seeme to some of you to have least harme or evill in them, are the Ceremonies of kneeling in the act of receiving the Lords Supper, Crosse in Baptisme, Bishopping, Holy-dayes, &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 thinke farre otherwise. The vame shewes and shaddowes of these Ceremonies have [...]id and obscured the substance of Religion. The true life of godlinesse is smoared downe and suppressed by the burthen of these human inventions. For their sakes, many, who are both faithfull Servants to Christ, and loyall Subjects to the King, are evill spoken of, mocked, reproach­ed, menaced, molested. For their sakes, Christian brethren are offended, and the weake are greatly scandalized. For their sakes, the most powerfull & painfull Ministers in the Land, are either thrust out, or threatned to be thrust out from their callings. For their sakes, the best qualified and most hopefull Exspectants are debarred from entering into the Ministery. 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 Ministery, who are either Pop shand Arminianized, who mini­ster to the flocke poyson in stead of food; or silly ignorants, who can dispense no whollesome food to the hungry; or else vitious in their lives, who draw many with them into the dangerous p [...]ecipies of Soule-perd [...]ion; or lastly, [...]o [...]rthly minded, that they savour only the things of this earth, not the things of the Spirit of God, who feed them selves, but not the flock, & to whom the great Sheepheard of the Sheepe will say. Ezech. 34. 4. The deseased have ye not strengthened, nei­ther have ye healed that which was sicke, neither have ye bound up that which was broken, neither have ye brought againe that which was driven away, neither have ye sought that which was lost. Simple ones, who have some [Page] taste and relish of Popish superstition, (for many such there be in the Land) doe sucke from the intoxicate dugs of Conformity, the foster-milke which makes them grow in Error. And who can be ignorant, what a large spread, Poperie, Arminianisme, and recon­ciliation with Rome, have taken among the Arch-urgers of the Ce­remonies? What marvell, that Papists clap their hands? for they see the day comming which they wish for. W [...]e to thee O Land, which beares professed Papists and avouched A heists, but can not beare them who desire to 1. Thess. 5. 22. abstaine from all appearance of evill: For Isa. 59. 14. 15. [...]ruth and equity are fallen in thee, and he that departeth from evill maketh himself a prey.

These are the best wares which the bigge hulke of Conformity, fa­voured with the prosperous gale of mighty Auctority, hath impor­ted amongst us. And whiles our Opposites so quiverly goe about to spread the bad wares of these encombring inconveniences, is it time for us luskishiy to [...]it still, and to be silent? Ier. 6. 4. Woe unto us, for the day goeth away, for the shaddowes of the evening are stretched out.

Moreover, besides the prevailing inconveniency of the contro­verted Ceremonies, the unlawfulnesse of them is also plainly evin­ced in this ensuing Dispute, by such convincing Arguments, as beeing duely pondered in the equall ballance of an attentive mind, shall by Gods grace afforde satisfaction to so many as purpose to buy the Trueth, 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 remembring the word of the Lord; 1. Sam. 2. 30. Them that honour me I will honour, and they that [...] me shall be lightly esteemed: remembring also the Iudg. 5. 23. curse and condemnation of Meroz, which came not to help the Lord against the mighty: Neh. 3. 5. of the nobles of Tekoa, who put not their necks to the worke o [...] the Lord: and shortly, of all such as Ier. 9 3. have no courage for the Truteh, but Phil. 2. 21. seeke their owne things, not the things which are Iesus Christs: and finally, taking to heart how the Lord Iesus, when he commeth in the Glory of his Father with his holy Angels, Mark. 8. 38. will be ashamed of every one who hath beene asha­med of him and his words, in the midst of a sinfull and crooked ge­neration; you would with a holy zeale & invincible courage, against all contrary error, superstition, and abuse whatsoever, set your selves both to speake and doe, and likewise (having a calling) to suffer for the True [...]h of Christ, and for the purity of his worship, Phil. 1. 28. 1. Pet. 3. [...]4. beeing in nothing terrified by your Adversaries. Which that ye may the better perform, I commend to your thoughts these whole­some Admonirions which follow.

I. When you see so much diversity both of opinion and practise in things pertaining to Religion, the rather you ought to give all dili­gence, I. Phil. 1. [...] for trying the things which are different. If you Iudge us [Page] before you heare us, then Io. 7. 51. Act. 5. 16. doe you contrary to the very Law of Nature and Nations. Neither will it help you at your reckoning, to say, we believed our spirituall Guides, our Prelates and Preachers whom God had set over us. Nay: What if your Guides be blind? Then they doe not only fall in the ditch themselves, but Math. 15. 14. you with them. Io. 5. 33. 34. 39. Our Master would not have the Iewes to rest upon the Testimony of Iohn Baptist himselfe, but would have them to search the Scriptures: by which touch-stone Act. 17. 11. the Bereans tryed the Apostles owne Doctrine, and are commended for so doing. But as we wish you not to condemne our cause, without examining the same by the Word, so neither doe we desire you blindly to follow us in adhereing 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 sworde­players Andabatae, a people who were said to fight with their eyes closed. 2. Tim. 2. 7. Consider therefore what we say, and the Lord give you understanding in all things.

II. Since the God of Heaven is the greatest King, who is to rule and raigne over you by his Word, which he hath published to II. the world, and tunc vere, &c. Then is God truly said to raigne in us when no wordly thing is harboured and haunted in our soules, saith E [...]arr. in Luc. 17. Theophyla­ctus: since al [...]o Rom. 8. 7. the wisedome of the flesh is enimi [...]y against God, 1. Cor. 1. 20. who hath made foolish the wisedome of this world: Therefore never shall you rightly deprehend the truth of God, not submit your sel­ves to be guided by the same, unlesse laying aside all the high soa­ring fancies and presumptuous conceits of naturall and worldly wisdome, you come in a unfained humility and babe-like simpli­city, to be edifyed by the Word of righteousnesse. And farre lesse shall you ever take up your crosse and follow Christ, (as you are re­quired,) Math. 16. 24. except first of all you labour & learne to deni [...] your selves, that is, to make no reckoning what come of your selves and of all that you have in the world, so that God have glory, and your selves a good conscience, in your doings or sufferings.

III. If you would not be drawen away after the error of the wic­ked, III. neither fall from your owne stedfastnesse, 2. Pet. 3. 18. the Apostle Peter teacheth you, that ye must grow both in Grace and in Knowledge. For if either your minds be darkened through want of Knowledge, or your affections frozen through want of the love of God, then are you naked and not guarded against the tentations of the time. Wherefore, as the perverters of the Truth and simplicity of Reli­gion, doe dayly multiply errors, so must you (shunning those shelfes and quicke-sands of deceiving errors, which witty, make-bates de­signe for you,) labour dayly for increase of Knowledge. And as they to their errors in opinion doe adde the overplus of a licentious practise and lewd conversation, so must you (having so much the [Page] more adoe to flee from their impietie) labour still for a greater mea­sure of the lively worke of sanctifying Grace. In which respects de [...]ivit. Dei. lib. 18. cap. 51. Augustine saith well, that the Adversaries of the Trueth doe this good to the true members of the Church, that the fall of those ma­kes these to take better hold upon God.

IV. Be not deceived, to thinke that they who so eagerly presse IV. this course of Conformity, have any such end as Gods 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 lib. con­tra constant. Augustum Hilaries words; Subrepis nomine blandienti, occidis specie religionis: thou privily creeps in with an entising title, thou kills with the pretense of religion. For, 1. It is most evidently true of these Ceremonies, which Synops. Papism. contr. 13. q. 7. pag. 593. our Divines say of the gestures and Rites used in the Masse: They are all frivolous and hypocritical, stealing away true dovotion from the heart, and making men to rest in the outward ge­stures of the body. There is more sound religion among them who re­fuse, then among them who receive the same, even our enemies themselves beeing Iudges. The reason whereof let me give in the words of Dave­nant. in Col. 2. 8. p. 186. one of our Opposites: Supervacua haec occupatio circa tra­ditiones humanas, gignit semper ignorantiam & contemptum praeceptorum di­vinorum. This needlesse businesse about humaine traditions, doth ever beget the ignorance and contempt of divine commandements. 2. Where read we that the servants of God have at any time sought to advance Reli­gion, by such hideous courses of sterne violence, as are intended and assayed against us by those who presse the Ceremonies upon us? The girking and gnibling of their unformall huggermugger, commeth nearer to Sycophaucy then to Sincerity, and is sibber to appeaching Hostility, then fraternall Charity. For just so they deale with us, as the Arrians did with the Catholikes of old. Osiand. hist. Eccles­cent. 4. in Epist. dedic. Sin­ [...]ros, &c. The sincere teachers of the Churches they delated and accused be­fore Magistrates, as if they alone did continually perturbe the Churches peace and tranquillity, and did only labour that the divided Churches might never againe piously grow togither: and by this calumny they persuaded politick and civill men (who did not well enough understand thu busines) that the godly tea­chers of the Churches should be cast forth into exile, and the Arrian wolfes should be sent into the sheepfolds of Christ. Now, forasmuch as God hath said, Is. 9. 11. they shall not burt nor destroy in all my holy montaine, And will not have his flocke to be ruled Ezech. 34. 4. with force and with cruelty: Nec potest (saith lib. 5. cap. 20. Lactantius) aut veritas cum vi, aut Iustitia cum crude­litate conjungi: Neither can either trueth be conjoyned with violence, or righteousnesse with cruelty: Therefore, if our Opposites would make it evident, that they are in very deed ledde by religious aimes, let them refile from their violent proceedings, and deale with us in the spirit of meeknesse, shewing us from Gods Word and good reason, [Page] the equity of their cause, & iniquity of ours. Wherein we require no other thing of them, then that which (r) Lactantius required of the Adversaries of his profession, even that they would debate the mat­ter verbis potius quam verberibus: by words rather then by whippes. Distringant aciem ingeniorem suorum: si ratio eorum vera est, asseratur: parati sumus audire, si doceant. Let them draw out the sharpenesse of their ingines: If their reason be true let it be averred: we are ready to heare, if they teach us. 3. If their aimes were truly for the advancement of Religion, how comes it to passe, that whiles they make so much adoe, and move every stone against us for our modest refusing of obedience to certaine ordinances of men, which in our consciences we are per­swaded to be unlawfull, they manumisse & set free the Simony, Ly­ing, Swearing, prophanation of the Sabbath, Drunkennesse, Who or­dome, with other grosse and scandalous vices, of some of their owne side, by which Gods owne Commandements are most fearfully violated? This just recrimination we may well use for our owne most lawfull defence. Neither doe we hereby intend any mans shame (God knowes) 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 argnebant, &c. that they accused the Disciples of litle things, and themselves were guilty in great things; saith enarrat. in Math. 15. Nicolaus Gorranus.

V. Doe not account Ceremonies to be matters of so small im­portance, V. that we need not stand much upon them, for as Eccl. pol. lib. 5. s. 65. Hooker observeth, a Ceremony, through custome worketh very much with people. praef. of the answ. pag. 14. Dr. Burgesse alledgeth for his writing about Ceremo­nies, that the matter is important, for the consequence of it. Popish praefud c. 10. Ca­mero thinketh so much of Ceremonies, that he holdeth our simpli­city to notifie, 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 farre true or hypocriticall, as it mixeth or not mixeth humane inventions with Gods holy wor­ship. And hence, Cent. 2. cap. 2. col. 109. the Magdeburgians professe, that they write of the Ceremonies, for making a difference betwixt a true and a hypocriticall Church. Vera enim Ecclesia, &c. For a true Church as it retaines pure Doctrine, so also it keeps simplicity of Ceremonies, &c. but a hypocriticall Church, as it departs from pure Doctrine, so for the most part, it changeth and augmenteth the Ceremonies instituted of God, and multi­plieth its owne 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 evills, and there is a worse galamafrie gobbet-wise pre­pared. It hath beene Cron. Turcic. Tom. 3. l. 4. p. 63. observed of the warring Turkes that often [Page] they used this notable deceit, to send a lying rumour and a vaine tumult of warre to one place, but in the meane while to addresse their true forces to another place, that so they might surprize those who have beene unwarrily ledde by pernicious credulity. So have we manifest (alas too too manifest) reasons, to make us con­ceive, that whiles the chief urgers of the course of Conformity, are skirmishing with us about the triffeling Ceremonies (as some men count them,) they are but labouring to hold our thoughts so bent and intent upon those smaller quarrells, that we may forget to distin­guish betwixt evills immanent and evills imminent, and that we be not too much awake to espie their secre [...]t slight in compassing fur­ther aimes.

VI. Neither let the pretence of Peace and Vnity coole your fer­vour, or make you spare to oppose your selves unto those idle and idolized Ceremonies, against which we dispute. For whiles our Op­posites make a vaine shew and pretence of Peace, they doe like the August. de civ. Dei. lib. 3. c. 25. Romans, who built the Temple of Concord just in the place where the seditious outrages of the two Gracchi Tiberius and Cajus had beene acted: ib. c. 26. which Temple, in the subsequent times, did not restraine, but by the contrary, give further scope unto more bloudie seditions. So that they should have built Discord a Temple in that place rather then Concord, as Augustine pleasantly tickleth them. Doe our Oppo­sites thinke that the bane of Peace, is never in yeelding to the course of the time, but ever in refuising to yeeld? or will they not rather aknowledge, that as a man Ovid. Metam. lib. 15. is said to be made drunke by drinking the water of Lyncestus a river of Macedonia, no lesse then if he had fil­led himself with the strongest wine, so one may be inebriat with a contentious humour, in standing stifly for yeelding, as well as in standing stedfastly for refuising? Peace is violated by the Oppu­gners of the Trueth, but established by the Professors of the same. For (as was rightly said apud Bi­nium Tom. 4. Concil. part. 1. pag. 630. by Georgius Scholarius in the Councell of Florence) the Churches Peace can neither stay among men, the trueth beeing unknowen; neither can it but needs returne, the trueth beeing knowen. Nec ve­ritate ignorata manere inter homines potest, nec illa agnita necessario non re­dire. We must therefore be mortaised togither, not by the subscudi­nes of Error, but by the bands of Trueth and unity of Faith. And we goe the true way to regaine Peace, whiles we sue for the removall 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 brooke Purity: and that because (as No peace with Rome sect. 2. Ioseph Hall noteth) Iames. 3. 17. S. Iames describeth the wisdome which is from above, to be first pure, then peaceable. Whence it commeth that 2 Cor. 6. 15. 16. there can be no concord betwixt Christ and Antichrist, nor any communion betwixt the Temple of God and Idolls. Atque [Page] ut Caelum, &c. And though Heaven and Earth should happen to be mingled togither, yet the sincere worship of God and his sacred Trueth, wherein eternall Salvation is laid up for us, should irorthily be unto us of more esti­mation then a hundreth worlds, saith lib. Epist. col. 298. Calvine. Medit. in Apoc. 2. & 3. Iohn Foxe judgeth it better, to contend against those who preferre their owne Traditions to the Commandements of God, then 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 Adiap [...]orist de offic. pii viri. Georgius Cassander. Ea demum vera, &c. That alone (saith he) is true and solid Christian Peace, which is conjoyned with the glory of God, and the obedience of his will, and is sejoyned from all depravation of the Heavenly Doctrine and divine worship.

VII. Beware also you be not deceived with the pretence of the VII. Churches consent, and of uniformity as well with the auncient Church, as with the now-reformed Churches, in the formes and cu­stomes of both. For, 1. our Opposites can not shew that the signe of the Crosse was received and used in the Church before Tertullian, except they alleadge either the Montanists or the Valentinian Heretickes for it. Neither yet can they shew, that apparrell proper for Divine Service, and distinguished from the common, is more auncient then the dayes of Pope Caelestinus. Nor lastly, that kneeling in the act of receiving the Communion was ever used before the time of Pope Honorius the 3. They can not prove any one of the contro­verted Ceremonies to have beene in the Church the first two hun­dreth years after Christ, except the feast of Easter (which yet can neither be proven to have beene observed in the Apostels owne age, nor yet to have beene established in the after age by any Law, but only to have crept in by a certaine privat custome) and for some of them they can not find any cleare Testimony for a long time there­after: Now, in the 3. Centurie, Osiand. hist. eccl. Cent. 3. lib. 3. cap. 11. Histeriographers observe, that Paulatim Ceremoniae auctae sunt, hominum superstitiosorum opinionibus: Vnde in Baptismo unctionem Olei, Crucis Signaculum, & Osculum addide­runt. Ceremonies were by litle and litle augmented, by the opinions of super­stitious men: whence it was that they added the unction of Oyle, the signe of the Crosse, and a Kisse in Baptisme. And in the Fourth Centurie Magd. Cent. 4. cap. 6. col. 440. they say, Subinde magis magisque, Traditiones humanae cumulatae sunt. Forth with humane Traditions were more and more augmented. And so from that time forward, vaine and idle Ceremonies were still added to the wor­ship of God, till the same was under Poperie wholy corrupted with superstitious Rites. Yea and Cassand. Anglic. pag. 104. Mr. Sprint hath told us even of the first two hundereth years after Christ, that the Divell in those dayes be­ganne to sow his tares (as the watchmen beganne to sleep) both of false Doctrine and corrupt Ceremonies. And now, though some of the controverted Ceremonies have beene kept and reserved in many (not all) the re­formed [Page] 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, perceaving the occurring lets and oppositions which were caused by most dangerous Shismes and Seditions, and by the raging of bloudy warres, scarcely exspected to effectuat so much as the purging of the Church from fundamentall errors and grosse Idolatry: which wrought them to be content, that lesser abuses in Discipline and Church po­licie should be then tollerated, because they saw not how to over­take them all at that time. In the meane while they were so farre from desiring any of the Churches to retaine these Popish Ceremo­nies, which might have convenient occasion of ejecting them, (farre lesse to recall them beeing once ejected,) that they testifyed 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 Relicks, riven Ragges, and rotten Remainders of Poperie. All which, since they were once purged away from the Church of Scotland, and cast forth as things accursed into the Iakes of eternall 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 lesse reformed, a patterne of policie for this Church which was more reformed. But, 2. though there could be more alledged for the Ceremonies, then truly there can be, either from the customes of the Auncient, or Reformed Churches, yet doe our Cassand. Ang. p. 83. 85. 93. 110. Opposites themselves professe, that they will not Iustify all the Ceremonies either of the Auncient or Reformed Churches. And inded who dare take this for a sure rule, that we ought to follow every auncient and universaly receaved custome? For as Casaubone Exerc. 14 cap. 11. sheweth, though the Churches consent ought not to be contem­ned, yet we are not alwayes to hold it for a Law or a right rule. And doe not our Marlor. in Rom. 15. 22. Divines teach, that nihil faciendum est ad aliorum exem­plum, sed juxta Verbum, Nothing is to be done according to the example of others, but according to the Word Vt autem, &c. As the multitude of them who erre (saith Hist. eccl. Cent. 4. l. 3. cap 38. pag. 3 [...]2. Osiander,) so long prescription of time purchaseth no patrociny to error.

VIII. Moreover, because the foredecke and hindecke of all our VIII. Opposites probations, doe resolve and rest finally into the Auctority of a Law, and Auctority they use as a sharpe knife to cut every Gor­dian knot which they can not unloose, and as a dreadfull pale to sound so loud in all ears, that reason can not be heard: therefore we certiorat you with lib. Epist. col. 446. Calvine, that Si acquievistis imperio, pessimo laqueo vos induistis. If you have acquiesced in Auctority, you have wrap­ped your selves in a very evill snare. As touching any ordinance of the Church, we say with de auth. Scrip. lib. 1. pag. 129. Whittakers, Obediendum Ecclesiae est, sed [Page] jubenti ac docenti recta. We are to obey the Church, but commmanding and teaching right things. Surely, if we have not proven the contro­verted Ceremonies, to be such things as are not right to be done, we shall straight obey all the Ceremoniall Lawes made thereanent. And as for the Civill Magistrates parte, is it not hol­den, (w) that he may not injoyne us to doe that, whereof we have not good ground to doo it of faith? And that, although all thy externall condition is in (u) Taylor upon Tit. 3. 1. pag. 552. the power of the Magistrate, yet internall things, as the keeping of faith and obedience and a good conscience, are not in his power. For Rom. 14. 12. every one of us shall give account of himself to God. But untill you heare more in the Dispute of the power which either the Church or the Magistrate hath to enact Lawes anent things belonging to the worship of God, and of the binding power of the same, let me adde here touching hu­mane Lawes in generall, that where we have no other reason, to war­rand unto us, the doing of that which a humane Law prescribeth, beside the bare will and auctority of the Law-maker, in this case a humane Law can not bind us to obedience. 1a 2a. q. 95. art. 3. Aquinas holdeth with Isidore, that a humane Law (among other conditions of it) must both be necessary for removing of some evill, and likewise profita­ble for guiding us to some good. Cas Consc. lib. 3 cap. 3. num. 60. Gregorius Sayrus following them herein, saith, debet lex homines a malo retrahere, & ideo dicitur necessaria: debet etiam promovere in bonum, & ideo dicitur utilis. A Law ought to draw back men from evill, and therefore is called necessary: it ought also te promove them unto good, and therefore is called profitable. Humane Lawes (in Eccl. pol. l. 1. sect. 10. Mr. Hookers judgment) must teach what is good, and be made for the benefite of men. Natal. Comit. my­thol. lib. 2. cap. 7. Demosthenes describeth a Law, to be such a thing cui convenit omnibus parere, which it is convenient for every one to obey. pr [...]lect. tom. 1. pag. 367. Camero not only alloweth us to seeke a reason of the Churches Lawes (non enim (saith he) verae Ecclesiae libet leges ferre quarum non reddat rationem. It pleaseth not the true Church to make and publish Lawes whereof shee giveth not a reason:) but ibid. pag. 372. he will likewise have us, in such things as concerne the glory and honour of God, not to obey the Lawes of any Magistrate, blindly and without a reason. There was one saith Serm on Ioh. 16. 7. the Bishop of Winchester, that would have his will stand for reason. And was there none such among the people of God? Yes: we find 1. Sam. 2. one of whom it was said, Thus it must be, for Hophni will not have it so, but thus. His reason is, for he will not. And God graunt none such be found among Chri­stians. From Scripture we learne that Rom. 13. 4. neither hath the Magistrate any power, but for our good only, Ephes 4. 12. nor yet hath the Church any power, but for our edification only. Law-makers therefore may not injoyne quod-libet, that which liketh them, nay nor allwayes quod licet, that which is in it self lawfull, but only quod expedit, that which is expedient and good for edifying. And to them we may well say with apolog. cap. 4. Tertullian, Iniquam exercetis dominationem si ideo negatis licere, quia [Page] vultis, non quia debuit non licere. You exercise unjust dominion, if therefore you denie any thing 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 humane Lawes, beside the mere circumstances, which neither have any holinesse in them, forasmuch as they have no other use and praise in Sacred, then they have in Civill things; nor yet were particularly determina­ble in Scripture, because they are infinite. But sacred significant Ceremonies such as Crosse, Kneeling, Surplice, Holy dayes, Bishop­ping, &c. which have no use and praise except in Religion only, and which also were most easily determinable (yet not determined) with­in those bounds which the wisedome of God did set to his written Worde, are such things as God never left to the determination of any humane Law. Neither have men any power to burthen us with those or such like ordinances: For Revel. 2. 24. 25. saith not our Lord himselfe to the Churches, I will put upon you none other burden: but that which ye have all­ready hold fast till I come. Wherefore pro hac, &c. Conrad. Pfeilen clav. theol. art. 9. pag. 373. For this liberty we ought stoutly to fight against false Teachers. Finally, it is to be noted. that though in some things we may and doe commendably refuse obedience to the Lawes of those whom God hath set over us, yet are we ever obliged (and accordingly intend) still to subject our sel­ves unto them. For to be subject, doth signify (as comm. in Ephes. 5. de subject. Zanchius she­weth) to be placed under, to be subordinat, and so to give honour and reverence to him who is above, which may well stand without obedience to every one of his Lawes. Yea and of the Church lib. 4. cap. 34. Dr. Field 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 IX. they practise the Ceremonies neither perceiving any unlawfulnesse in them, (but by the contrary beeing perswaded in their consciences of the Lawfullnesse of the same) nor yet having any evill meaning (but intending Gods 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 often times an Erring, Bolde, 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 evill action, or else they who killed the Apostles were to be excused, because in so doing Io. 16. 2. they thought they did God good service. It is the observation even of Aquin. 2 [...]. 2 [...]. q. 43. art. 1. Stella in Luc. 17. 1. Papists, that men may com­mit many a soule-ruinating scandall, though they intend no such thing as the ruine of soules.

[Page] X. If once you yeeld to these English Ceremonies, think not that thereaf [...]er you can keep yourselves backe from any greater X. evills or grosser corruptions which they draw after them. For as it is just with God Thess. 2. 10. 11. to give such men over to strong delusions, as have not receaved the love of the Trueth, nor taken pleasure in the sincerity of his worship: so there is not a more deceitfull and dange­rous tentation then in yeelding to the beginnings of evill. He that is unjust in the least, is unjust also in much Luc. 16. 10. sai [...]h he who could not lye. When Vrijah the Priest had once pleased King Ahaz, in making an Altar like unto that of Damascus, he was afterward ledde on to please (q) 2. King. 16 10. to the 16. him in a greatter matter, even in forsaking the Altar of the Lord, and in offering all the Sacrifices upon the Altar of Damascus. All your winning or losing of a good conscience, is in your first buying: for such is the deceitfullnesse of sinne, and the cunning convoyance 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 Camells ere all be done. O happy they, Psal. 137. 9. who dash the litle ones of Babylon against the stones!

XI. Doe not reckon it enough to beare within the inclosure of XI. your secret thoughts, a certaine dislike of the Ceremonies and other abuses now set afoot, except both by profession and action you evi­dence the same, and so shew your faith by your fact. We are con­strained to say to some among you, with Elijah, (How long halt ye (s) 1. King. 18. [...]. between two opinions? and to call unto you with Moses, Exod. 32. 26. Who is on the Lords side? Who? (w) Be not deceived: God is not mocked. And Math. 6. 24. No man can serve two masters. Howsoever Mark. 9. 40. he that is not against (u) Gal. 6. 7. us, protanto, is with us, that is, in so farre, as he is not against us, in as farre he so obligeth himself unto us that he can not lightly speake evill of our cause, and Phil. 1. 18. we therein rejoyce, & will rejoyce; yet simpliciter, Math. 12. 30. he that is not with us is against us, that is, he who by Profession and Practise sheweth 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 the meanes of these nocent Ceremonies to be so deadly and despe­rate, XII. as if there were no balme in Gilead. Neither suffer your minds so farre to miscarry, as to thinke that ye wish well to the Church and are heartily sorry that matters frame with her as they doe, whiles in the meane time you assay no meanes, you take no paines and travell for her help. Esther 4. When King Ahasswerus had given forth a de­cree for the utter extirpation of the Iewes, Mordecay feared not to tell Esther that if shee should then hold her peace, enlargement and deliverance should arise unto the Iewes from another place, but shee and her fathers house should be destroyed. Whereupon shee, after [Page] three dayes humiliation and Prayer to God, put her very life in ha­zard by going in to supplicat the King, which was not according to the Law. But now (alas) there are too many Professours who detract themselves from undergoing lesser hazards for the Churches liberty, yea, from using those very defences which are according to the Lawes of the Kingdome. Yet most certaine it is, that without gi­ving diligence in the use of the meanes, you shall neither convince your Adversaries, nor yet exoner your owne 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 Heb. 5. 7. to offer up to God, Prayers and Supplications with strong crying and teares, which are the weapons of our spirituall warrefare: but as this ought to be done, so the atchieving of other secundary meanes, ought not to be left undone.

If you misregard 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 doe not put evill farre from you, for wrath is determined against you. And as for you, my deare brethren, and Country men of Scotland, as Speed. Hist. of Brit. book 6. chap. 9. s. 9. it is long, since first Christianity was preached and professed in this Land: as also it was blessed with a most glorious and much re­nounned Reformation: and further, as the Gospell hath beene lon­ger continued in purity and peace with us then 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 dreadfull Iudgments, yet hath shewed farre greater longsuffering-kindnesse toward us, to reclaime us to repentance, though (notwithstanding of all this,) we goe on in a most dolefull security, induration, blindnesse, and back­sliding. So now in the most ordinary course of Gods Iustice, we are certainly to exspect, that after so many mercies, so great long­suffering, and such a long day of grace, all despised, hee is to send upon us such Iudgements as should not be believed though they were tolde. O Scotland! understand and turne againe, or else as GOD lives, most terrible Iudgements are abiding thee.

But if you lay these things to heart, if you be humbled before God for the provocation of your defection, and turne 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 w [...]th the losse of all that you have in the world Lactant. lib. 5. c. 20. (augetur enim Religio Dei, quo magis premitur, Gods true Reli­gion [Page] is enlarged, the more it is pressed downe;) then shall you not only es­cape the evills which shall come upon this generation, but likewise, be recompensed a hundreth folde with the sweet consolations of Gods Spirit here, and with the immortall Crowne of never fa­ding glory hence. Now, our Lord Iesus 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 evill, that ye may be presen­ted before his Throne. The Grace of our Lord IESUS CHRIST be with you all.

AMEN.

A Dispute against The English-Popish Ceremonies, OBTRVDED Vpon the CHVRCH of SCOTLAND, Consisting of foure Partes.
THE PROLOGVE.

HOW good reason those Wisemen had for them, who did not allowe 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 yeeld 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, can not beholden in suspense betwixt the apprehensions of feare, and ex­spectations of hope, because dolefull experience hath made us feele, that which the wiser sort before did feare. Since then this Church which was once a praise in the earth, is now brought to a most deplorable and dayly increassing desolation by the meanes of these Ceremonies, which have been both the sparkles to kindle, & the bellowes to blow up the consuming fire of intestine dissentions among us; it concerneth all her children, not only to cry out Ah, and Alas! and to Is. 16. 9. bewaile with the weeping of Iazer, but also to bethink themselves most seriously, how to sucoour their deare (though distressed) Mother in such a calamitous case. Our best indeavours which we are to employ for this end, next unto Psal. 122. 6. praying earnestly for the peace of Ierusalem, are these, 1. Phil. 3. 16. So farre as we have attained to walke by the same rule, to mind the same thing, and to labour as much as is possible that the course of the Gospell, the Doctrine of godlinesse, the practise of piety lye not behinde, because of our differing one from another about the Ceremonies, lest otherwise [...] grow to be [...]. 2. In such things whereabout we agree not, to make diligent search and enquiry for the Trueth. For to have our Iudgements in our heels, and so blindly to followe every opinion which [Page] is broached, and squarely to conforme unto every custome which is set afoot, becommeth not men who are endued with reason for discerning of things beseeming from things not beseeming; farre lesse Christians, Heb. 5. 14. who should have their sences exercised to discerne both good and evill, and who have received a commandement 1. Thess. 5. 21. to prove all things, before they hold fast any thing; and least of all doth it become us who live in these most dangerous dayes, wherein error & defection so much abound. 3. When we have attained to the aknowledging of the Trueth, then to give a Testimony unto the same, according to our vocation, con­tending for the Trueth of God against the errors of men, for the purity, of Christ against the corruptions of Antichrist. For to understand the Trueth, and yet not contend for it, argueth Cowardlinesse, not Courage; Fainting, not Fervour; Lukewarmenesse, not Love; Weaknesse, not Va­lour. Wherefore since we can not impetrate from the troublers of our Israēl that true peace which derogateth not from the Trueth, we may not, we dare not leave off to debate with them. Among the Lawes of Solon, Plut. in vita. Solon. there was one which pronounced him defamed and unhonest who in a civill uproare among the Citizens sitteth still a looker on and a Newter: much more deserve they to be so accounted of, who shunne to meddle with any controversy which disquieteth the Church, whereas they should labour to winne the Adversaries of the Trueth, and if they proove obstinate, to defend and propugne the Trueth against them. In things of this life (as in Epist. ad protect. Angl. Calvine noteth) we may remit so much of the right, as the love of peace requireth, but as for the regiment of the Church which is spirituall, and wherein every thing ought to be or­dered according to the Word of God, it is not in the power of any mor­tall man, quidquam hic aliis dare, aut in illorum gratiam def [...]e­ctere. These considerations have induced me to bestowe some time, and to take some paines 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 my self, and for provocking of others to contend yet more Is. 6. 21. for the Truth, and for Zions sake not to hold their peace, nor be at rest, untill the amiable light of long wished for peace, breake forth out of all these confusions: which, O Prince of Peace, hasten, who (i) Is. 26. 12. wilt ordaine peace for us: for thou also hast wrought all our works in us.

THE ORDER.

BEcause Polemicke and Eristicke discourses must followe the Adversaries at the heeles, witherso­ever they goe, finding them out in all the lurking places of their elaborate subterfugies, and confli­cting with them wheresoever they pitch, untill not only all their blowes be awarded, but themsel­ves also all derouted: Therefore perceiving the informality of the Formalists to be such, that some times they plead for the controver­ted Ceremonies as necessary, some times as expedient, sometimes as lawfull, and sometimes as indifferent; I resolve to followe the trace, and to evince by force of reason that there is none of all those respects to Iustifie either the urging or the using of them. And albeit pref. libror. de rep. Eccl. the Archbishop of Spalato commeth forth like an Olympicke Champion; stoutly brandishing and bravading, and making his account, that no Antagonist can match him except a Prelate: Albeit likewise the Proc. in Perth Assemb. part. 3. pag. 55. Bishop of Edinbrugh would have us to thinke that we are not well advised to enter into combate with such Achillean strength as they have on their side: Yet must our Opposites know, that we have more daring minds, then to be dashed with the vaine flourish of their great words. Where­fore in all these foure wayes wherein I am to draw the line of my Dispute, I will not shunne to encounter and handle strokes with the most valjant Champions of that faction, knowing, that—Trophaeum ferre me à forti viro, pulchrum est: Sin autem & vincar, vinci à tali nullum est probrum. But what? shall I speake doubtfully of the victory, or feare the foyle? Nay, I consider that there is none of them so strong as he was who 2 Cor: 13. 8. said, we can doe nothing against the Trueth, but for the Trueth, I will therefore boldly adventure to com­bate [Page] with them, even where they seeme to be strongest, and to discusse their best Arguments, Allegations, Answeres, Assertions, and Distinctons. And my Dispute shall consist of foure parts, ac­cording to those foure pretences which are given out for the Cere­monies: which beeing so different one from another, must be sea­verally examined. The lawfullnesse 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 undon. I will beginne with the last respect first, as that which is the weightiest.

The first parte Against the necessity of the Ceremonies.

CHAP. I.

That our Opposites doe urge the Ceremonies as things necessary.

THis I prove, 1. from their practise. 2. from their Sect. I pleading. In their practise, who seeth not, that they would tie the people of God, to a necessity of submitting their necks, to this heavy yoke of humane Ceremonies? which are with more vehe­mency, forwardnes, and stricknes urged, then the weighty matters of the Law of God, and the re­fusing whereof is farre more inhibited, menaced, espied, delated, aggravated, censured, and punished, then Idolatry, Popery, Blasphe­my, Swearing, prophanation of the Sabbath, Murder, Adultery, &c. Both Preachers and People, have beene, and are, Fyned, Con­fyned, Imprisoned, Banished, Censured, and Punished so sevearly, that we may well say of them, that which our Divines say of the Pa­pists, P. Mart. in. 1. Reg. 8. de Templ. dedic. Haec sua inventa Deealago anteponunt, & gravius eos multarent, qui ea violarent, quam qui divina praecepta transgrederentur. Wherefore seeing they make not only as much, but more adoe, about the con­troverted Ceremonies, then about the most necessary things in Re­ligion, their practise herein makes it too too apparent, what necessity they annexe to them.

And if we will hearken to their pleading, it tells no lesse; for how­beit Sect. II they plead for the Ceremonies as things indifferent in their owne nature, yet when the Ceremonies are considered as the ordi­nances of the Church, they pleade for them, as things necessary. M. G. Powell in the consideration of the Arguments directed to the high Court of Parliament, in behalfe of the Ministers suspended and de­prived, [Page 2] As 3. to the 16. Arg. 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 paine of sinne. The Bishop of Edinburgh resolves usconcerning the necessity of giving obedience to the Lawes of the Church, enacted anent the Ceremonies, thus Epist. to the Past. of the Church of Scotl. 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 Apostolicall Canon that forbade to eate 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 enjoyned abstinence, the same was to rule their consciences. And therefore after that time, albeit a man had thought in his owne private judgement, that to abstaine 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 owne mind, was the rule of his conscience. The Archbishop of Sainctandrews to the same purpose sayeth, In things indifferent, we must alwayes esteeme that to be best and most seemly, which seemeth so in the eye of publike Authority, neither is it for pri­vate (d) Serm. at perth. assem. insert by Dr. Lindsey men to controle publike judgment, as they can not make publicke Constitu­tions, so they may not controle nor dissobey them, being once made, indeed Au­thority ought to looke well to this, that it prescribe nothing but rightly, appoynt no Rites nor Orders in the Church, but such as may set forward godlinesse and pietie, 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 well appoynted. I answere 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. Thus we see that they urge the Ceremonies, not only with a necessity of practise, upon the outward man, but also with a necessity of opinion, upon the conscience, and that meerly because of the Churches de­termination and appoyntment. Yea Dr. Mortoune maketh kneeling in the act of receiving the Communion, to be in some sort necessary in it self, for he Practic. def. cap. 3. sect. 20. maintaineth, that though it be not essentially ne­cessary as food, yet it is accidentally necessary as Physick. Nay, some of them are yet more absurde Dr. forb. Iren. lib. 1. cap. 5. §. 6. & cap. 7. §. 1. & 9. &c. 9. §. 6 who plainly call the Ceremo­monies necessary in themselves beside the constitution of the Church. Cassand. Anglic. pag. 270. 11. Others of them who confesse the Ceremonies to be not only un­necessary, but also inconvenient, doe notwithstanding plead for them as things necessary. ans. to the repl. pref. pag. 43. Doctor Burges tells us, that some of his side think that Ceremonies are inconvenient, but withall, he disco­vers to us a strange mistery brought out of the unsearchable deep­nesse of his pearcing conception, holding ib. p. 53. that such things as not only are not at all necessary in themselves, but are inconvenient too, may yet be urged as necessary.

The urging of these Ceremonies as necessary, if there were no Sect. III [Page 3] more, is a sufficient reason for our refusing them. To the precepts of God de cas. consc. lib. 4. c. 11. cas. 3. saith Balduine, nothing is to be added, Deut 12. now God hath com­manded these things which are necessary; the Rites of the Church are not necessa­ry, whefore if the abrogation, or usurpation of any Rite be urged as necessary, then is an addition made to the commandement of God, which is forbidden in the Word, and by consequence it can not oblige me, neither should any thing herein be yeelded unto. Who can purge these Ceremonies in controversie amongst us of grosse superstition, since they are urged as things ne­cessary? But of this superstition we shall heare afterward in its pro­per place.

CHAP. II.

The reason taken out of Act. 15. to prove the necessity of the Ceremonies, because of the Churches appoint­ment, confuted.

THE Bishop of Edinbrugh, 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 gainesay, alledgeth that Apostolicall Canon Act. 15. (l) ubi supra for an example, just as Bellarmine de cult. Sanct. c. 10. maintaineth, festorum observa­tionem ex se indifferentem esse, sed posita lege fieri necessariam. Hospinian answering him, will acknowledge no necessity of the observation of (n) de orig. fest. chris­tian. cap. 2. Feasts, except Divine Law could be shewed for it. So say we, that the Ceremonies, which are aknowledged by Formalists, to be indif­ferent in themselves, can not be made necessary by the Law of the Church, neither doth that example of the Apostolicall Canon make any thing against us, for according to Repl. to the ans. pag. 258. Mr. Sprints confession, 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 abstaine Calv. com. in hunc locum. was necessary for eshewing of Scandall, whether the Apostles and Elders had enjoyned abstinence, or not. The reason then why the things prescribed in that Canon, are called necessary Vers. 28. is not because beeing indifferent before the making and publication of the Canon: they became necessary by vertue 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, de exam. part. 1. de bon. oper. pag. 180. saith. Chemnitius. This law Synt. part 2 disp. 27. thes. 30. saith Tilen, was propter charitatem & vi­tandi offendiculi necessitatem ad tempus sancita. So that these things were necessary before the Canon was made. Necessaria fuerunt Bell. enerv iom. 1. lib. 3. c. 7, saith Ames, antequam Apostoli quidquam de is statuerant, non absolute, sed qua­tenus [Page 4] in iis charitas jubebat morem gerere infirmis, ut Cajetanus not [...]t. Quamobrem ubi supra thes. 31. saith Tilen, cum charitas semper sit colenda, semper vitanda scand [...]la. Charity is necessary annot. in Act. 15. 29. saith Beza, even in things which are in themselves indifferent. What they can alleadge for the necessity of the Ceremonies, from the autho­rity and obligatory power of Ecclesiasticall Lawes, shall be answered by and by.

CHAP. III.

That the Ceremonies thus imposed and urged as things ne­cessary, doe bereave us of our Christian libertie, first, because our practise is adstricted.

WHo can blame us for standing to the defence of our Christian liberty, which we ought to defend and pretend in rebus quibus­vis Sect. I cens. lit. angl. cap 2. saith Bucer? shall we beare the name of Christians, and yet make no great account of the liberty which hath beene bought to us, by the dearest drops of the precious bloud of the Sonne of God? Sumus empti comm. in 1. Cor. 7. 23. saith Pareus: non igitur nostri juris ut nos mancipem [...] hominum servitio: id enim manifesta cum injuria redemptoris Christi fieret: sumus liberti Christi. Magistratui autem Synt. part. 2. disp. 44 thes 33. saith Tilen, & Ecclesia praepositis, non nisi usque ad aras obtemperandum, neque ullum certamen aut periculum pro libertatis per Christum nobis partae defensione defugiendum, siquidem mortem ipsius irritam fieri, Paulus asserit, si spiritualis servitutis jugo, nos implicari patiamur. Gal. [...]. 1. Let us stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and not be entangled againe 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 foure points.

First, they are imposed with a necessity of practise. B. Spotswood Sect. II (b) tells us, that publike constitutions must be obeyed, and that privat ( [...]) ubi supra men may not dissobey them, and thus is our practise adstricted in the use of things which are not at all necessary, and aknowledged gratis by the urgers to be indifferent, adstricted (I say) to the one part without liberty to the other, and that by the mere authority of a hu­man constitution, whereas Christian liberty gives us freedome, both for the omission, and for the observation of a thing indifferent, ex­cept some other reason doe adstrict & restraine it, then a bare humane constitution. Chrysostome speaking of such as are subject to Bishops, Homil 1. in Ep▪ [...]d Tit. saith, In potestate positum est obedire vel non. Liberty in things indiffe­rent Synt. theol. lib. 6. cap. 38. saith Amandus Pol [...]s, est per quam Christiani sunt libe [...]i in usu vel abstinentia rerum adiaphorarum. Calvine speaking of our liberty in things indifferent, Instit. lib. 3 [...]. 19. sect. 7. saith, We may [...]as nunc usurpare nunt omittere indifferenter, and places this ib. c. 10. liberty, tam in abstinendo quam in utendo. It is marked [Page 5] of the Rites of the auncient Church Ch [...]. exam part. 2. de rit in adm. Sacr. pag 33. that liberae fuerunt horum Rituum observationes in Ecclesia. And what meaneth the Apostle whiles he saith, Col. 2. 20. 21, 22. If yee be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why as though living in the world, are yee subject to ordinances, (touch not, taste not, handle not, which all are to perish with the using) after the commande­ments and Doctrines of men? Sure he condemneth not only Zanch. comm. in Col. 2. 20. humana decreta de Ritibus, but also subjection and obedience to such ordinances of men, as takes from us liberty of practise in the use of things indif­ferent, obedience (I say) for conscience of their ordinances merely. What meaneth also that place, 1. Cor. 7. 23. Be not ye the servants of men? It forbids us apol. part 3. c. 1 [...] sect. 5. saith Paybody to be the servants of men, that is in wic­ked or superstitious actions according to their perverse commandements or de­sires. If he meane 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 meane of actions which are wicked and superstitious in respect of circumstances, then is his restrictive glosse senselesse, 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 enouch to infect the actions with superstition. Sunt hominum servi saith comm. in 1 Cor. 7. 23. Bullinger, qui aliquid in gratiam ho­minum faciunt. This is nearer the trueth, for to tie our selves to the doing of any thing for the will or pleasure of men, when our con­science can find no other reason for the doing of it, were indeed to make our selves the servants of men. Farre be it then from us, to submit our necks to such a heavy yoke of humane precepts, as would overloaden and undoe us. Nay, we will stedfastly resist such unchri­stian Tyranny, as goeth about to spoile us of Christian Liberty, ta­king that for certaine, which we find in Cyprian. de haeret. Baptiz. periculosum est in divinis rebus, ut quis cedat jure suo.

Two things are here replied, 1. That there is reason for adstricting Sect. III of our practise, in these things, B. Lind. Epist. to the past. of the Church of Scotl. because we are commanded to obey them that have the rule over us, and to submit our selves, Hebr. 13. 17. And to submit our selves to every ordinance of man for the Lords sake, 1 Pet, 2. 16. and Spots. Serm. at perth. assemb. that except publick constitutions must needs be obeyed, there can be no order, but all shall be filled with strife and contention. Ans. 1. As touching obedience to these that are set over us, if they meane not to 1. Pet. 5 3. Tyrannize over the Lords Inheritance, and to Mark. 7. 9. make the Commandements of God of no ef­fect by their Traditions, they must give us leave to trie their precepts by the sure rule of Gods Word, and when we finde that they require of us any thing in the worship of God, which is either against or be­side [Page 6] his written Worde, then modesty to refuse obedience, which is the only way for order, and shunning of strife and contention. It will be said againe, that except we prove the things commanded by these who are set over us, to be unlawfull in themselves, we can not be allowed to refuse obedience to their ordinances. Ans. This unlaw­fulnesse of the Ceremonies in themselves, hath beene proved by us already, & shall yet againe be proved in this Dispute. But put the case they were lawfull in themselves, yet have we good reason for refu­sing them. David thought the feeding of his body was cause sufficient to breake the Law of the shewbread. Christ thought the satisfying of the Disciples hunger; to be cause sufficient to breake the Ceremony of the Sabbath: He thought also, that the healing of the leapers bodies was a just excuse to breake the Law that forbade the touching of them Much more then may we think now in our estimation, that the feeding of other mens soules, the satisfying of our owne consciences, togither with the consciences of other men & the healing of mens superstition & spiritual leprosie are causes sufficient to breake the Law of the Ceremonies & of the Crosse, which are not Gods but mens of the Crosse cap. 5. sect. 11., saith Parker 2. As touching submission or subjection we say wi [...]h Dr. Field of the Church lib. 4. cap. 34. that subjection is generally & absolutly re­quired where obedience is not, and even when our consciences suffer us not to obey, yet still we submit and subject our selves, and neither doe nor shall (I trust) shew any the least contempt of Auctority.

Secondly, it is replied, that our Christian liberty is not taken Sect. IV away when practise is restrained, because conscience is still left free. The Christian Liberty Apol. part. 3. c. 1. sect. 4. s [...] Dr. Forb. Iren. l. 1. c. 11. §. 5. & 6. saith Paybody, 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 Manu­duct. p. 42. saith Dr. Burgesse, that the Ceremonies in question are ordained to be used necessarily, though the judgment concerning them, & immediate conscience to God, be left free. Ans. 1. Who doubts of this that liberty of practise may be restrained in the use of things which are in themselves indifferent? but yet if the bare auctority of an Ecclesiasticall Law, without any other reason, then the will and pleasure of men, be made to restraine practise, then is Christian Liberty taken away. Thes. theol. de li­bers Christ thes. 10. Iunius, saith that externum optis ligatur from the use of things indifferent, when the conscience is not bound; but in that same place he sheweth, that the outward action is bound & restrained, only quo usque circumstantiae ob quas necessitas imperata est, se ex­tendunt. So that it is not the auctority of an Ecclesiasticall Law, but the occasion and ground of it, which adstricts the practise, when the conscience is left free. 2. When the auctority of the Churches con­stitution is obtruded to bind and restraine the practise 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. 7. gives Liberty of Mariage, he doeth not only leave the conscience free in its Iudg­ment of the lawfullnesse of Mariage, but also give liberty of practise, [Page 7] to marry or not to marry. And Coll 2. 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 practise is restrained from touching, tasting, handling, by the ordinances of men, then is Christian liberty spoy­led, though the conscience be left free. Camero speaking of the servi­tude which is opposed to Christian liberty Frel. in Math. 18. 7. tom. 2. p. 340. saith, that it is either animi servitus, or corporis servitus. Then if the outward man be brought in bondage, this makes up spirituall thraldome, though there be no more. But, 3. The Ceremonies are imposed with an opinion of ne­cessity upon the conscience it self, for proof whereof, I proceed to the next point.

CHAP. IV.

That the Ceremonies take away our Christian liberty, pro­ved by a secound reason, namely, because conscience it self is bound and adstricted.

BIshop Lindsey hath told us ubi supra that the will of the Law must be Sect. I the rule of our conscience, to that conscience may not Iudge otherwayes then the Law determines. B. Spotswood ubi supra will have the sentence of Superiours to direct the conscience, and will have us to esteeme that to be best and most seemly, which seemeth so to them. B. Andrewes Serm. of the worship­ping of Ima­ginations. speaking of Ceremonies, not only will have every person inviolably to observe the Rites and Customes of his owne Church, but also will have the ordinances about those Ri­tes, to be urged under the paine of Anathema. I know not what the binding of the conscience is, if this be not it. Til. Synt. part. 2 disp. 27. thes. 38. Apostolus gemendi partes relinquit, non cogendi auctoritatem tribuit Ministris quibus plebs non auscultat. And shall they who call themselves the Apostles Successors, compell, constraine, and inthrale the consciences of the people of God? Charles the 5. as popish as he was, Thu [...]. hist. lib. 124. pag. 922. did promise to the Pro­testants, Nullam vim ipsorum conscientiis illatum iri And shall a Popish Prince speake more reasonably then protestant Prelats? But to make it yet more and plentifully appeare, how miserably our Opposites would inthrale our consciences, I will here shew, 1. What the binding of the conscience is, 2. How the Lawes of the Church may be said to bind. 3. What is the judgment of Formalists touching the bin­ding power of Ecclesiasticall Lawes.

Concerning the first of these we will heare what Dr. Field of the Church, lib. 4. cap. 33. saith, Sect. II To bind the conscience saith he, is to bind the soule and spirit of man, with the feare of such punishments (to be inflicted by him that so bindeth) as the [Page 8] conscience feareth, that is, as men feare, though none but God and themselves be privie to their doings, now these are only such as God alone inflicteth, &c. This description is too imperfect, and deserves to be corrected. To bind the conscience is illam auctoritatem habere, ut conscientia illi subjicer [...] sese debeat, it a ut peccatum sit, si contra illam quidquam fiat de conse. lib. 1. cap. 2. sai [...]h Ames. The binder Treat. of consc. cap. 2. sect 3. saith Perkines, is that thing whatsoever, which hath power and auctority over conscience to order it. To bind, is to urge, cause, and constraine it in every action, either to accuse for sinne, or to excuse for well doing, or to say, this may be done, or it may not be done. To bind the conscience Theol. cas. cap. 2. saith Alsted, est illam urgere & adigere ut vel excuset & accuset, vel indicet quid fieri aut non fieri possit. Vpon these descriptions which have more trueth and reason in them, I inferre, that whatsoever urges, or forces conscience to assent to a thing as lawfull, or a thing that ought to be done, or dis­assent from a thing as unlawfull, 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 feare 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 Ames. de consc. l. 1. cap. 3. ad assensum is a binding of it.

Touching the 2. it is certaine, that humane Lawes, as they come Sect. III from men, and in respect of any force or auctority which men can give them, have no power to bind the conscience. Neque enim cum ho­minibus sed cum uno Deo negotium est conscientiis nostris, Inst. lib. 4. cap. 10. sect. 5. saith Calvine. Over our soules and consciences, nemini quicquam juris nisi Deo Synt. part. 2. disp. 32. thes. 4. saith Tilen. From Hieromes distinction, that a King praeest nolentibus, but a Bishop volentibus, Marcus Antonius de Dominis well concludeth de Rep. Eccl. l. 5. c. 2. N. 12. Vo­lentibus gregi praeesse, excludit omnem jurisdictionem & potestatem impera­tivam ac coactivam, & solam significat directivam ubi viz. in libertate sub­diti est & parere & non parere, ita ut qui praeest nihil habeat quo nolentem pa­rere adigat ad parendum. This point he proveth in that Chapter at length, where he disputteth both against temporall and spirituall coactive Iurisdiction in the Church. If it be demanded, to what pur­pose serveth then the enacting of Ecclesiasticall Lawes, since they have not in them any power to bind the conscience? I Answere. The use and end for which Ecclesiasticall Lawes doe serve, is. 1. For the plaine discovery of such things as the Law of God or Nature doe require of us, so that Law which of it self hath power to binde, com­meth from the Priests and Ministers of the Lord, neither [...] nor [...] but declarativè, Mal. 2. 7. 2. For declaring to us what is fittest in such things as are in their owne nature indiffe­rent, and neither inforced by the Law of God nor Nature, & which parte should be followed in these things, as most convenient. The Lawes of the Church then are appointed to let us see the necessity of the first kinde of things, & what is expedient in the other kinde of [Page 9] things, and therefore they are more propperly called Directions, In­structions, Admonitions, then Lawes. For I speake of Ecclesiasti­call Lawes qua tales, that is, as they are the constitutions of men who are set over us, thus considered, they have only Til. Synt. p. 2. disp. 27. thes. 39. vim dirigendi & mo­nendi. It is said of the Apostles, that they were constitute Chem eu. amp. 2. de bon. oper p. 179. doctrinae Christi testes, non novae doctrinae legislatores. And the same may be said of all the Ministers of the Gospell, when Discipline is taken in with Doctrine. He is no Non-conformist, who Marc. Ant. de dom. de R [...]p. Eccl. lib. 6. cap. 10. num. 67. holdeth Ecclefiam in ter­ris agere partes oratoris, seu legati obsecrantis & suadentis. And we may hitherto apply that which Gerson, the Chancelour of Paris saith, apud field of the Church lib. 4 cap. 34. The wisest and best among the guides of Gods Church had not so ill a mea­ning, as to have all their Constitutions and Ordinances taken for Lawes pro­perly so named, much lesse strictly binding the conscience, but for Threatnings, Admonitions, Counsels, and Directions only, and when there groweth a generall neglect, they seeme to consent to the abolishing of them againe, for seeing, lex instituitur, cum promulgatur, vigorem habet, cum moribus ut entium appro­batur.

But as we have seene in what respect the Lawes of the Church doe Sect. IV not bind, let us now see how they may be said to binde. That which bindeth is not the Auctority of the Church, nor any force which the Church can give to her Lawes. 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 it self can not bind, and which hath the chiefest and most principall power of binding. An Ecclesiasticall Law Animad. in Bell. contr. 3. lib. 4. cap. 16. nota 87. saith Iunius [...] sive depositio, non vere lex est, sed [...] aut Canon, ac proinde dirigit 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 aliunde pervenit. An Ecclesiasticall Canon Synt. p. 2. Disp. 27. thes. 39. saith Tilen, ducit volentem, non trahit no­lentem: quod si accedat coactio, ea Ecclesiastici Canonis natura est prorsus aliena. Calvines Iudgment is, Inst lib. 4. c. 10. sect. 32. that an Ecclesisticall Canon binds, when manifestam utilitatem prae se fert, and when either [...] or charitatis ratio doth require, that we impose a necessity on our liberty. It binds not then by its owne auctority in his mind. And what saith the Canon Law it self? decr. part. 1 dist. 61. c 8. Sed sciendum est quod Ecclesiasticae prohibi tiones proprias habent causas, quibus cessantibus, cessant & ipsae. Hence Iu­nius ubi su­pra, art 21. saith, t [...]at the Law binds not per se, but only propter ordinem, charitatem, & cautionem scandali. Hence Ames, de consc. l. 1. cap. 2. quamvis ad justas leges humanas, justo modo observandas, obligentur homines in conscientiis suis à Deo; ipsae tamen leges humanae, qua sunt leges hominum, non obligant con­scientiam. Hence Alsted: Theol. casuum c. 2. Lawes made by men of things indifferent, whither they be civill or Ecclesiasticall, doe bind the conscience in so farre as they agree with Gods worde, serve for the publike good, maintaine order, and finally, take not away liberty of conscience. Hence the Professors o [...] Lei­den [Page 10] say, Syn. pur thiol disp. 35. thes. 19. that Lawes bind not primo & per se, sed secundario & per accidens, that is Ames. Bell. enerv. tom. 1. lib 3. cap. 7. quatenus in illis lex aliqua Dei violatur. Hence I may compare the constitutions of the Church with responsa juris consultorum among the Romans, which obliged no man, nisi ex aequo & bono saith de pol. Christ. lib. 5. cap. 1. Danaeus. Hence it may be said, that the Lawes of the Church doe only bind Scandali & contemptus ratione, as de orig. fest. Christ. cap. 2. Hospinian, and in case li­bertas fiat cum scandalo, as Comm. in 1 Cor. 14. 40. Paraeus: for it were scandall, not to give obedience to the Lawes of the Church, when they prescribe things necessary or expedient for the eshewing of scandall, and it were contempt to refuse obedience to them, when we are not certainly perswaded of the unlawfullnesse or inexpediency of the things pre­scribed.

But out of the case of scandall or contempt, Divines teach, that con­science Sect. V is not bound by the Canon of the Church made about or­der and policie. Extra casum scandali & destinatae rebellionis, propter com­mune bonum, non peccat qui contra constitutiones istas fecerit, saith Thes theol de lib. Christ. thes. 11. Iunius. If a Law Treat. of consc cap. 2. sect. 8. saith Perkins concerning some externall Rite or thing indiffe­rent, be at some time, or upon some occasion omitted, no offence given, nor con­tempt shewed to Ecclesiastical Auctority, there is no breach made in the conscience. Alsted his rule is (h) Leges humanae non obligant quando omitti possunt sine ( [...]) theol. cas. cap. 2. impedimento finis ob quem feruntur sine scandalo aliorum, & sine contem­ptu Legislatoris. And Tilen teacheth us, that when the Church hath de­termined the mutable circumstances, in the worship of God, for pu­blike edification, Synt. part. 2. disp. 27. thes. 9. Privatorum conscientiis liberum est quandoque ista omit­tere, modo offendicula vitentur, nihilque ex contemptu Ecclesiae ac Ministerii publici petulanti [...] vel [...] facere videantur.

We deny not then that the Churches Canons about Rites which Sect. VI serve for publike order and edification, doe bind: We say only, that it is not the Auctority of the Church framing the Canon that binds, but the matter of the Canon chiefly, warranted by Gods Word. Calv. resp. ad libel. de pii viri of­ficio. p. 413. Scimus enim quaecunque ad decorum & ordinem pertinent, non habenda esse pro humanis placitis, quia divinitus approbantur. Therefore we thinke concerning such Canons, that they Th. Bez. confess. c. 5. art 18. Perk. ubi supra. & Meisner. Philos. sobr. part. 3. sect. 2. quest. 12. are necessary to be observed so farre forth only; as the keeping of them maintaineth decent order, and preven­teth open offence.

If any say, that I derogate much from the Auctority of the Sect. VII Church, when I doe nothing which shee prescribeth, except I see it lawfull and expedient; because I should doe this much for the exhor­tation and admonition of a Brother. Ans. 1. I give farre more reve­rence to the direction of the Church, then to the admonition of a Brother, because that is Ministeriall, this fraternall: that comes from Auctority, this only from Charity: that is Publike, this Privat: that is given by many, this by one: And finally, the Church hath a calling [Page 11] to direct me in some things, wherein a brother hath not. 2. If it be still instanced, that in the point of obedience, I doe no more for the Church then for any brother, because I am bound to doe that which is made evident to be lawfull and expedient, though a privat Chri­stian doe but exhort me to it, or, whether I be exhorted to it or not. For answere to this, I say, that I will obey the directions of the Church in many things, rather then the directions of a brother; for in two things which are in themselves indifferent, and none of them inexpedient, I will doe that which the Church requireth, though my brother should exhort me to the contrary. But allwayes 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 lawfull & expedient. This is that, fine quo non obligant, and also that which doeth chiefly binde, though it be not the only thing which bindeth. Now for making the matter more plaine, we must consider, that the con­stitutions of the Church, are either lawfull, or unlawfull: if unlaw­full, they bind not at all: if lawfull, they are either concerning things necessary as Act. 15. 28. and then the necessity of the things doeth tind, whether the Church ordaine them or not; or else concerning things indifferent, as when the Church ordaineth, that in great Townes there shall be Sermon on such a day of the weeke, & publike prayers every day at such an houre, here it is not the bare Auctority of the Church that bindeth, without respect to the lawfullnesse or expediency of the thing it selfe which is ordained, (else we were bound to doe every thing which the Church ordaines, were it never so unlawfull, for quod competit alicui qua tali, competit omni tali. We be­hold the Auctority of the Church making lawes, as well in unlaw­full ordinances as in lawfull:) not yet is it the lawfullnesse or expe­diency of the thing it self, without respect to the ordinance of the Church, (for possibly other times and diets were as lawfull, and ex­pedient too, for such exercises, as those ordained by the Church:) but it is the Auctority of the Church prescribing a thing lawfull or expedient. In such a case then neither doeth the Auctority of the Curch binde, except the thing be lawfull and expedient, not doeth the lawfulnesse & expediency of the thing binde, except the Church ordaine it, but both these joyntly doe binde.

I come now to examine what is the judgment of Formalists, touch­ing Sect. VIII the binding of the conscience by Ecclesiasticall Lawes. Dr. Field, (h) saith, that the question should not be proposed, whether ( [...]) of the Church l. 4. cap. 33. humane lawes doe binde the conscience, but, Whether binding the out­ward man to the performance of outward things, by force and feare of out­ward punishment to be inflicted by men, the not performance of such things, or the not performance of them with such affections as were fit, be not a sinne againest God, of which the conscience will accuse us, &c. Vnto this question thus proposed, and understood of humane Lawes, and where no [Page 12] [...] [Page 13] [...] [Page 12] more is considered, as giving them power to binde, but only the Au­ctority of those who make them; some Formalists doe give (as I will shew,) and all of them (being well advised) must give an affirmative answeare. And I pray what did de Pont. Rom. lib. 4. cap. 20. Bellarmine say more, when expres­sing how conscience is subject to humane Auctority, he taught, that conscience belongeth ad humanum forum, quatenus homo ex praecepto ita obli­gatur ad opus externum faciendum, ut si non faciat, judicat ipse in conscientia sua se male facere, & hoc sufficit ad conscientiam obligandam? but to proceede par­ticularly.

I beginne with Field himselfe, whose resolution of the question pro­posed, Sect. IX is, ubi supra. that we are bound only to give obedience to such hu­mane Lawes as prescribe things profitable, not for that humane lawes have power to binde the conscience, but because the things they command are of that nature, that not to performe them, is con­trary to Iustice or Charity. Whereupon he concludeth out of Staple­ton, that we are bound to the performance of things prescribed by hu­mane Lawes, in such sort, that the not performance of them is sinne, not ex sola legislatori [...] voluntate, sed ex ipsa legum utilitate. Let all such as be of this mans mind, not blame us, for denying of obedience to the constitutions about the Ceremonies, since we find (for certaine) no utility, but by the contrary much inconveniency in them. If they say, that we must thinke those lawes to be profitable or convenient, which they, who are set over us, thinke to be so, then they know not what they say: for, exeeming conscience from being bound by hu­mane lawes 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 these that are set over us, then (sure) is power given to them for binding the conscience so straitly, that it may not judge otherwise then they judge, and force is placed in their bare Auctority, for necessitating and constraining the assenting judge­ment of conscience.

Some man perhaps will say, that we are bound to obey the lawes Sect. X made about the Ceremonies, though not for the sole will of the Law­makers, nor yet for any utility of the lawes themselves, yet for this reason, that scandall and contempt would follow in case we doe otherwise. Ans. We know that humane Lawes doe bind in the case of scandall or contempt. But that Non-conformity is neither scan­dall nor contempt, Parker of the Crosse cap. 5. Sect. 14. 15. hath made it most evident. For as tou­ching contempt, he sheweth out of Fathers, Councells, Canon law, Schoolmen, and moderne Divines, that non ob [...]dire is not contempt, but nolle ob [...]dire, or sup [...]biendo repugnare. Yea, out of Formalists them­selves, he sheweth the difference betwixt subjection and obedience. Thereafter he pleadeth thus, and we with him: What signes see men in us of pride and comtempt? What be our cetera opera that bewray such an humour? let it be named vvherein vvie goe not tvvo myle, vvhen vvee are commanded to goe [Page 13] but one, yea wherein wee goe not as many myles, as any shooe of the preparation of the Gospell will beare us? What payment, what paine, what labour, what ta­xation made us ever to murmure? Survey our charges where we have laboured, if they be not found to be of the faithfullest subjects that be in the Land, we deserve no favour. Nay, there is, wherein we stretch our consciences to the utter­most to conforme, & to obey in diverse matters. Are we refractary in other things as Balaams asse said to his Master? have I used to serve thee so at other tymes? And as touching scandall, he sheweth first, that by our not confor­ming, we doe not scandalize Superiours, but edify them; although it may be we displease them, of which we are sorry, even as Ioab dis­pleased David, when he contested against the numbring of the peo­ple, yet did he not scandalize David, but edify him. And secoundly, whereas it might be alledged, that Non-conformity doeth scandalize the people, before whom it soundeth as it were an allarum of disobe­dience, we replie with him? Daniel will not omit the Ceremony of looking out at the Window towards Ierusalem. 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 Governours of the Church then being. The auctority of the Magistrate was violated by these, and an incitement to disobe­dience was in their Ceremoniall breach, as much as there is now in ours.

But some of our Opposites goe about to derive the obligatory Sect. XI power of the Churches Lawes, not so much from the utility of the Lwaes themselves, or from any scandall which should follow upon the not obeying of them, as from the Churches owne Auctority, which maketh them. pral. tom. 1. de potest: eccl. contr. 2. pag. 371. Camero speaketh of two sorts of Ecclesia­sticall Lawes, 1. Such as prescribe things frivolous or unjust, mea­ning such things as (though they neither detract any thing from the glory of God, nor cause any damnage to our nighbour, yet) bring some detriment to our selves. 2. Such as prescribe things belon­ging to order and shunning of scandall. Touching the former, he teacheth rightly, that conscience is never bound to the obedience of such Lawes, except only in the case of scandall and contempt, and that if at any time such Lawes may be neglected and not obser­ved, without scandall given, or contempt shewed, no mans conscience is holden with them. But touching the other sorte of the Churches lawes, he saith, that they bind the conscience indirectly, not only respectu materiae praecepti (which doeth not at all obliege, except in re­spect of the end whereunto it is referred, namely, the conserving of order, and the not giving of scandall;) but also respectu praecipientis, because God will not have those who are set over us in the Church to be contemned. He foresawe (belike,) that whereas it is pretended in behalfe of those Ecclesiasticall Lawes which injoyne the contro­verted Ceremonies, that the things which they prescribe pertaine to order and to the shunning of scandall, and so bind the conscience in­directly in respect of the end: one might answeare; I am persuaded [Page 14] upon evident grounds, that those prescribed Ceremonies pertaine not to order, and to the shunning of scandall, but to misorder, and to the giving of scandall. Therefore he laboured to binde such a ones conscience with another tie, which is the Auctority of the Law­makers. And this Auctority he would have one to take, as ground enough to believe, that that which the Church prescribeth, doeth be­long to order and the shunning of scandall, and in that perswasion to doe it. But, 1. How doth this Doctrine differ from that which ibid. pag. 366. himselfe setteth downe as the opinion of Papists, posse cos qui prae­sunt Ecclesiae, cogere fideles ut id credant vel faciant, quod ipsi judicaverint? 2. It is well observed by our Par. com. in Rom. 14. dub. 7. Writers, that the Apostles never made things indifferent to be necessary, except onely in respect of scandall, and that out of the case of scandall, they still left the con­sciences of men free, which Observation they gather from Act. 15. & 1 Cor. 10. ubi su­pra, p. 372. Camero himselfe noteth, that though the Church pre­scribed abstinence from things sacrificed to Idols, yet the Apostle would not have the Faithfull to abstaine for conscience sake, why then holdeth he, that beside the end of shunning scandall and kee­ping order, conscience is bound even by the Churches owne Au­ctority? 3. As for the reason whereby he would prove that the Chur­ches Lawes doe binde, even respectu praecipientis, his forme of spea­king is very bad: Deus (saith he) non vult contemni praepositos Ecclesia▪ nisi justa & necessaria de causa. Where falsely he supposeth, not onely that there may occurre 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 Lawes, inferreth not the contemning of them­selves, (which were not allowable) but onely the contemning of their Lawes, And as In Dan. 6. Hierome speaketh of Daniel, Et nunc Daniel Re­gis jussa contemnens, &c. So wee say of all Superiours in generall, that we may sometimes have just reasons for contemning their com­mandements, yet are we not to contemne, but to honour themselves. But, 4. Let us take Cameros 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, then such as may bee done both lawfully and conveniently for the shunning of scandall; and if so, then the Churches precept can not binde, ex­cept as it is grounded upon such or such reasons.

B. Spotswood, and B. Lindsey, in those words which I have here­tofore Sect. XII alledged out of them, are likewise of opinion, that the sole Will and Auctority of the Church, doeth binde the conscience to obedience. Spotswood will have us without more adoe, to esteeme that to be best and most seemly, which seemeth so in the eye of pu­blike Auctority. Is not this to binde the Conscience by the Chur­ches [Page 15] bare Will and Auctority, when I must needs constraine the judgement of my conscience, to bee conforme to the Churches judgement, having no other reason to move me hereunto, but the sole Will and Auctority of the Church? Further, he will have us to obey even such things as Authority prescribeth not rightly, (that is such Rites as doe not set forwarde Godlines) and that because they have the force of a Constitution. He saith, that we should be di­rected by the sentence of Superiours, & take it as a sufficient ground to our Consciences for obeying. de pont. Rom. lib. 4. cap. 20. Bellarmine speaketh more rea­sonably: leges humanae non obligant sub paena mortis aeternae, nisi quatenus violatione legis humanae offenditur Deus. Lindsey thinketh, that tho 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 talke with the chiefe of our Opposites, they would binde us by sole Auctority, because they can not doe it by any reason. But wee answer out of ubi su­pra. Pareus, that the particular Lawes of the Church binde not [...]r se, or propter ipsum speciale mandatum Ecclesiae. 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: quae quamdiu non violantur, conscientias liberas relinquit.

Thus we have found, what power they give to their Canons about Sect. XIII the Ceremonies, for binding of our consciences, & that a necessity, not of practice onely upon the outward man, but of opinion also upon the conscience, is imposed by the sole will of the Lawmakers. Wherefore, we pray God to open their eyes, that they may see their Ceremoniall Lawes, to be substantiall Tyrannies over the Con­sciences of Gods people. And for our selves, we stand to the judge­ment of founder Divines, and wee holde with Luther, that com. in 1 Pet. 5. 3. unum (x) Enchi­rid. class. 3. cap. 14. Dominum habemus qui animas nostras gubernat. With Hemmingius, that we are free ab omnibus humanis Ritibus, quantum quidem ad conscientiam atti­net. With the Professors of Leiden, that this is a part of the Liberty (y) Syn. pur. Theol. Disp. 35. Thes. 17. of all the Faithfull, that in things pertaining to Gods Worship, ab omni traditionum humanarum jugo liberas habeant conscientias, cum solius Dei sit, res ad Religionem pertinentes praescribere.

CHAP. V.

That the Ceremonies take away Christian Liberty, proved by a third reason, viz. because they are urged upon such, as in their consciences doe condemne them.

IF Christian Liberty bee taken away, by adstricting con­science in any, much more by adstricting it in them who Sect. I are fully perswaded of the unlawfulnesse of the things in­joyned; [Page 16] yet thus are wee dealt with. B. Lindsey gives us to under­stand, that after the making and publication of an Ecclesiasticall Canon, about things of this nature, albeit a man in his owne private judgement thinke another thing more expedient then that which the Canon prescribeth, yet in that case his conscience must be ru­led by the will of the Law, and not by his owne judgement. And B. Spotswood, to such as object, that their conscience will not suffer them to obey, because they are perswaded that such things are not right, answereth; That the sentence of their Superiours ought to di­rect them, and make their conscience yeeld to obedience. Their words I have before transcribed. By which it doeth manifestly ap­peare, that they would beare dominion over our consciences, not as Lords onely, by requiring the willing and readie assent of our consciences, to those things which are urged upon us by their sole Will and Auctority, but even as Tyrants, not caring if they get so much as constrained obedience, and if by their Auctority they can compell conscience, to that which is contrary to the [...] and full persuasion which it hath conceived.

It will be said, that our consciences are in an error, and therefore ought to be corrected by the sentence of Superiours, whose Au­ctority Sect. II and will doeth binde us to receive and imbrace the Ceremo­nies, though our Consciences doe condemne them. Ans. Giving and not granting that our consciences doe erre in condemning the Ce­remonies, yet so long as they can not be otherwise perswaded, the Ceremonies ought not to be urged upon us, for if we be made to doe that which our consciences doe condemne, wee are made to sinne. Rom. 14. 23. It is an audacious contempt in com. in Rom. 14. 5. Calvines judge­ment, to doe any thing repugnante conscientia. The learned Casuists teach us, that an erring conscience, though non obligat, yet ligat; though we be not obliged to doe that which it prescribeth, yet are we bound not to doe that which it condemneth. Quicquid fit repu­gnante & reclamante conscientia, peccatum est, etiamsi repugnantia ista gra­vem errorem includat, saith Theol. cas cap. 2. Alsted. Conscientia erronea obligat, sic in­telligendo, quod faciens contra peccet Enchir. class. 2. cap. 7. saith Hemmingius. 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 owne fault. This necessity ari­seth from this supposition, that he retaine his erring conscience, and so is not absolute, because he should informe his conscience rightly, so that he may both doe that which he ought to doe, & doe it so from the approbation of his conscience. If it be said again, what [Page 17] should be done to them, who have not laid downe the error of con­science, but doe still retaine the same? I answer, Bald de consc. cas. lib. 1. cap. 8. eligatur id quod tutius & melius est. 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, then to permit them to ne­glect the same, because their erring conscience disapproveth it: for example; It is better to urge a prophane man to come and heare Gods Word, then to suffer him to neglect the hearing of the same, because his conscience alloweth him not to heare. 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 doe that which in their consciences they condemne. Wherefore, since the Ceremonies are not among the number of such necessary things, as may not be omitted without the perill of Salvation; the invincible disallowance of our consciences, should make our Opposites not presse them upon us, because by practising them we could not but sinne, in that our consciences judge them unlawfull. If any of our weake Bretheren thinke, that he must and should abstaine from the eating of flesh upon some certaine day, though this thing bee in it selfe indifferent and not necessary, yet de conse. cas. lib. 1. cap. 7. saith Balduin, he who is thus perswaded in his conscience, if he should doe the contrarie sinneth.

Conscience then though erring, doeth ever binde in such sorte, that he who doeth against his conscience, sinneth against God. Which Sect. III is also the Doctrine of 1 [...] 2 [...]. q. 19. art. 5. Thomas. But without any more adoe, it is sufficiently confirmed from Scripture. For, was not their con­science in an error, who thought they might not lawfully eate all sorts of meat? yet the Apostle sheweth, that their conscience, as er­ring as it was, did so binde, that they were damned if they should eat such meate as they judged to be unclean. Rom. 14. 14. 23. The rea­son wherefore an erring conscience bindeth in this kinde is, Ames. de consc. lib. 1. cap. 4. quo­niam agens &c. Because he who doeth any thing against his conscience, doeth it against the Will of God, though not materially and truely, yet formally and by way of interpretation, for somuch 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 himselfe. So he that contemneth his conscience, contemneth God himselfe, because that which conscience coun­selleth or adviseth, is taken to be Gods will. If I goe with certaine men upon such a course, as I judge and esteeme 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 con­demne me, as a wicked Traitour? But how much more will the King of Kings condemne me, if I practise the Ceremonies, which [Page 18] I judge in my conscience to be contrary to the Will of God, and to robbe him of his royall prerogative?

CHAP. 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.

WHen the 1 Cor. 7. 23. Apostle forbiddeth us to be the servants of men, Sect. I is it not his meaning, that wee should doe nothing upon the mere will and pleasure of men, or propter hominem & non propter Deum? as (h) Becane the Iesuite expoundeth it, illustrating ( [...]) Manual. lib. 4. cap. 4. that w [...]ich he saith, by another place, Eph. 6. 6. 7. Zanch. com. in il­lum locum. Christian ser­vants thought it an unworthy thing, to serve wicked men, neither yet tooke 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 then man: im­porting, that it were indeed a grievous Yoke for any Christian, to doe the will of man, if he were not sure that it is according to the Will of God. Should any Synode of the Church take more upon them, then the Synod of the Apostles did, who injoyned nothing at their owne pleasure, but Act. 15 28. onely what they shew to be necessary, because of the Law of Charity? Or should Christians, who Eph. 4. 14. ought not to be children, carried about with every wind, who Heb. 5. 14. should be able to discerne both good and evill, Col. 3. 16. in whom the Word of God ought to dwell plentifully, who are Math. 10. 17. commanded to beware of men, 1 Ioh. 4. 1. not to believe every spirit, 1 Thess. 5. 21. to prove all things, and to 1 Cor. 10. 15. judge of all that is said to them, should they (I say) be used as stocks and stones, not capable of reason, and therefore to be borne downe by naked Will and Auctority? yet thus it fareth with us. ubi su­pra B. Lindsey will have the will of the Law to rule our consciences, which is by interpretation, Sic volo, sic jubeo, sit pro ratione voluntas. He gives us not the reason or equity of the Law, but onely the will of it, to be our rule. ubi su­pra. B. Spotswood will have us to be so directed by the sentence of our Superiours, 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 heare the sentence of Superiours: rest your consciences upon this [Page 19] 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 doore, and all eares were filled with the dreadfull pale of Auctority? There is this much chronicled in Perth assemb. p. 8. 9. 10. and B. Lindsay in the pro­ceedings set downe by him. p. 63. 64. 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, Parke of the crosse cap. 5. sect. 10. that they receaved no other answer but this, there is a law, it must bee obeyed, and after the same manner are we used, yet is this too hard dealing, in the judgement of Camer. prael. tom. 1. de potest. Ec­cl. contr. 2. a Formalist, who saith, that the Church doeth not so deale with them whom Christ hath redeemed, ac si non possint capere quid sit reli­giosum, quid minus, itaque quae ab Ecclesia proficiscuntur, admonitiones potius & hortationes dici debent, quam leges. And after he sayes of Ecclesia­sticall Auctority, tenetur reddere praescripti rationem. I graunt Apol. part. 3. cap. 1. sect. 25. saith Paybody, it is unlawfull to doe in Gods Worship any thing, upon the meere plea­sure of man. Chemnitius exam. part. 3. de ca­lib. Sacerd. pag. 38. taketh the Tridentine Fathers, for not ex­pounding rationes decreti. Ani­mad. in Bel. contr. 3. lib. 4. cap. 16. Iunius observeth, that in the Councell of the Apostles, mention was made of the reason of their decree. And Hist. of the counc. of Trent. lib. 2. a learned Historician, observeth of the auncient Councels, that there were in them reasonings, colloquies, discussions, disputes, yea, that whatsoever was done or spoken, was called the acts of the Councell, and all was given unto all. Caeterum saith Polit. Christ. lib. 5. cap. 3. Danaeus, 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 caeleges, quae scribuntur à pio nomotheta. Ergo fere sunt duae cujusvis legis partes, quemadmodum etiam Plato. lib. 4. de legibus scribit, nimirum prae­fatio & lex ipsa. i. e. jussio lege comprehensa. Praefatio causum affert, cur ho­miuum negotiis sic prospiciatur. Ecclesiasticall Auctority should pre­scribe what it thinks fit, magis docendo, quam jubendo; magis monendo; quam minando, as Epist. 64. Augustin speaketh. Non oportet vi vel necessitate con­stringere, sed ratione & vitae exemplis suadere, in apologet. saith Gregory Nazianzen, speaking of Ecclesiasticall Regiment. They therefore who give their Will for a Law, and their Auctority for a Reason, and answer all the Arguments of opponents, by bearing them downe with the force of a publike Constitution, and the Iudgement of Superiours, to which theirs must be conformed, doe Ezech. 34. 4. rule the Lords flocke with force and with crueltie, 1 Pet. 5. 3. as Lords over Gods heritage.

Alwayes, since men give us no leave to trie their decrees and con­stitutions, Sect. II that we may holde fast no more then is good; God bee thanked, that we have 1 Thess. 5. 25. a warrant to doe it (without their leave) from his owne Word. Non numeranda suffragia, sed appendenda in Psal. 39. saith Augustine. Our Divines hold, that Chem. exam. part. 1. de bon. oper. pag. 180. all things which are proposed [Page 20] by the Ministers of the Church, syn. pur. theol. disp. 49. thes. 72. yea by Oecumenicall Coun­cels, should bee proved and examined; and that when the Guides of the Church doe institute any Ceremonies as necessary for edifi­cation, yet Magd. cent. 1. l. 2. c. 4. co. 443. Ecclesia liberum habet judicium approbandi aut rebrobandi eas. Nay, the decr. part. 1. dist. 12. cap 1. Canon law probiting to departe or suerve from the rules and discipline of the Roman Church, yet excepteth discretionem justitiae, and so permitteth to doe otherwise then 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, Aquin 2. 2a. 4. 147. art. 4. Si causa fit evidens, per se ipsum licite potest homo, statuti observantiam praeterire. If any be not able to examine & trie all such things, debebant omnes posse, Dei jussu: deficiunt ergo sua culpa, saith Pareus Si recte probandi facul­tate (q) comm. in. 1 Cor. 10. 15. destitui nos sentimus, ab eodem spiritu qui per prophetas suos loquitur petenda est, com. in 1. Thess. 5. 21. saith Calvine. 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 farre only, as she is the pillar and ground of trueth.

CHAP. VII.

That festivall dayes take away our liberty which God hath given us, proved: and first out of the Law.

THat which hath beene said against all the controverted Ce­remonies Sect. I in generall, I will now instance of Festivall dayes in particular; and prove both out of the Law and Gospell, that they take away our liberty which God hath given us, & which no humane power can take from us. Out of the Law, we frame this Ar­gument: If the Law of God permit us to worke all the sixe dayes of the week, the law of man can not inhibite us. But the Law of God doth permit us to worke all the sixe dayes of the week. Ergo. Our Opposites deny not the assumption, which is plaine from the fourth commandemen [...], Sixt dayes shalt thou labour, &c. But they would have somewhat to say against the proposition, which we will heare. Eccl. pol. lib. 5. n. 71. Hooker tells us, 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 Lawes of men prohibite Mariage, because it is left arbitrary, 1 Cor. 7. 36. Then might they also have discharged the Apostle Paul to take wages, because herein he was at liberty, 1. Cor. 9. 11. 12. 13.

Tilen lendeth the cause another lift, and Paraes. ad Scot. c. 16. pag. 64. answeareth, [...]hat no so­ber Sect. II man will say, permissionem Dei, principibus suum circa res medias jus [Page 21] imminuere, num enim ob permissum hominibus dominium in volucres caeli, in pisces maris, & bestias agri, impiae fuerint leges principum, quibus aucupii, piscationis, & venationis libertatem, subditis aliis indulgent, aliis adi­munt. Ans. That case and this are very different. For every par­ticular man hath not dominion and power over all Foules, Fishes, & Beasts, (else, beside that Princes should have no priviledge 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 mankinde. comm in illum locum Pareus observeth, hominem collective intelligi in that place, Gen. 1. 26. and pralect. in eundem locum. Innius observeth, nomen Adam de specie esse in telligendum. But each particular man, & not mankynd alone, is per­mitted to labour sixe dayes. Wherefore it is plaine, that mans liberty is not abridged in the other case, as in this, because mankynde hath dominion over these Creatures, when some men only doe exerce the same, as well as if all men did exerce it.

B. Lindsey his answeare is no better, Viz. Proc. in Perth. As­semb. part. 3. pag. 13. That this liberty Sect. III which God hath given unto men for labour, is not absolute but sub­ject unto order, For. 1: what tyrannie is there so great, spoyling men wholly of their liberty, but this pretence agreeth to it? for by order, he understandeth the constitutions of our Governours, as is cleare from his preceeding words, so that this may be alleadged for a just excuse of any tyrannie of Governours, (that men must be sub­ject unto order,) no lesse then for taking away from us the liberty of labouring sixe dayes. 2. This answeare is nothing else but a begging of that which is in question, for the present question is, whether or not the constitutions of our Gouvernours, may inhibite us to labour all the sixe dayes 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 Governous. 3. Albeit we should most humbly subject our selves to our Governours, yet we may not submit our liberty to them, which God hath graciously given us, because, 1. Cor. 7. 23. we are for­bidden to be the servants of men, or Gal. 5. 1. to be intangled with the yoke of bondage.

Yet we must heare what the Bishop can say against our proposi­tion. Sect. IV ubi supra If under the Law (saith he) God did not spoyle his people of liberty, when he appoynted them to rest two dayes at Pasche, one at Whitsonday, &c. how can the Kings Majesty and the Church, be esteemed to spoyle us of our li­berty, that command a cessation from labour on three dayes, &c. O horrible blasphemy! O double deceitfulnesse! Blasph my: because so much power is a scribed 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 laboure on other dayes beside the Sabbath, without wronging them, therefore the King and the Church may as justly, and with doing as litle wrong, command us to rest like­wise: because God by a Ceremoniall Law, did hinder his people [Page 22] from the use of so much liberty, as the Morall Law did give them; T [...]erefore the King and the Church may doe so also. Deceitfulnesse, in that he saith, God did not spoyle his people of liberty, &c. We know, that by appointing them to rest on those dayes, God did not take away liberty from his people, simply and absolutely, because they had no more liberty then he did allow to them by his lawes, which he gave by the hand of Moses, yet he did take away that liber­ty, which one part of his lawes did permit to them, Viz. The fourth Commandement of the Morall Law, which permitted them to la­bour sixe dayes. The B. knew, that this question in hand, hath not to doe with liberty in the generall notion of it, but with liberty which the Morall Law doth permit. We say then, that God tooke away from his people Israell, some of the liberty, which his morall Law permit­ted to them, because he was the Law giver, and Lord of the Law, and that the King and the Church can not doe the like with us, be­cause they are no more Lords over Gods Law, then the people who are set under them.

But he hath yet more to say against us. If the King (saith he,) may command a cessation from oeconomicall and privat workes, for workes Sect. V civill and publike, such as the defence of the Crowne, the liberty of the Country, &c. What reason have ye, why he may not injoyne a day of cessation from all kinde of bodily labour, for the honour of God and exer­cise of Religion, &c. Ans. this kinde of reasoning is most vitious, for three respects, 1. It supposeth, that he who may command a cessa­tion from one kind of labour, upon one of the sixe dayes, 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 sixe dayes of every week, which liberty no human power can take from us. But we can not say, that the law of God alloweth us sixe dayes of every week, to Oeconomicall and private workes, (for then we should never be bound to put our hands to a publike worke.) Whence it commeth, that the Magistrate hath power left him to command a necessa [...]ion 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 Crowne or liberty of the Coun­try, doe not cease from labour, but only change ordinary labour into extraordinary, and private labour into publike: Whereas our Opposites pleade for a cessation from all labour upon their holy dayes. 3. He skippeth de genere in genus: because the King may com­mand a cessation for civill workes, therefore he may command a holy rest for the exercise of Religion, as if he had so great power in Sacred as in Civill things.

The B hath yet a thrid dart to throw at us. If the Church ibid. pag. 26. 27. saith Sect. VI he, hath power upon occasionall motives to appoint occasionall Fasts or Festi­vities, [Page 23] may not shee for constant and eternall blessings, which doe infinitly ex­cell all occasionall benefites, appoint ordinary times of commemoration or thanks­giving. Ans. There are two reasons, for which the Church may and should appoint Fasts or Festivities upon occasionall motives, and neither of them agreeth with ordinary Festivities. 1. Extraordina­ry Fasts either for obtaining some great blessing, or averting some great judgement, are necessary meanes to be used in such cases: like­wise, extraordinary Festivities are necessary testifications of our thank­fulnesse for the benefits which we have impetrate by our extraordi­nary Fasts; but ordinary Festivities for constant, & eternall blessings, have no necessary use. The celebration of set Anniversary dayes, is no necessary meane 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 minde these benefites, either in hearing, or reading, or meditating upon Gods Word. Dies Christo dicatos tollendos existimo judicoque saith apud [...]ald. de cas­consc. lib. 2. c. 13. cas. 1. Danaeus: quotidienobis in Evangelii praedicatione nascitur, circumciditur, moritur, resurgit Christus, 2. God hath given his Church a generall precept for extraordinary Fasts, Ioel, 1. 14. and. 2. 15. as likewise for Extraordinary Festivi­ties, to praise God, and to give him thanks in the publike assembly of his people, upon the occasionall motive of some great benefite which by the meanes of our fasting and praying, we have obtained, Zechar. 8. 19. with. 7. 3. If it be said, that there is a generall com­mand for set Festivities, because there is a command for Preaching and hearing the Word, and for praising God for his benefites; and that there is no precept for particular Fasts, more then for parti­culare Festivities? I ans. albeit there is a command for preaching & hearing the Word, and for praising God for his benefites, yet is there no commnad (no not in the most generall generality,) for annexing these exercises of religion to set anniversary dayes, more then to other dayes: whereas it is plaine, that there is a generall command for fasting and humiliation, at some times, more then 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 pr [...]l. tom▪ 1. de pot. Eccl. contr. 2. Camero saith, 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 ubi supra pag. 16. Bishop himselfe acknowledgeth, that to appoint a festivall day for every week; can not 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 ocurring causes, and therefore may be infinit. I conclude, that since Gods Word hath given us a generall [Page 24] command for occasionall Fasts, and likewise particularly determi­ned sundry things, anent the causes, occasions, nature, and maner of Fasting: we may well say with ag. the Rhem. an­not. on Gal. 4. 10. Cartwright, that dayes of fasting are appointed at such times and upon such occasions, as the Scripture doeth 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 Commandement, as well as of the seventh day it selfe.

The ubi supra pag. 16. 17. Bishop presseth us with a fourth Argument, taken from Sect. VII the calling of people in great Townes, from their ordinary labours to Divine service. Which Argument Par [...]n ad Scot. c. 16. pag. 64. Tilen also beateth upon. Ans. There is huge difference betwixt the rest which is injoyned up­on anniversary Festivities, and the rest which is required, during the time of the weekly meetings for Divine Worship. For, 1. Vpon Fe­stivall dayes, rest from labour is required all the day over, whereas upon the dayes of ordinary and weekly meetings, rest is required, onely during the time of publike Worship. 2. Cessation from la­bour for Prayers or Preaching on those appointed dayes 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 Festivall dayes, must not be omitted, in the ubi supra pag. 25. Bi­shops judgment. 3. Men are straitly commanded & compelled to rest from labour upon Holydayes, but to leave worke to come to the ordinary weekly meetings, they are only exhorted. And here I marke how the Bishop contradicteth himselfe: for in one place where his Antagonist maintaineth truly, that the Craftsman can not be lawfully commanded nor compelled to leave his worke, and to goe to publike Divine Service, except on the day that the Lord hath san­ctified: ibid. pag. 17. He replieth, 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 sence, or see any thing in them said against his Antagonists position, except he be ta­ken to say, that the Craftman may be both commanded and com­pelled to leave his worke, & goe to Divine Service, on the week dayes appointed for the same? Nay, he laboureth to prove thus much out of the 9. head of the first booke of Discipline, which saith: In great Townes, 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 himselfe, ibid. pag. 27. and tells us, that it were against Equity & Charity, to adstrict the husband-man to leave his plough, so oft as the dayes of weekly preaching doe returne, but that on the Festivall dayes, reason would, that if he did not leave his plough willingly, by Auctority he should be forced. Which place confirmeth this difference, which we give betwixt rest on the holy­dayes, and rest at the times of weekly meeting.

CHAP. VIII.

That Festivall dayes take away our Christian Liberty, proved out of the Gospell.

MY seconde Argument, whereby I prove, that the impo­sing of the observation of Holy dayes, doth bereave us of Sect. I our Liberty, I take out of two places of the Apostle: the one, Gal. 4. 10. Where he finds fault with the Galatians, for observing of dayes, and giveth them two reasons against them: the one, vers. 3. They were a yoke of bondage which neither they nor their Fathers were able to beare: another vers 9. They were weake and beggarly rudiments, not beseeming the Christian Church, which is liberate from the Pedagogicall instruction of the Ceremoniall Law. The other place is, Col. 2. 16. Where the Apostle will have the Colossians, not to suffer themselves to be iudged by any man in respect of an Holy day, i. e. to be condemned for not observing a Holy-day, for, Calv. com. in illum loc. judicare hic significat culpae reum facere; and Zanch. com. ibid. the meaning is: suf­fer not your selves to be condemned by those false Apostles, or by any mortall man, in the cause of meate, that is, for meate or drinke taken, or for any Holy-day, or any part of an Holy-day neglected. Two other reasons the Apostle giveth in this place, against Festivall dayes; one, vers. 17. What should we doe with the shadow, when we have the body? another, vers. 20. Why should we be subject to hu­mane ordinances, since through Christ we are dead to them, and have nothing adoe with them? Now, by the same reasons are our Holy-dayes to be condemned, as taking away Christian Liberty; and so that which the Apostle saith, doeth militate as well against them, as against any other Holy-dayes: for whereas it might bee thought, that the Apostle doeth not condemne all Holy-dayes, be­cause both he permitteth others to observe dayes, Rom. 14. 5. And he himselfe also did observe one of the Iewish Feasts, Act. 18. 21. It is easily answered, that our Holy-dayes have no warrant from these places, except our Opposites will say, that they esteeme their Fe­stivall dayes holier then other dayes, and that they observe the Ie­wish Festivities. Neither of which they doe aknowledge; 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 weake Iewes, whom he permitted to esteeme one day above another, and for whose cause he did in his owne practise, thus farre applie himselfe to their infirmity at [...] time, when they could not possibly be, as yet, fully and throughly instructed, concerning Christian Liberty, and the abrogation of the Ceremoniall Law, because the Gospell was as yet not fully propagated: and when the [Page 26] Mosaicall Rites were like a dead man not yet buried, as Augustines simile runnes. So that all this can make nothing for Holy-dayes, after the full promulgation of the Gospell, and after that the Iewish Ceremonies are not onely dead, but also buried, and so, deadly to be used by us. Hence it is, that the Apostle will not beare with the observation dayes in Christian Churches, who have knowne God as he speakes.

The defenders of Holy-dayes, answer to these places which we al­ledge Sect. II against them, that the Apostle condemneth the observation of Iudaicall dayes, not of Ecclesiasticall dayes, which the Church instituteth for order and policy: which evasion Proc. in Perth. As­semb. part. 3 pag. 43. B. Lindsey follow­eth so hard, that he sticketh not to hold, that all the dayes whereof the Apostle condemneth the observation, were Iudaicall dayes prescribed in the Ce­remoniall Law, &c. And this he is not contented to maintaine him­selfe, but he will needs father it upon his Antagonist, by such logick forsooth, as can inferre quidlibet ex quolibet. The Apostle comports with the observation of dayes in the weake Iewes, who understood not the fullnesse of the Christian Liberty, especially, since those dayes having had the honour to be once appointed by God him­selfe, were to be honorably buried: but the same Apostle reproves the Galathians, who had attained to this liberty, and had once left off the observation of dayes. What ground of consequence can warrant such an illation from these premisses, as this which the Bi­shop formeth, namely, that all the dayes whereof the Apostle condemned the observation, were judaicall dayes? &c.

Now for confutation of this forged exposition of those places of Sect. III the Apostle, we say, 1. If all the dayes whereof the Apostle con­demned the observation, were judaicall dayes prescribed in the Ce­remoniall Law, then doe our Divines falsely interpret the Apostles words against Popish Holy-dayes, and the Papists doe truly alledge, that their Holy-dayes are not condemned by the Apostle. The Rhemists affirme, annot. on Col. 2. 16. that the Apostle condemneth onely Iewish dayes, but not Christian dayes, and annot. on Gal. 4. 10. that we doe falsely interpret his words against their Holy-dayes. annot. ibid. Carthwright answereth them, that if Paul condemned the observing of Feasts which God himselfe instituted, then much more doth he condemne the obser­vation of Feasts of mans devising. So de cult. sanct. cap. 10. Bellarmine alledgeth, loqui ibi Apostolum de judaeorum tantum festis. de orig. fast. Christ. cap. 2. Hospinian answering him, will have the Apostles words to condemne the Christian Feasts, more then the judaicall. de templ. & fest. in Enchirid. contr. inter. Evang. & Pontif. Conradus Vorstius rejecteth this position, Apostolus non nisi Iudaicum discrimen dierum in N. T. sublatum esse docet, as an Popish error. 2. If the Apostle meane onely of judaicall dayes, either he condemneth the observing of their dayes materialiter or for­maliter, i. e. either he condemneth the observation of the same Feasts which the Iewes observed, or the observing of them with such a [Page 27] meaning, after such a manner, and for such an end, as the Iewes did. The former, our Opposites dare not hold, for then they should grant that he condemneth their owne Easter and Pentecost, because these two Feasts were observed by the Iewes. Nor yet can they hold them at the latter, for he condemneth that observation of dayes which had crept into the Church of Galatia, which was not Iewish nor Typi­call, seeing the Galatians, believing that Christ was already come, could not keep them as figures of his comming, as the Iewes did, but rather as memorialls that he was already come, saith ubi su­pra. Cartwright. 1. If the Apostles reasons wherewith he impugnes the observation of dayes, hold good against our Holy-dayes, so well as against the Iewish or Popish dayes, then doeth he condemne those, no lesse then these. But the Apostles reasons agree to our Holy dayes. For, 1. according to that reason, Gal 4. 3. they bring us under a Yoke of bondage. Epist. 118. adla­nuar. Augustine complaining of some Ceremonies, wherewith the Church in his time was burthened, thought it altogither best that they should be cut off, etiamfi fidei non videantur adversari; quia religio­nem quam Christus liberam esse voluit, servilibus oneribus premunt. Yea, he thought this Yoke of servitude greater bondage, and lesse tollera­ble, then the servility of the Iewes, because they were subject to the burthenes of the Law of God, and not to the presumptions of men. The Yoke and Bondage of Christians in respect of Feasts, is hea­vier, then the Yoke of the Iewes, not onely for the multitude of them, but because Christianorum Festa▪ ab hominibus tantum, judaeorum vero a Deo fuerint instituta, saith de orig. Fest. Christ. cap. 2. Hospinian. Have not we then rea­son to exclaime against our Holy-dayes, as a Yoke of bondage, heavier then that of the Iewes, for that our Holy dayes are mens in­ventions, and so were not theirs? The other reason, Gal. 4. 9. hol­deth as good against our Holy dayes. They are Rudimentall & Pe­dagogicall Elements, which beseeme not the Christian Church, for as touching that which Paraen. ad scot. cap. 16. p. 66. Tilen objecteth, that many in the Church of the New Testament, are still babes to be fed with milke, it ma­keth as much against the Apostle, as against us, for by this reason, he may as well throw backe the Apostles ground of condemning Holy dayes among the Galatians, and say, because many of the Ga­latians were babes, therefore they had the more neede of those E­lements and Rudiments. The Apostle, Gal. 4. 3. compareth the Church of the old Testament, to an infant, and insinuateth, that in the dayes 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 himselfe speaketh of the Corinthians & Hebrewes as babes. It is answe­red by com. in illum locum. Pareus. Non de paucis personis, sed de statu totius Ecclesiae in­telligendum est quod hic dicitur. There were also some in the Church of the olde Testament adulti fide heroes: but in respect of the state of [Page 28] the whole Church, Luk. 7. 28. he who is least in the Kingdome of God, is greater then Iohn Baptist. Lex saith annot. in Gal. 4 3. Beza, vocatur elementa, quia illis velut rudimentis, Deus Ecclesiam suam erudivit, postea pleno cornu effudit Spiritum Sanctum tempore Evangelij. 3 That reason also taken from the opposition of the shadow and the body, Col 2. 17. doth militate against our Holy-dayes: for the Apostle there speaketh in the pre­sent time [...]: whereas the Iudaicall Rites were abolished, whereupon com. in illum locum. Zanchius noteth, that the Apostle doth not so much speake 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 Holy-dayes among the rest, serve onely to adumbrate and shadow foorth something, and by consequence, are unprofitable and idle, when the substance it selfe is clearly set before us. 4. That reason, Col 2. 20. doth no lesse irresistably infringe the Ordinances about our Holy-dayes, then about the Iewish; for, if mens Ordinan­ces about things once appointed by God himselfe, ought not to be obeyed, how much lesse should the precepts of men be receaved about such things in Religion, as never had this honour to be Gods ordinances, when their mere Auctority doth limit or adstrict us, in things which God hath made lawfull or free to us.

Thus we see, how the Apostles reasons hold good against our Sect. IV Holy-dayes: let us see next, what respects of difference the B. can imagine to evidence, wherefore the judaicall dayes may be thought condemned by the Apostle, and not ours. He deviseth a double re­spect: and first ubi su­pra pag. 40. he tels us, that the Iewish observation of dayes, was to a typicall use, and whereas it is objected by us, that the con­verted Iewes did not observe them as shadowes of things to come, because then they had denied Christ: he answereth thus. Howbeit the converted Iewes did not observe the Iewish dayes, as shadowes of things to come, yet they might have observed them, as memorials of bypast temporall and typicall benefites, and for present temporall blessings, as the benefite of their de­livery out of Egypt, and for the fruits of the earth, which use was also typicall. Ans. 1. This is his owne conjecture onely, therefore he himselfe 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 haue observed them as memorials of those bypast or present benefites, we say as much against him, and as truly, as he hath said against us. 2. His forme of reasoning is very [...]ncouth, for to prove, that the observation of dayes by the converted Iewes was to a typicall use, he alleadgeth, that they might have observed, &c. Thus proving a position by a supposition. o brave! 3. There is no sence in his conjecture, for he yeelds, that they did not observe those dayes, as shadowes of things to come, and yet he saith, they might have observed them as memo­rials of by past typicall benefites: now they could not observe those [Page 29] dayes as memorials of types, except they observed them also, as shadowing forth the antitypes. Pentecoste saith com. in Col. 2. 17. Davenant, & illa legis datae celebratio, Spiritus Sancti missionem, & legis in tabulis cordium per cun­dem Spiritum inscriptionem, adumbravit. Scenopegiae festum peregrinatio­nem hominis pij per hoc mundi desertum ad caelestem patriam delineabat, &c. So that the Feast of Pentecost, if it had been observed, as a memo­riall of the promulgation of the Law, could not but shadowe 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 memoriall of the benefits, which Cod bestowed on his people in the wildernesse, could not but shadowe out Gods conducting of his chil­dren, through the cours of their pilgrimage in this world, to the hea­venly Canaan. 4. If Feasts which were memorials of temporall be­nefites, were for this reason misticall, then he must graunt against himselfe, that much more are our Feasts misticall, which are me­morialls of Spirituall benefites, and consecrated to be holy signes & symbols, for making us call to minde the misteries of our Redemp­tion. 5. Before this Dispute take an end, we shall see out of the best learned among our Opposites, infra part. 3. in the arg. of superstition. that they observe the Holy dayes as misticall, and more misticall, then the B. here describeth the Iewish dayes to have been, and so we shall see the falshood of that pretence, that they are observed onely for order and policy, and not for mistery. 6. If we would knowe the true reason, which made the converted Iewes to observe those dayes, it was not any misticall use, but that which made them thinke themselves obliged to other Mosaicall Rites; even propter auctoritatem legis, saith animad. in Bell. contr. 3: lib. 4. cap. 16. nota 20. Iu­nius: for albeit they could not be ignorant, that these Rites were shadowes of things to come, and that the body was of Christ, in whom, and in the vertue of whose death, they did stablish their Faith, yet they did not at first understand, how such things as were once appointed by God himselfe, and given to his people, as ordi­nances to be keeped by them throughout their generations, could be altogither abolished, and for this cause, though they did condes­cend to a change of the use and signification of those Ceremonies, as being no more typicall of the Kingdome 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 Act. 15. 21. Where Iames gives a reason, wherefore it was expedient, that the Gentiles should ob­serve some of the Iewish Rites for a time, as com. in illum locum. Calvine, annot. ibid. Beza, and animad. ad Bell. contr. 3. lib. 4. cap. 16. nota 32. Iunius expound the place: His reason is, because the Iewes, 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 [Page 30] as much as I say, namely, that the reason wherefore the conver­ted Iewes were so apt to be scandalized by such as cared not for the Ceremoniall Law, and held themselves obliged to observe the same, was, because they saw not how they could be exeemed from the or­dinances and statutes of the Law of Moses with which they had been educated and accustomed.

Rests the seconde respect of difference given by the B. Further, Sect. V ubi su­pra. 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 legall. Ans. 1. Be it so: he can not hereupon inferre, that the Apostle doth onely condemne the observation of Iudaicall dayes, for he seeth nothing of observing dayes with opinion of necessity, but simply and absolutely he condemneth the observing of dayes, and his rea­sons reflexe on our Holy-dayes, as well as the Iewish. 2. Their opinion of necessity, he either refers to the institution, which these dayes once had from God, or else to the use which at that time they had for Gods 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 Gods Worship and their Salva­tion, is more then 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 shadowes of the comming of Christ, and so had denied Christ. 3. If the Apostle condemne the observing of dayes instituted by God, with opinion of necessity, much more doeth he condemne the ob­serving of dayes instituted by men, with such an opinion. And such is the observation of dayes urged upon us. Though the B. pre­tend, that the observing of our Holy-dayes is not imposed with opinion of necessity, shall we therefore thinke it is so? Nay, Papists doe also pretend, Bell. de Euchar. lib. 6. cap. 13. that the observation of their Ceremonies is not necessary, nor the neglecting of them a mortall sinne. I have proved heretofore out of our Opposites their owne wordes, that the Ceremonies in question, (and by consequence Holy-dayes among the rest) are urged upon us with opinion of necessity, and as their words, so their workes 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 meane thoughts of these matters, as of circumstances determined for order and policy onely: Iust like Proverb. 26. 18. 19. a man who casts firebrands and ar­rowes, and yet saith, Am not I in sporte? They will tell us, that they [Page 31] urge not the Ceremonies as necessary in themselves, but onely as necessary in respect of the Churches determination, and because of the necessity of obeying those, who are set over us. But I pray, is not this as much as the annot. on Math. 6. 15. sect. 5. Rhemists say, who place the necessity of their Rites and observances, not in the nature of the things them­selves, but in the Churches precept?

CHAP. IX.

Shewing the weaknesse of some pretences which our Opposites use for Holy-dayes.

SInce it hath beene evinced by unanswearable reasons, that Sect. I Holy-dayes, as now urged upon us, take away our Christian liberty, I will now pull off them, the coat of some figge lea­ves wherewith they are trimmed up. And first, I hope it will ap­peare, to how small purpose com. in Col. 2. 16. Dr Davenant would conciliate his rea­ders minde to allow of the Churches ordinances about Holy-dayes, (peradventure because he saw all that he had said of that purpose to be too invalide proofe,) by sixe Cautions, whereby all superstition and abuse, which may ensue upon them, may be shunned. For, what­soever doth manifestly indanger mens soules, being a thing not ne­cessary in it selfe, at which they take occsiaon of superstitious abuse, should rather be removed altogither out of the way, then be set about with a weak and easily penetrable hedge of some quidditative Cau­tions, which the ruder sort doe alwayes, and the learned doe too oft, either not understand or not remember. Now ubi supra pag. 7. B. Lindsey confes­seth and puts it out of all doubt, that when the set times of these Solemnities returne, superstitious conceats are most pregnant in the heads of people; therefore it must be the safest course to banish those dayes out of the Church, since there is so great hazard and no neces­sity of retaining them.

What they can alleadge for holy-dayes, from our duty to remem­ber the inestimable benefits of our redemption, and to praise God for the same, supra c. 7. sect. 7. hath been already answeared. And as touching any expediency which they imagine in Holy-dayes, we shall see to that Infra. part. 2. c. 2. afterward.

The act of Perth A ssembly, alleadgeth the practise of the auncient Sect. II Church for warrant of Holy-dayes, Paraen. ad Scot. cap. 16. pag 65. and Tilen alledgeth the jud­gement of antiquity to the same purpose. Ans. The Festivities of the Auncient Church can not warrant ours, for, 1. In the purest times of the Church here was no Law to tie men to the observation of Holy-dayes. Observandum est Cent. 2. cap. 6. col. 119. say the divines of Maldeburge, [Page 32] Apostolos & apostolicos viros, neque de pashate neque de aliis quibuscunque fe­stivatibus legem aliquam constituisse. Socrates lib. 5. cap 22. reporteth, that men did Celebrat the Feast of Easter, and other Festivall dayes, Sicuti volue­runt, ex consuetudine quadam. Nicephorus lib. 12. cap. 32. saith, that men did celebrat Festivities, sicuti cuique visum erat, in regionibus passim ex consuetudine qua­dam per traditionem accepta adducti. In which place, as the reader will plainly perceave, he opposeth tradition to an Evangelicall or Apo­stolicall ordinance. lib. 7. cap. 19. Sozomen tells us, that men were left to their owne judgement about the keeping of Easter, in Gal. 4. Hierome saith of the Feasts, which the Church in his time observed, that they were pro varietate regionum diversa. Hospin. de orig. fest. Christ. p. 71. The first who established a Law about any Festivall day, is thought to have beene Pius 1. Bishop of Rome, yet it is marked, that the Asiatican Doctors, did not care much for this constitution of Pius. I conclude with annot. on Math. 15. 9. Cartwright, that those Feasts of the Primitive Church came by custome, and not by commande­ment, 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 Lawes, but also imposed with such necessity and constraint, as spoyleth us of our liberty; 2. The festivall dayes observed by the Auncient Church, were not accounted more excellent then other dayes: for faith ubi supra Hierome, non quod celebrior sit dies illa qua convenimus, &c. But our festivall dayes are made aliis diebus celebriores, yea are taken to be holyer then other dayes, as I wil part. 3. afterwards prove.

Moreover, the Proctors for holy-dayes among us, thinke to make Sect. III advantage of the practise of other reformed Churches, and the jud­gement of Moderne 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 Genevah in Savoy, and the Church of Strasburge in Germany did abolish Festivall dayes, as Io Calv. epist. & resp. edit Genev. an. 1617. col. 137. Calvine writteth. Yea, In hac tota provincia aboliti fuerunt dies Festi, saith he. The Church of Zurich in Helvetia did also banish them all away, as Ibid. 138. Bullinger writeth to Calvine. 2. The practise of the grea­test part of the reformed Churches in observing Holy-dayes can not commend them in the Church of Scotland. 1. Because she did spue them out with so great detestation, that she is more bound to abhorre them, then other Churches which did not the like, and I may well apply to them that which ib col. 119. Calvine saith of the Ceremonies of the Interim, to Valentinus Pacaeut. Vt concedam faetidas illas sordes qui­bus [...]purgatae fuerunt vestrae Ecclesiae, in rebus mediis posse censeri: earum ta­men restitutio eritne res media? 2. The Church of Scotland is tied yet with another bond, to hate Holy-dayes, of which other Churches are free; for by a solemne oath sworne to the God of Heaven, she hath abjured all Antichristian and Popish Rites, and dedicating of dayes particularly. When (i) Tilen would make answeare to this Argument, (l) paraen c. 16. pag. 68. [Page 33] he saith, that mens consciences should not be snared with rash oaths, and superstitious vowes, and if that such bonds be laid on, they should be broken and shaken of. What? calls he this a superstitious vowe, which abjured all superstition and superstitious Rites? or calls he this a rash oath, which upon so sage and due deliberation, so se­rious advisment, so pious intention, so decert preparation, so great humiliation, was religiously, publikly, solemnely sworne throughout this Land, & that at the strait command of Auctority? who is igno­rant of these things, except he be a stranger in our Israell? But say the oath had been rashe and temerarious, shall it not therefore obli­ge? his Iudgement is, it doth not. And so thinks the Serm. on Ier. 4. 2. B. of Win­chester, 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 sweare to the Gibeonites, not asking Counsell at the mouth of the Lord? Ios. 9. 14. 15. 16. yet it bound both them, Ios. 9. 19. and their posterity some hundreth yeares af­ter, 2 Sam. 21. 1. if the matter then be lawfull, the oath binds, were it sworne never so rashly.

As touching the judgement of Divines, we say, 1. many Di­vines Sect. IV dissalowe of Festivall dayes, and wish the Church were free of them. For the Belgike Churches in their Synod anno 1578. Wished, that the sixedayes might be wrought upon, and that the Lords day alone might be celebrated. And Luther in his book de bonis operibus wish­ed, that there were no Feast dayes among Christians but the Lords day. This wish of theirs declareth plainly, that they allowed of no Ho­ly day except the Lords day; yet B Lindsey must make a fashion of say­ing something for an answear. This wish ubi su­pra pag. 84. (saith he) Luther & the Bel­gike Churches conceived, out of their miscontentment at the number, corrup­tions, & superstitions, of the Festivall dayes beside the Lords day, as ye doe. Aus. 1. Their wish importeth a simple and absolute misliking of all Festiyall dayes besides the Lords day, and not of their number, and corruptions onely. 2. It is well, that he acknowledgeth both them and us to have reason of miscontentment at Holy-dayes, from their corruptions and superstitions. The old Waldenses also Alsted. in Chronol. testium veri­tatis. (whose Doctrine was restored and propagated by Iohn Husse, and Hierome of Prauge after Wikliffe, and that with the congratulation of the Church of Constantinople) Aen. Silv. apud Didocl. alt. Damasc. pag. 707. held, that they were to rest from labour upon no day, but upon the Lords day. Whereby it appeareth, that Ho­ly-dayes have had adversaries before us. I finde, that they pervert some places which they alleadge against us out of Calvine. Paraen. cap. 16. pag. 64. Tilen alleadgeth Calvin. Inst. l. 2. c. 8. §. 32. aknowledging alios quoque dies festos praeter Dominicum, &c. I marvell, how a judicious Reader could imagine such a thing to be in that place, for both in that and the sub­sequent [Page 34] section, he is speaking of the Lords day against the Anabap­tists, and if any man will thinke, that §. 32. he is speaking of holy assemblies of Christians in the generall, yet he can see nothing there of any Festivall dayes beside the Lords day dedicated to holy mee­tings. There is an other place of Calvine abused by Serm at Petth. As­semb. Bishop Spots­wood, and ubi su­pra pag. 83. B. Lindsey, taken out of one of his epistles to Hallerus: which I finde in the volume before quoted, pag. 136. 137. that which they gripe to in this Epistle, is, that Calvine, speaking of the abroga­tion of Festivall dayes 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 Calvine say so, was not any li­king which he had to Festivall dayes, for he ibid. pag. 138. cals the abolishing of them ordo bene compositus. But as himselfe sheweth in the following Epistle which beareth this title. Cal. Ministro Burensi, S. D. The reason, why he durst scarcely have so determined, if his judgement had been required, was, because he saw neither end nor remedy for the prevailing tumult of contention raised about Festivall dayes, 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 Holy-dayes. Because he would have tolerated Ho­ly-dayes, 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 these Prelates pervert Calvins words. B. Spotswood alledgeth his words anent the abolishing of these Festivall dayes, 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 impulfor 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 B. would have made his hearers believe, that Calvine was not content with the abolishing of the festivall dayes, whereas his words testify the very contrary. B. Lindsey is as grosse 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 Calvines judgement the observation and abrogation of those dayes, is in the power and liberty of the Church. But the reader will perceave, that Calvine there speaketh only of the Churches liberty to abrogate Holy dayes, and no thing of her power to observe them, for he is shewing that howbeit he durst not have given advise 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 then she had power and liberty to doe for edification, 3. Other Testimonies they produce, which can not help them much. That which ubi su­pra pag. 91. B. Lindsey alledgeth out of [Page 35] Zanchius his confession, maketh him but small advantage, for though Zanchius there alloweth of the sanctification of some Festivall dayes, yet writing on the fourth Commandement, he aknowledgeth 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 ibid. pag. 41. B. to say, that this place is falsified & mutilated by his An­tagonist? who quotes it not to prove that Zanchius dissallowed of Festivall dayes, but to prove that in Zanchius his judgement, the sanc­tification of the Sabbath only, & no other day in the week, agreeth best with Divine and Apostolicall institution: was there any need to alledge more of Zanchius his words then concerned the point which he had to prove? ibid. pag. 95. the B. alledgeth also a Testimony out of Perkins on Gal. 4. 10. which makes him but very litle help: For albeit Per­kins thought good, in some sort to excuse the observing of dayes, in his owne mother Church of England, yet I find in that place, 1. He complaineth that the greatest part respects those Holy-dayes more then they should. 2. He alloweth only the observing of dayes for orders sake, that men may come to the Church to heare Gods Word: which respect will not be enough to the B. if there be not a solemnizing & celebrating of the memory of some of Gods inesti­mable benefites, and a dedicating of the day to this end & purpose. 3. He saith, that it is the priviledge 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 becommeth an ordinary day of rest. 4. He preferreth the practise of those Churches of the Protestants, who doe not ob­serve Holy-dayes, because (saith he,) the Church in the Apostles dayes, had no Holy-day beside the Lords day, and the fourth Commandement injoynes the labour of sixe dayes.

The B. meeteth with another answeare in his Antagonist, which Sect. V crosseth his Testimonies, namely, that howsoever forrain Divines in their Epistles and Councells, spake some times sparingly against Holy-dayes, when their advise 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 ubi supra pag. 83. B. objecteth against this answeare, that Calvine 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 Calvines words faithfully) of all Festivall dayes, but only such as served not to edification, and were seen to be superstitious. Ans. 1. Albeit he spake sparingly against Holy dayes, when he gave advice to that distressed and lately reformed Church, iest the worke of Reformation should habe been letted, yet he did not allow Holy-dayes among them. Fot in Io. Calv. epist. & resp. col. 592. another Epi­stle written to them, he saith, De pulsu campanarum & diebus festis ita sentimus, ferendas-potius esse vobis has ineptias, quam stationem in [Page 36] [...] [Page 1] [...] [Page 36] qua estis a domino collocati descrendam, modo ne approbetis; modo etiam liberum vobis sit reprehendere, quae inde sequentur superstitiones; And this he setteth downe for one of these superstitions, quod dies a die discernitur; where also he dondemneth both the observing of dayes to the honour of men as superstitious, and the observing of them for the honour of God as judaicall. If holy dayes in Calvines judgement be foolries; If he gave advyce not to approve them; If he thought them occa­sions of superstition; If he held it superstition to distinguish one day from another, or to esteeme one above another; If he call them Iu­daicall, though kept to the honour of God; judge then what allo­wance they had from him. 2. If the B. stand to Calvines judgement in that place which he quotteth, he must allow us to refuse some Fe­stivall dayes though injoyned 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 Holy-dayes, though the Prince imposed them. 3. The Church of Scotland did remove Festi­vall dayes in another manner, and bound her selfe never to receave them, by another bond then ever the Monbelgardens did; so that ha­ving other bonds lying upon us, then other Churches have, we are so much the more straitly obliged, neither to receave Holy-dayes, nor any other Antichri­stian and Popish Ceremony.

The seconde part, Against the expediency of the Ceremonies.

CHAP. I.

Against some of our Opposites, who aknovvledge the inconve­niency of the Ceremonies, and yet vvould have us yeeld to them.

THE Archbishop of Sainctandrewes, now Lord Chan­cellour Sect. I forsooth, speaking of the fyve Articles con­cluded at the pretended Assembly of Perth, Serm. at Perth As­semb. insert. by B. Lindsey. saith, 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 disswaded or declined them, most cer­tainly we would, &c but now being brought to a necessity, either of yeelding, or disobeying him whom for my selfe, I hold it religion to offend, &c. Dr. Burgesse ans. to the repl praef. pag. 43. confesseth, that some of his side think & beleeve, that the Ceremonies are inconvenient, and yet to be obser­ved for peace and the Gospels sake; And how many Formalists let us heare their hearty wishes, that the Ceremonies had never beene brought into our Church, because they have troubled our peace, & occasioned great stryf [...]? When they are demanded why doe they yeeld to them, since they aknowledge great inconveniency in them? They answeare; left by their refusall, they should cast their coall to the fire, to entertaine and increase discord, & lest shunning one inconvenien­cy, they should draw on a greater. Mr. Sprint saith, (c) It may be gran­ted, (c) repl. to the ans. pag. 270. that offence and hinderance to edification, doe arise from those our Cere­monies. Cas­sand anglis. p. 46. He confesseth also, That the best Divines wished them to be abolished, as beeing many wayes inconvenient. Notwithstanding, he hath written a whole Treatise, of the necessity of conformity in case of deprivation.

But let us understand, how he proveth, ib p. 23. that sometimes it is Sect. II [Page 2] expedient and necessary to conforme unto such burthensome and beggarly Ceremonies, as are many wayes inconvenient, and oc­casions of sundry evill effects. His principall reason is, ibid. pag. 8. That the Apostles by direction of the Holy Ghost, and upon reasons of common and perpetuall equity, did practise themselves, and caused others to practice, yea advised and injoyned (as matters good and necessary to be done) Ceremonies so inconvenient and evill in ma­ny maine and materiall respects, as the Ceremonies injoyned and prescribed in the Church of England are supposed to be; whence he would have it to followe, that to suffer deprivation for refusing to conforme to the Ceremonies of the Church of England,, is contra­ry to the doctrine and practise of the Apostles. Ans. These Iewish Ceremonies in the use and practise of the Apostles, were no way evill and inconvenient, as himselfe every where confesseth; whereas therefore Ibid. p. 9. 10. 11. he tels us, that those Ceremonies were abused to su­perstition, were of misticall signification, imposed and observed as parts of Gods worship, swerving from the generall rules of Gods word, not profitable for order, decencie, and edification, offensive many wayes, and infringing Christian liberty; he runnes at random all the while: for these things agree not to the Iewish Ceremonies, as they were rightly used by the Apostles themselves, and by others at their advise, but onely as they were superstitiously used with opi­nion of necessity by the obstinate Iewes, and by the false teachers, who impugned Christian liberty. So that all that can followe upon Mr. Sprints Argument, is this, That notwithstanding of the evils and inconveniences which follow upon certaine Ceremonies in the su­perstitious abuse of them by others, yet if in our practise they have a necessary or expedient use, then (after the example of the Apostles) we may well conforme unto them. Now all this commeth not neere the point, which Mr. Sprint undertaketh to prove, namely, That graunting the controverted Ceremonies to be in out use and pra­ctise of the same, many wayes evill and inconvenient, yet to suffer deprivation for refusing to conforme to the same, is contrary to the doctrine and practise of the Apostles. And as touching the compa­rison instituted betwixt our controverted Ceremonies, and these an­tiquated Ceremonies of the Iewes, practised and prescribed by the Apostles, after the ascension of Christ, and before the full promul­gation of the Gospell, 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 scandall, Acts 15. 28. 2. Ours, produce manifold inconveniences (whereof we are to speake hereafter) in our use and practise of the same, which is prescribed: Theirs, in the use and practise of the same, which was injoyned by the Apostles, were most expedient, for winning of the obstinate Iewes, 1 Cor. 9. 20. & for keeping of the weake, 1 Cor. 9. 22. [Page 3] And for teaching the right use of Christian liberty, to such as were strong in the faith, both among the beleeving Iewes, and con­verted Gentiles, Rom. 4. &c. 1. Cor. 8. & 10. 3. Ours, are proven to be in their nature unlawfull: Theirs, were (during the foresaid space) in their nature indifferent, Rom. 14. 6. Gal. 6. 15. 4. Ours, are impo­sed and observed as parts of Gods Worship (which we will prove Infra part. 3. chap. 1. afterward:) Theirs, not so, for where reade we, that (during the foresaid space) any holinesse was placed in them by the Apostles? 5. Ours, have certaine misticall 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 mistery of the King­dome 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 practise and opinion, even out of the case of scandall: Theirs, not so. 8. Ours, are pressed by naked will and Auctority: Theirs, by such speciall grounds of momentaneous reason, as made the practise of the same necessary for a certaine time, whither the Apostles had injoyned it or not. 9. Ours, are urged even upon such, as in their consciences judge them to be unlawfull: Theirs, not so. 10. Ours, have no better originall then humane and Anti­christian invention. Theirs, had their originall from Gods owne institution. 11. Ours, are the accursed monuments of Popish Ido­latrie, to be ejected with detestation: Theirs, were the memorials of Mosaicall policy, to be buried with honour. 12. Ours, are pressed by such pretended reasons, as make them ever and every where ne­cessary: Theirs, by such reasons, as did onely conclude a necessity of using them at sometimes, and in some places. 13. Ours, are urged after the full promulgation of the Gospell, and aknowledge­ment of Christian liberty: Theirs, before the same. 14. Ours, are ur­ged with the carelesse neglect of pressing more necessary duties: Theirs not so. These and other differences, betwixt the controverted, and Iewish Ceremonies, doe so breake the backe of Mr. Sprints Argu­ment, that there is no healing of it againe.

His seconde reason, whereby he goeth about to prove, the ne­cessity Sect. III of conforming to inconvenient Ceremonies in the case of deprivation, ubi su­pra pag. 24. 28. he taketh from this ground: That when two duties commanded of God, doe meet in one practise, so as we can not doe them both, in this case we must performe the greatter duty, and ne­glect the lesser. Now, whereas he saith, when two duties doe meet, &c. he means not, that both may be duties at once, for then a man shall be so straitned, that he must needs commit a sinne, in that he must needs omit one of the duties. But (as he explaineth himselfe) he cal­leth them duties, being considered apart: as, to heare a Sermon at the Church on the Sabbath, and to tend a sicke person ready to die at home at the same time, both are duties being considered apart, [Page 4] but meeting togither in our practise at one time, there is but one duty, because the lesser worke binds not for that present. Now he assumes, that the doctrine and practise of suffering deprivation for refusing to conforme to inconvenient Ceremonies, doeth cause men to neglect greater duties, to performe the lesser. For proofe where­of, he enlargeth a needlesse discourse, tending to prove, that prea­ching is a greater duty and of higher bond, then the duty of labou­ring unto fit Ceremonies, or of refusing inconvenient Ceremonies; which can not helpe his cause. That which he had to prove, was, that not to suffer deprivation for refusing of inconvenient Ceremo­nies, is a greater duty, then the refusing of inconvenient Ceremo­nies. But it will be said, that to suffer deprivation for refusing of in­convenient Ceremonies, doeth cause men to neglect the preaching of the Word, and that is a greater duty, then the refusing of incon­venient Ceremonies. Ans. 1. Mr. Sprint him selfe layeth downe one ground, which proveth the refusing of inconvenient Ceremonies to be a greater duty, then the preaching of the Word: for ibid. p. 52. he hol­deth, that the substantials of the seconde Table doe overrule the Ceremonials of the first Table, according to that which God saith, I will have mercy and not sacrifice, Math. 12. 7. And ibid. pag. 28. elsewhere he teacheth; that to tend a sicke person ready to die, is a greater duty, then the hearing of the Word. Now to practise inconvenient and scandalous Ceremonies, is to commit Soule-murther, and so to breake one of the most substantiall duties of the second Table. There­fore according to Mr. Sprints owne ground, the refusing of incon­venient and scandalous Ceremonies, is a greater duty, then the prea­ching of the Word, which is but a Ceremoniall of the first Table, and if the neglect of tending a sicke persons body, be a greater sinne, then to omit the hearing of many Sermons, much more to mur­ther the soules of men by practising inconvenient and scandalous Ceremonies, is a greater sinne then to omit the preaching of many Sermons, which is all the omission (if there be any) of those who suffer deprivation for refuising to conforme unto inconvenient Ce­remonies. But, 2. We denie, that the suffering of deprivation for refu­sing to conforme unto inconvenient Ceremonies, causeth men to ne­glect, or omit the duty of preaching. Neither hath Mr. Sprint alled­ged any thing for proofe hereof, except that this duty of preaching can not be done with us ordinarily, as things doe stand, if Ministers doe not conforme: for by order they are to be deprived of their Mi­nistry. Now what of all this? for though by the oppressing power of proud Prelats many are hindered from continuing in preaching, because of their refusing inconvenient Ceremonies, yet they them­selves, who suffer deprivation for this cause, can not be said to ne­glect or omit the duty of Preaching: most gladly would they [Page 5] preach, but are not permitted; And how can a man be said to omit or neglect that, which he would faine doe, but it lieth not in his po­wer to get it done? All the strentgh of Mr. Sprints Argument lieth in this; That forasmuch as Ministers are hindred from preaching, if they doe not conforme, therefore their suffring of deprivation for refusing conformity, doeth cause them neglect the duty of prea­ching. Which Argument, that I may destroy it with his owne wea­pons, let us note, ibid. p. 62. that he alloweth a man (though not to suffer deprivation yet) to suffer any civill penalty or externall losse, for refusing of inconvenient Ceremonies commanded and injoyned by the Magistrate. Now, put the case, that for refusing inconvenient Ceremonies, I be so fined, spoiled, and oppressed, that I can not have sufficient wordly meanes for my selfe and them of my hous­hold; hence I argue thus, (if Mr. Sprints Argument hold good) that forasmuch as I am by strong violence hindered from providing for my selfe, and them of my houshould, if I doe not conforme, therefore my suffering of those losses for refusing of conformity, doeth cause me to neglect the duty of providing for my selfe, and for them of my family, which neglect should make me worse then an infidell.

Mr. Sprint now addeth a third, proving, that to suffer deprivation Sect. IV for refusing to conforme to the prescribed Ceremonies, (howbeit (n) ibib p. 63. many wayes inconvenient, is contrary to the royall law of love: which he laboureth to evidence three wayes. First, he saith, that to suffer deprivation for refusing to conforme, doeth by abstaining from a thing in nature in different (such as our Ceremonies (saith he) are proved to be) needelesly deprive men of the ordinary meanes of their salvation, which is the preaching ministery 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 suppone, that they are indifferent, but they prove it not. 2. We denie, that the suffering of deprivation for refusing to conforme to the prescri­bed Ceremonies, doth deprive men of the preaching of the Word. Neither saith Mr. Sprint ought for proofe hereof, but that which we have already confuted, viz. that as things doe stand, all such as doe not conforme are to be deprived: whence it followeth onely, that the injury and violence of Prelats, (not the suffering of depri­vation for refusing to conforme) depriveth men of the preaching of the Word. Secondly, he saith, pag 67. that the doctrine and practise of suffering deprivation for inconvenient Ceremonies, condem­neth both the Apostolicall 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 Apostolicall Churches, for those Iewish Ceremonies practi­sed by them, were most convenient, as we have said before. And as [Page 6] for other Churches in after ages, so many of them as have practised inconvenient Ceremonies, are not herein to be followed by us. Bet­ter goe right with a few then erre with a multitude. Thirdly, pag. 68. 69. 70. he saith, That the suffering of deprivation for refusing to conforme, breedeth and produceth sundry scandals. First saith he, It is the oc­casion of fraternall discord. O egregious impudency! who seeth not that the Ceremonies are the incendiary sparkles, from which the fire of contention hath its beeing and burning? so that conforming, (not refusing) is the furnishing of fewell, and casting of faggets to the fire. Secondly hee alledgeth, that the suffering of deprivation for refusing to conforme, twofold more scandalizeth the Papist then conformity, for he doeth farre more insult to see a godly Minister thrust out, and with him all the truth of God pressed, then to see him weare a Surplice, &c. Thirdly he saith, it twofolde more scanda­lizeth the Atheist, Libertine and Epicure, who by the painfull Mini­sters deprivall, will triumph to see a doore opened for him without resistance, to live in Drunkennesse, Whooredome, Swearing, &c. Now, for answer to his seconde and third pretenses, we say: 1. Mr. Sprint implieth indirectly, that when non-conforming Ministers are thrust out, Papists, Atheists, Libertines, and Epicures, exspect but small Opposition from those conforming Ministers who come in their rowmes. Our Opposites have a skilfull Procter (forsooth) of Mr. Sprint. And indeed if Papists and Atheists were so affrayed of Conformists, as of Non conformists, they would not thus insult. 2. We must distinguish betwixt deprivation and the suffering of de­privation. Papists insult indeed, that their assured frinds the Prelates, are so powerfull, as to thrust out from the publike Ministery, the greatest enemies of Popery. But as for the Ministers, their suffering of themselves to be thrust out, and deprived for refusing of Confor­mity, it is so farre from giving to Papists any matter of insulting, that it will rather grieve them & gall them to the heart, to understād, that sundry powerfull, painefull, and learned Ministers, are so a­verse from Popery, that before they conforme to any Ceremony of the same, they will suffer for refusall: and that their constancy and courage in suffering for such a cause, will confirme many Pro­fessors, in the perswasion of the trueth of their Doctrine, which they taught against conforming unto Popish Ceremonies. But to goe on; Fourthly (saith he) it twofolde more scandalizeth such a one; as doth truly feare the name of God, who could be more contented, to injoy the meanes of his Faith and Salvation with a small inconve­niency of some Ceremonies, which he grieveth at, then to loose his Pastor, the Gospell, and the ordinary meanes of his Faith and Salva­tion. Ans. 1. Mr. Sprint supposeth, that such a one, as for no respect whatsoever, would be contended with the practise of some inconve­nient Ceremonies, doth not truly feare the name of God. And who [Page 7] is the Puritane now? Is not Mr. Sprint, who standeth in such a huge distance from all who are of our mind, and so farre preferreth him­selfe and his followers to us, as if we did no truly feare the name of God? Secondly, he supposeth, that when Non-conforming Mi­nisters are thrust out, the ordinary meanes of Faith and Salvation are not dispensed (to the comfort and contentment of such as truly feare the name of God) by those conforming Ministers, who are sur­rogate in their stead. Which, how his fellowes will take with, let them looke to it. 3. Forasmuch as the feare of God is to depart from evill, therefore such a one as doth truly feare the name of God, in so farre, as he doth feare the name of God, and quatenus, he is such a one, will never take well with the practise of inconvenient Cere­monies, which is not a parting from, but a cleaving unto evill. 4. They, who truly feare the name of God, are indeed scandalized by the Prelates their depriving of Ministers for refusing to con­forme: but by the Ministers, their suffering of deprivation for this cause, they are not scandalized, but edified. But fiftly saith Mr. Sprint, it offendeth the Magistrate, by provoking him (perswaded and resolved as he is) to disgrace these otherwise well deserving Mi­nisters, and to strike them with the Sword of Auctority. Ans. Our refusall to conforme to inconvenient Ceremonies, beeing a neces­sary duty, if the Magistrate be provoked therewith, we are blame­lesse: neither can it any otherwise provoke him to disgrace those well deserving Ministers, then Moses his seeking of liberty for Israell to goe and serve God according to his will, provoked Pharaoh the more to oppresse them; or then Christs 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 conforme, except as it is misreported, misdeemed, and mis­constructed to him by the false Calumnies of our Adversaries: which beeing so, he is not incited by our deed, but by theirs.

Now sixtly saith Mr. Sprint, it unjustly condemneth the Harmo­ny Sect. V of all true Churches that ever were Primitive, and Reformed, and all sound Teachers of all times and places, whose universall Do­ctrine it hath been, that conformity to inconvenient Ceremonies is necessary, in case of deprivation. Ans. That the Ceremonies prac­tised by the Apostles and Apostolike Churches were not inconve­nient, it hath been already shewed. That since their times, sundry Churches both auncient and reformed have practised inconvenient Ceremonies, we denie not: yet (q) Mr. Sprint himselfe will not defend all the practises of those Churches, whose practise he alledgeth 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, hee neither doeth, neither can make good. [Page 8] It is but a bare and a bolde affirmation to deceive the minds of the simple. Hist. of the Waldens. part. 3. lib. 1. cap. 6. Thuan. Hist. lib. 6. pag. 189. Did not the good olde Waldenses, notwithstanding of all the hot persecutions raised against them, constantly refuse to con­forme unto any of those Ceremonies of the Church of Rome, which they perceaved to have no necessary use in Religion, and to occa­sion superstition, rather then to serve for edification? And we ve­rily rejoyce to be ranked with those Waldenses, of whom Thuan. ibid. p. 186. a Popish Histeriographer speaketh thus: Aliis in libris Cathari dicuntur, quibus respondent qui hodie in Anglia puriorem doctrinam prae se ferunt. Moreo­ver, it can not be unknowne, to such as are acquainted with the Hi­story of the Reformation, how that not Flacius Illiricus onely, but Alsted. Chronol. Ro­lb. p. 550. many others, among whom was sie his treatise enti­tled vera Ecclesiae reforman­dae r [...]tio. Calvine, and Alsted. ibid. the Magde­burgian Doctours, and Sleid. com lib. 21. pag. 388. all the Churches of nether Saxonie subject to Maurice, opposed themselves to those inconvenient & hurtfull Ce­remonies of the Interim, urged by the Adiaphorists. And howsoever they perceaved many great & grievous dangers, ensuing upon their refuising to conforme to the same, yet they constantly refuised: and Sleid. ib. pag. 393. many Ministers suffered deprivation for their refusall. Besides, doe not our Divines require, that the Churches Canons, even in ma­ters of Rite, Polan. Synt. lib. 7. cap. 17. be profitable to the edification of the Church; and Calv. [...]ast. l. 4. c. 10 §. 32. that the observation of the same, must carry before it a manifest utility; Chem. exam. part. 2. p. 121. that in Rites and Ceremonies the Church hath no power to de­struction, but only to edification? Doe they not F [...]nner. theol lib. 2. cap. 2. put this clause in the very definition of Ecclesiasticall Rites, that they be profitably ordained; considering, that otherwise they are but intollerable mis­orders and abuses? Doe they not teach, Paraeus in 1. Cor. 14. 26. that no idle Ceremony, which serveth not unto edifying, is to be suffered in the Church; and Ioh. Calv. epist. & resp. col. 478. that Godly bretheren are not holden to subject themselves unto such things, as they perceave neither to be right nor profitable? Calv. in 1. Cor. 10. 23. Taylor on Tit. 1. 15. pag. 295. That whatsoever either would scandalize our brother, or not be profitable to him for his edification, Christians for no respect must dare to meddle with it? Doe they not stande so much upon expedien­cy, that this tenent is received with them? That the negative precepts of the Law, doe binde, not only at all times, but likewise to all ti­mes, (whereupon it followeth, that we may never doe 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 prac­tise of any duty commanded in the Law of God, except only when it is expedient to be done?) But ubi supra pag. 55. Mr. Sprint excepteth against this rule, that it is not generally true; for evidence whereof, he alledgeth many things, partly false, partly impertinent, upon which I holde it not needfull, here to insist. As for such examples objected by him, as carry some shewe of making against this rule, which he dare not [Page 9] admit, I will make some answeare thereto. He saith, that some times even negative precepts have beene lawfully violated: for these pre­cepts were negative; none but Priests must eate shew-bread, yet David did lawfully violate it: Thou shall doe no worke upon the Sab­bath; yet the Priests brake this, and are blamelesse: let nothing of Gods 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 meane, specie actionis manente eadem: so long as a action forbidden in a negative pre­cept, ceaseth not to be evill, as long the negative precept bindeth to all times: whereas even whiles 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 alledged examples; for Davids eating of the shewbread; the Priests labour upon the Sabbath; and Pauls casting of the goods into the sea; were not evill, but good actions (the kind of the action beeing changed by the circumstances.) In the meane time, the foresaid rule still cros­seth Mr. Sprints tenet. For he holdeth, that even whiles certaine Ce­remonies remaine evill in their use, and cease not to be scandalous and inconvenient, yet we are not ever bound to abstaine from them, but may in the case of deprivation practise them. Which directly con­tradicteth the rule.

The position therefore which we mantaine against Mr. Sprint, and Sect. VI from which we will not departe the breadth of one naile, is this, that we can never lawfully conforme (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 evill, & the kinde of it is not changed,) can never lawfully be done. There­fore, forasmuch as to abstaine 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 conforme in the case of deprivation are, and remaine scandalous and inconvenient in our practise and use of them, according to his owne presupposall; It followeth, that the use and practise of the same is altogither unlaw­full unto us. 2. That which is lawfull in the nature of it, is never lawfull in the use of it, except only when it is expedient for edifica­tion, as teacheth the Apost. 1. Cor. 6. 12. & 10. 23. The Corinthians objected that all indifferent things were lawfull Paraeus. in. 1. Cor. 6. 12. The Apostle ad­deth a limitation, esse licita quatenus conducunt, they are lawfull to be used in so farre as they are expedient. 3. It is the Apostles commande­ment, 1. Cor. 14. 26. let all things be done unto edifying: Therefore whatsoever [Page 10] is not done unto edifying, ought not to be done. 4. 1. Cor. 8. 13. The Apostle saith, if meate make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth. Now put the case the Apostle had been hindred from preaching the Gospell, for his precise abstaining from those meats, whereat his brother would be offended, would he in that case have eaten? Nay, he saith peremptor [...]y, that whiles the world standeth he would not eat. 5. Say not Calv. in 1. Cor. 10. 23. & Paraeus ibid. our Writers, that we must flee and abstaine from every thing which is not expedient for the edification of our brother? And doth not the Bishop of Serm. on 10. 16. 7. Winchester teach, that in our going out, & comming in, and in all our actions, we must looke to the rule of expediency? And saith not Bishop Serm. at Perth. assem. Spotswood, 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 fresh sute cap. 2. pag. 12. saith he heard once defended in Cambridge, viz. that quicquid non expedit, quatenus non ex­pedit, non licet? whatsoever is not expedient, in so farre as it is not expedient, it is not lawfull. Doeth not In 1 Cor. 10. 23. Pareus likewise shewe out of Augustine, that such things as are not expedient, but scandulous, and doe not edify, but hurt our brother, fiunt ex accidenti illiceta & peccata, proinde vitanda? 7. To conforme unto inconvenient and scandalous Ceremonies, in the case of deprivation, is at the best, to doe evill that good may come of it: which was the pretence of those Councellours, of Pope Pius the 5. Thuan. hist. lib. 39. pag. 367. who advised him to suffer stewes at Rome, for preventing a greater evill of abusing chast women and honest matrons. So the Pseudo-Nicodemites alledge for their abstaining from flesh upon the dayes forbidden by the Church, that this they doe for shunning a greater evill, which is the scandall of Papists. Paraeus in 1. Cor. 8. 13. Our Divines an­sweare them, that evill ought not to be done that good may come of it. But saith pag. 44. 45. Mr Sprint, this rule Rom. 3. 8. of the Apostle must be limited, and in some cases holdeth not: for a man may for doing of good, doe that which is evill in use, circumstance, and by accident, so it be not simply and in nature evill. Ans. 1. he begges the thing in question: for that rule is alledged against him to prove, that nothing which is evill in the use of it, may be done for any good whatsoever. 2. The difference betwixt that which is simply evill, and that which is evill in use and by accident, is in that the one may never be done, the other is unlawfull only pro tempore: but in this they agree, that both are unlawfull; for Paraeus in 1. Cor. 10. 23. that which is evill by accident, whiles it is such, is unlawfull to be done, no lesse then that which is in nature evill. 3. Divines hold Alsted. theol cas. c. 12 p. 199. absolutely, that inter duo vel plura mal [...] culpae (such as things scandalous & inconvenient) nullum est eligendum Paraeus in Rom. 3. 8. That though in evills of punishment, we may chuse a lesser, to shunne a greater, yet in evills of fault, election hath no place, neither may we doe a les­ser fault to shunne a greater, nec ullum admittendum malum, ut eveniat ali­quod bonum, siv [...] per se sive per accidens; But let us heare what Mr. Sprint can say to the contrary. He alledgeth, the Priests their breaking of the [Page 11] Sabbath, David his eating of the shewbread, and the Apostles their practising of very hurtfull Ceremonies; all which things beeing unlawfull, were done lawfully to further greater duties.

We have answeared already, that the Priests their killing of the sa­crifices on the Sabbath, and Davids eating of the shewbread, were not unlawfull, because the Circumstances changed the kinde of the a­ctions. Also, that the Iewish Ceremonies used by the Apostles, were in their practise, no way hurtfull, but very profitable. Mr. Sprint al­ledgeth another example out of. 2. Chron. 30. 18. 19. 20. 21. To performe Gods worship not as it was written, was a sinne (saith he,) yet to further Gods substantiall worships, which was a good thing, was not regarded of God. Ans. One can not guesse from his words, how he thought here to frame an Argument, which might conclude the lawfulnesse of doing some evill, 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 peoples legall unclean­nesse, when they came to eat the Passeover. 2. Their adventuring to eate it, notwithstanding their uncleannesse. That they were at that time uncleane, it was a sinne. But whiles they prepared their hearts truly to seek God, and repented of their uncleannesse, that in this case they adventured to eat the Passeover, was no sinne: because [...]it is the will of God, that such as prepare their hearts unfainedly to seeke 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 bake, 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 choosed to be uncleane, that they might further Gods worship. But as for the latter, repenting of their uncleannes, they choosed to keep the Passe­over, this they did to further Gods worship, and this was no sinne, especially if we observe with Tremellius, that it is said vers. 20. The Lord healed the people, that is, by the vertue of his Spirit purified & cleansed them, so that, that which was lame, was not turned out of the way, but rather made straight and healed.

And now we leave Mr. Sprint, who hath not only conformed to Sect. VII the controverted Ceremonies, even upon presupposall of their Incon­veniency, but p. 210. 211. hath also made it very questionable, whether in the case of deprivation he ought to conforme to sundry other Popish Ceremonies, such as shaven Crowne, holy water, creame, spitle, salt, and I kow not how many more, which he comprehendeth under &c. all his pretenses of greater inconveniencies following upon not con­forming, then doe upon conforming, we have hitherto examined. Yet what saith ubi su­pra. B. Spotswood to the cause? He also alledgeth there [Page 12] is a great inconveniency in the refuising of the Ceremonies, namely, the offending of the King. But for answeare unto this, looke what is the largest extent of the Princes power and priviledge in matters belonging unto Gods worship, which either Gods Word, or the judg­ment of sound Divines doth allow to him, none shall be found more willingly obsequious to his commandements then we. But as touching these Ceremonies in question, we are upon evident grounds perswaded in our consciences, that they are both unlawfull, and in­expedient for our Church: and though they were lawfull in them­selves, yet we may answeare as the Bald. de. cas. consc. lib. 4. cap. 11. cas. 3. oppugners of the Interim re­plied to those who urged yeelding to the Ceremonies of the same, Surplice, Holy dayes, Tapers, &c. because of the Emperours com­mandement. That the question is not about things indifferent, but about a maine 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 raignes over us, will not (we assure our selves) be of­fended at us, for having regard to our consciences, Gods owne de­puties placed in our soules, so farre, that for all the world we dare not hazarde their peace and quiet, by doing any thing with their re­pugnance and aversation; Wherefore, we are more then confident, that his M. will graciously accept from us, such a reasonable Apolo­gy, as Sleid. com. l. 21. p. 381. they of Straesburge used to Charles the 5. Quantum omnino fieri potest, parati sumus tibi gratificari, non solum Civilibus, verum etiam in re­bus Sacris. Veruntamen oramus invicem, ut cogites, quoniam sui facti ratio­nem opportet unumquemque Deo reddere, merito nos de salute nostra solicito [...] esse, & providere nequid contra conscientiam à nobis fiat. And ib. l. 25. p. 485. as the estates of Germany to Ferdinand, when they besought him only not to grive nor burthen their Consciences. Te quidem sumum & à Deo nobis datum Magistratum agnoscimus, & libentissime quidem, ac nihil est omnium rerum, quod non possis aut debeas à nobis expectare, sed in hac una re propiti [...]m te nobis esse flagitamus. If these hoped that Popish Princes would ac­cept such answeares from them, shall not we? O shall we not be per­swaded! that the defender of the faith, will not refuise to take them from us? especially seeing his M. shall ever find, that he hath none more Loyall and true Subjects, who will more gladly imploy and be­stow, their Lives, Lands, Houses, Holdes, Goods, Gear, Rents, Re­venues, Places, Priviledges, Meanes, Moities, and all, in his High­nes service, and mantainance of his Royall Crowne; and moreover, have so deeply conceived a strong and full persuasion of his Maje­sties Princely vertues, and much renouned propension to Piety, and Equity, that they will urge their consciences, by all good and lawfull meanes, to assent unto every thing which he injoynes, as right and convenient, and when the just aversation of Conscience upon evident reasons is invincible, will notwithstanding be more [Page 13] willing to all other duties of subjection, and more averse from the least shew of contempt.

CHAP. II.

Against those of our Opposites, who plead for the Ceremonies, as things expedient.

AS for those who alledge some conveniency in the Ceremonies, Sect. I they say more then can abide the proofe of reason, which the induction of some particulars shall demonstrate. partic. def. cap. 1. sect. 1. Dr. Mortone alledgeth for the Surplice, that the difference of outward garments can not but he held convenient, for the distinguishing of Ministers from Laicks, in the discharge of their function. Ans. This conveniency is as well seen to, without the Surplice. If a man ha­ving a blacke gowne upon him, be seene exercising the function of a Minister, it is very strange, if any man thinke him not sufficiently distinguished from Laicks. The act of Perth, anent Confirmation and Bishoping of Children, would make it appeare, that this Cere­mony is most profitable, to cause young Children in their tender years, drinke in the knowledge of God and his Religion; Ans. 1. If this Rite be so profitable for the instruction of Children, then why doe Prelats appropriat it to themselves, who use to be imployed in higher affaires, that permit them not to have leasure 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 pa [...]ish Minister able to Catechise them? Or, 3. If it must depend upon Prelats, and wait upon their leasure; what hath imposition of hands adoe with Catechising? 4. How comes it, that Children who are not Bishopped, are as well Catechised, as they who are Bi­shopped.

Tilen Paraen. [...]. 16. p. 65. setteth out the expediency of Holy-dayes, for imprin­ting Sect. II in the minds of people, the sence and knowledge of the benefits of Redemption. Ans. 1. There is no meane so good for this purpose, as Catechising and Preaching, out of season & in season. 2. What could he say unto them, who have attained his end without his meane? I find people better instructed, and made more sensible of those benefites, where the Feasts are not kept, then where they are. 3. Thinke they their people sufficiently instructed in the grounds of Religion, when they heare of the Nativity, Passion, &c. What course will they take for instructing them in other principles of faith? Why doe they not keepe one way, and institute a Holy-day for every particular head of Catechise?

[Page 14] But B. Lindsey thinks yet to let us see a greater expediency for ob­serving Holy-dayes. Certainely Proc. in Perth. as­sem. part. 3. pag. 7. saith he, nothing is so powerfull to abolish prophanenesse, and to roote out superstition of mens hearts, as the exer­cise of Divine Worship, in Preaching, Praying and Thanksgiving, chiefly then when the superstitious conceits of merite and necessity, are most pregnant in the heads of people; as doubtlesse they are, when the set times of Solemnities re­turne; for then it is meete to lance the oposteme, when it is ripe.

Ans. This is a very bad cure; and is not onely to heale the wound of the people slightly, but to make it the more inve [...]rate & festered. I might object, that litle 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 speake as much as can be against this superstition, their lancing being in word onely, and not indeed, the recidivation will prove worse then the disease. The best lancing of the oposterne were, not to observe them at all, or to preach against them, which are tried to worke this effect more powerfully, then the Bishops cure hath done: for all know, that there is none so free of this superstition, as those who observe not the Holy-dayes.

The same ibid. p. 121. Prelate pleadeth for the expediency of giving the Sect. III Communion to the sicke in private houses, because he thinkes they should not want this meane of comfort: As if the wanting of the Sa­cramentall Signes, not procured by a mans owne negligence or con­tempt, could stop or stay the comforts of the holy Spirit. Nay, it is not so: we have seene some who receaved not the Communion in time of their sicknesse, end more gloriously and comfortably, then ever we heard of any, who receaved the Sacrament for their viati­cum, when they were a dying. Apol. part. 3. cap. 3. sect. 45. and 51. Paybody thinks kneeling in the act of receaving 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, then is due to it; But I am sure, there is no lesse true reverence of that holy Sacra­ment, among such as kneele not in the receaving of it, then among such as doe kneele. I hope it is not unknowen, how humbly and reverently many sincere Christians, with feare and trembling, doe addresse themselves to that most holy Sacrament, who yet for all the world, would not kneel in receaving it. Thus we see, that these ex­pediencies pretended for the Ceremonies, are attained unto as well and better without them, then by them. But I will goe forward, to shew some particular inconveniences found in them.

CHAP. 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, receaveth no small harme and prejudice, and is like to re­ceave still more and more by their meanes. Our case is not much different from the estate of the Churches in Germanie, when Charles the 5. caused the booke called Interim to be published, Sl [...]id. com. lib. 20. p. 365. & 371. Alsted. in Chronol. Religionis an. 1548. expediency then was pretended, of setling the peace of Germanie by this as the best way: but it produced a very great inconveniency, and in stead of effectuating peace, it brought forth a hotter contention, as well between the Protestants themselves, as between them and Papists. Expediency is now no lesse pretended for the Ceremonies, yet no more truly. But before the bad effects of the Interim were seene, the wiser sort of Protestants Sleid. com. lib. 21. p. 377. wrote against it, and warned men, ut ab eo tanquam a praesentissima peste sibi caverent. Notwithstanding that the Emperour had straitely inhibite all impugning of it. And Sl [...]idane tels us, the reason which made them so mislike it, was, ibid. p. 388. be­cause they thought such as were upon that course, were opening a way to the Popish Religion, peradiaphora seu res medias, and ibid. p. 393. be­cause they wished to retaine the saving Doctrine puram & salvam a technis illorum, qui nunc dum Ceremonias restaurare videri volunt, colluviem totam doctrinae Pontificiae rursus introducunt. The like reason have we to mislike Conformity with Antichrist, in these Ceremonies which are obtruded upon our Church; for may we not justly feare, that hereby we shall be drawne on, to conforme with him also in dogma­ticall and fundamentall points of Faith? Nay, what talke I of feare? we have already seen this bad consequence in a great parte, for it is well enough knowen, how many Heterodoxe Doctrines, are main­tained by Formalists, who are most zealous for the Ceremonies: an [...]nt Vniversall Grace, Free-Will, Perseverance, Iustification, Images, Antichrist, the Church of Rome, Penance, Christ his Pas­sion & descending into Hell, necessity of the Sacraments, Apocrypha bookes, Christs 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 minde. In the meane time it hath been preached from Pulpits among our selves; That Christ died for all alike; That the Faithfull may fall away from Grace; That Iusti­fication 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 [Page 16] the Pope is not Antichrist; That Rome is not Babylon the Whoore; That the Government and Discipline of the Church must alter like the Frensh fashion, at the will of Superiours; That we should not runne so faire away from Papists, but come as neare to them as wee can; That abstinence and Almes, are satisfactions or compensations for sinne. These and sundry such like tenets, have not been spoken in a corner.

How farre Conformity to the Ceremonies of the Church of Sect. II Rome, hath drawn Conformists of greatest note, to conforme to her Faith also, I may give instance in the Archbishop of Spalato, Reg. Ec­cles. lib. 7. cap. 1. 2. num. 107. He holds, that many Rites of the Romane Church are auncient and approveable, that others, though neither, auncient nor universall, yet because of Custome should bee tollerated; and that few onely are either to be abolished, or by some prudent and easy way purged and refined. Now, will we know how farre this unity in Ceremo­nies, drew him to a unity in substance, then let us heare, what is his verdict of Protestants, as well as of Papists, who suffer for their Re­ligion. ibid. num. 120. Certepotius martyres mundi, quam Dei sunt, qui ex utraque par­te sub titulo conscientiae sanguinem frustra fundunt: quasi vero fides & Religio Romana, & Fides ac Religio protestantium sunt duae Fides & duae Re­ligiones, &c. ibid. num. 132. see to the same purpose Dr Potter in his bock cal­led. Want of charity justly charged pag. 76. He tels us moreover, that if the Protestants will not have peace with those whom they call Papists, & communicate with them, then are they Schishmatikes, and are not in the true Church. And in the declaration of the motives, whereupon he undertooke his departure out of the territory of Venice, he expresseth his judge­ment of such bookes 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 professe unity with the Church of Rome in matters of Faith. For example, Field of [...]he Church. append. to the 3 booke cap. 11. p. 298. B An­drewes Serm on Ier. 23. 6. pag. 79. 80. 81. 82. they [...] say, that that which the learned Papists holde concer­ning Iustification, is Orthodoxe, and therefore they will not con­tend against them, except it be for their contending with us, who doe agree with them.

These Reconcilers are too farre on in the way to Popery already. Sect. III But if they will be fully reconciled with Papists, they must transporte themselves altogither into their tents, because Papists will not come (d) Sleid. com lib 21. p 3. 77. forth to meet them midway. The Interim of Germany tēded to Recoci­liation, yet the Papists wrote against it. Cassander sought this Reconci­liation, but de I [...]icis cap. 19. Bellarmine confuteth his opinion. The Archb. of Spalato was upon the same course of Reconciliation, but his bookes were con­dēned as Hereticall, in the decree given at Rome, an. 1616. by the con­gregation of Cardinals deputed by Pope Paul [...] the 5. for the making and renewing of the Index, of prohibited bookes. annot. in 1 Tim. 6. 20. The Rhemists [Page 17] tell us, that they will avoide not onely our opinions, but our very words which we use: our adversaries professe, that they reject some expositions of certaine places of Scripture, against which they have no other reason, but because they are our expositions. Are their mindes so aliened from us? and must we be altogither drawne over­stayes to them? Are they so unwilling to be recōciled to the prejudice of their errors? And shall we be so willing to be reconciled with them to the prejudice of the trueth? O strange and monstrous invention! That would reconcile Christ with Antichrist; agree the temple of God and Idols; mixe light and darkenesse togither. Rep. Ec­cl. lib. 7. cap. 12. n. 134. Hee had good reason for him who objected to the Archbishop of Spalato, that qui ubique est, nusquam est. For in stead of reconciling Protestants and Papists, they make themselves a third partie, and raise more con­troversy. O bellua multorum capitum!

Thus we perceave, what prejudice hath arisen, and yet ariseth, to Sect. IV the true and saving Doctrine, by the meanes of symbolizing with the Church of Rome in these Ceremonis. But because some Forma­lists approve not of this course of Reconciliation, they (I knowe) would purge the Ceremonies of the blame of it; I will therefore shew, that Reconcilers are set forward in their course of Reconciliation, by meanes of the Romane Rites remaining in Reformed Churches.

G. Gassander in his booke de officio pijviri, relates unto us, how hee was entered into this course, and conceived this purpose of Recon­ciliation: and tels, that from his youthood hee was most observant of Ecclesiasticall 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 & abusiones, quae nonnullis Ceremoniis Ecclesiasticis admixtae e­rant, exos as haberem ut ipsam Ecclesiasticam politiam, quae his Ceremoniis fe­re constat, non sublatam & eversam, sed repurgatam & emendatam esse vel­lem. Wee see the first thing which induced him to a Reconciliation, was his liking which hee 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 Park. of the crosse. part. 2. pag. 80. people are induced to say, as they said once, when Popish Ce­remonies did reenter in Germany. We perceave now, that the Pope is not so blacke as Luther made him. And as for the Reconcilers themselves, may they not conceave strong hopes to compasse their end? may they not confidently imbarke in this businesse? may they not with great exspectation of prosperous successe atchieve their project? when once they have footing upon our union with Rome in Ceremonies and Church policy; they can not but hereupon conceive no small [Page 18] animosity to worke out their intended purpose.

Doe I talke of a Chimaera, & imagine now that which is not? Nay, I will really examplify 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 finde, pag. 32. that he thought the procuring of concorde betwixt the Church of England, and the Church of Rome, to be easie. And his reasons were, because ibid. pag. 34. he was verily perswaded, that the Pope would approve the English Liturgie, and the publike use of it, as he professed in his colloquy with the Bishops of London, and Durham, and the Deane of Winchester. And further, ibid. pag. 41. he told he was of opinion, that the Churches of Rome and of England, excluding Pu­ritans, were radically one Church. This made him say; ibid. pag. 42. I doe finde here, why to commend this Church, as a Church abhorring from Puritanisme, reformed with moderation, and worthy to be received into the Communion of the Catholike Church. In the following words he tels, that he could carry something out of the Church of England, which should comfort all them who hate Puritane strictnesse, and desire the peace of the Church, (meaning them who desired the same Reconciliation with himselfe.) What is more cleare, then that the English Ceremonies, were that which made him prosequute, and gave him hope to effec­tuate, a Reconciliation betwixt the Church of England, and that of Rome?

But put the case, that as yet we had seene no greater evils follow­ing Sect. V upon the Ceremonies, yet must they be aknowledged to be in­convenient, because they are dangerous preparatives for many worse things then wee are aware of, and may drawe after them sundry evill 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 shunne a danger, and fearing the worst, to resist evill beginnings? to give no place to the Divell; to crush the Viper while it is in the shell; to abstaine from all appearance of evill, 1 Thessal 5. 22. And to take the little ones of Babylon; whiles they are young, and dash their heads against the stones?

It skils not, that many will judge us too precise for doing so. What? doe they think this precisenesse any other, then that which the Law of God requireth even Deut. 12. 32. observing of the Commandement of God, without adding to it, or diminishing from it, and Deu [...]. 28. 1 [...]. kee­ping the straight path, without declining to the right hand or the left? or doe they thinke us more precise then Mordecai, Esth. 3. 2. who would doe no reverence to Haman, because he was an Amalekite, and so not Deut. 25. 19. to be countenanced nor honoured by an Israelite? Are we more precise then Daniel, Dan. 6. 10. who would not close his windowe when hee [Page 19] was praying, no not for the Kings Edict, knowing, that because he had used to doe so aforetime, his doing otherwise had been both a denying of his former profession, and a insnaring of himselfe by yeelding in small things, to yeeld in greater, & after an inch to take an elle? Are we more precise then the Apostle Paul Gal. 2. 5. who gave no place to the Adversaries of Christian liberty, no not for an houre▪ Are we more precise then David, Psal. 16. 4. who would not doe so much as take up the names of Idols into his lips, left from speaking of them he should be ledde to a liking of them: or may not the sad and dole­full 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 Mistery of iniquity ad­vance it's progression? How litle moates have accresced to Moun­tains? Wherefore Iun. ani­mad. in Bell. de cult. sanct. lib. 3. cap. 5. simplicitatem Christi nos oportet coler [...], à qua ubi primum [...]xtulit pedem vanitas, vanitatem sequitur superstitio, superstitionem error, erro­rem presumptio, presumptionem impietas Idololatrica. We have cause to feare, that if with Israel Num. 25. 2. 3. we come to the sacrifices of Idols, and eate of Idolothyts, and bow downe or use any of superstitious and Idolo­trous Rites; thereafter we be made to joyne our selves to these Idols, and so the fierce anger of the Lord be kindled against us, as it was against them.

CHAP. IV.

That the Ceremonies are inexpedient, because they hinder edification.

THat the Ceremonies are a great hinderance to edification, Sect. I appeareth; First, in that they obscure the substance of Reli­gion, and weaken the life of Godlinesse, by outward glory and splendor, which drawes away the minds of people so after it, that they forget the substance of the service which they are about. The Heathnish Priests Natal. comit. My­thol. lib. 1. cap. 15. laboured, per varietatem Ceremoniarum, rem in pretio retinere. The use for which Papists appoint their Ceremonies, Bell. de effect. Sa­cram. cap. 31 is, ut externam quandam Majestatem sensibus obijciant: And so are the Ceremonies urged upon us, Hooker Eccl. Pol. lib. 4. n. 1. thought to conciliate reverence & due regard to Divine Worship, and to stirre up devotion. In the meane while it is not considered, that Hospin. Epist. dedic. pr [...]fix. libris de orig. monach. mentes humanae mirifice capiun­tur [Page 20] & fascinantur, Ceremoniarum splendore & Pompa. Videmus siquidem saith Bucer, censur. Liturg. Angl. cap. 9. vulgus delectari actionibus scanicis, & multis uti signis. exam. part. 2. de Rit. in admi­nist. Sacr. p. 32. Chemnitius markes of the cumulating of Ceremonies in the auncient Church, that it drew to this, ut tandem in theatricum ferme apparatum Ceremonia illa abierint. com. in Ioh. 4. 24. Musculus reprehends Bishops, for departing from the Apos­tolicall and most auncient simplicity, and for adding Ceremonies unto Ceremonies in a worldly splendor and spectability, whereas the worship of God ought to be pure and simple.

The Policy then which is most simple and single, and lest luste­red with the pompe & bravery of Ceremonies, can not but be most expedient for edification. Psal. 45. 13. The Kings daughter is most like her selfe, when shee is all glorious within, not without, and Luk. 17. 20. 21. the Kingdome of God appeareth best what it is, when it commeth not with observation: But superstition (saith Popish prejudic. cap. 10. Camero, the mother of Ceremonies, is lavish and prodigall; Spirituall Whooredome as it is, it hath this common with the bodily; both of them must have their paintings, their trinkets, their invenglements.

Secondly, the Ceremonies are impediments to the inward and spirituall worship, because they are fleshly and externall. Calv. com. in Exod. 20. 5. In the se­cond Sect. II commandement are forbidden omnes Ritus, qui a spirituali Dei cultu discrepant. The Kingdome of God is within you, Luk. 17. 21. saith Christ. Now if the Apostle, 1. Tim. 4. 8. say, that bodily exercise such as fasting, watching, &c. which are requisite as helpes and furtherances to the humiliation of the soule, doe but profit a litle, then may we say of our unnecessary and unprofitable Ceremonies, that they are excee­dingly nocent and harmefull to true and spirituall worship. The A­postle is not speaking of playes and pastimes, as Bellarmine would have us to thinke. Who can believe that Timothie was so much addi­cted to play, that the Apostle had need to admonish him, that such exercise profiteth litle? 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 himselfe to the life and power of Godlinesse, & to substantiall worship, then to any of these outward things. Nei­ther doth the Apostle, condemne only the superstitious use of those exercieses, as com. in illum locum. Calvine well observeth: alioqui in totum damnaret: Whereas he doth only extenuate & derogate from them, saying, that they profit litle. Ergo (saith he) ut maxime integer sit animus, & rectue finis, tamen in externis actionibus nihill 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? Doe we allowe of no externall Rites and Ceremonies in Divine worship?

de di­vers grad. ministr. evang. con­tra Bez. cap. 24 s. 25. Saravia, tells us, that dum vitia vitant stulti, in contraria ruunt, and that he is no lesse in the fault, qui nullas in externo Dei cultu Ceremonias admittit, quae tantum decori serviunt, homines (que) sui admoneant officii, quam qui [Page 21] quasvis citra delectum recipunt, &c. Wherefore, because a transition from idolatry and Superstition, is more easie to Atheisme & the propha­nation of holy things, then 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 mislike the English Ceremo­nies, condemneth such Rites and circumstances in the externall wor­ship of God, a [...] serve only for decency, but those sacred & significant Ceremonies, which admonish men of their duty, are not of this sort. What shall we say then, of such a conjunction as this, que tan­tum decori serviunt, hominesque sui admoneant officii? Why would not Saravia write a Chronologie, 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 Gods worship? Had there been no Moralist (trowe we) then to note, that decency and things serving only for decency have place in civility & all morall actions, in which notwithstanding there is no significant nor admonitory sacred signes of mens duty in Gods worship? And thus should these two things be seavered, which he hath conjoyned and confounded.

To conclude, we condemne the English controverted Ceremonies which are regarded as holy and significant, as most in expedient, be­cause they derogate from the true inward and spirituall worship; for mans nature saith Popish. prajud. cap. 10. Camero, is delighted in that which is fleshly and outward, neglecting that which is spirituall and inward. And this is the reason, why least spirituall, lively, and holy disposition hath followed upon the addition of unnecessary Ceremonies; and why there was never so much zeall, life, and power of Religion inwardly, in the Church of Christ, as then, when shee was freest of Ceremonies. This much Camero Ibid. a Formalist of great note, is forced to a knowledge. Let us consider saith he, the Primitive Church, flourishing more in times of the Apostles, then ever it did afterwards: Who will not admire her great simplicity in all poynts, and especially in Ceremonies? for excepting the celebration of Baptisme by washing of water; and of the holy Supper, according to the Lords institution, in taking the Bread and Wine, & distributing them after thanksgiving: excep­ting also the imposition of hands upon those who extraordinarily received the holy Ghost, whether it were in a generall calling, or a particular, to a charge in the Church, and availing for a miraculous effect, of healing the sicke; I say, these excepted, there will not be found any other Ceremony in those primitive times, so admirable was their simplicity.

Thirdly, the Ceremonies are a great hinderance to edification, Sect. III because they make much time and paines to be spent about them, [Page 22] 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 auncient Church, agreeth well to them. Hospin. ubi supra. Ista Ceremoniarum accumulatio tum ipsos doctores tum etiam ipsos auditores, a stu­dio docendi atque discendi verbum Dei abstraxit, atque impedivit necessarias & utiles divini eloquii institutiones.

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

And moreover, faithfull men whose labours might be very pro­fitable to the Church, in the Holy Ministery, have neither a doore of enterance, nor a doore of utterance licentiated to them, and that because they will not consent, nor yeeld themselves to be the unhap­py instruments of imposing this yoke of Ceremoniall bondage upon the necks of Gods people. Others who have entered, & have been both faithfull & painefull Labourers in the Lords Vineyard, are thrust from their charges, for no other quarrell, but that of Non-con­formity. O unhappy Ceremonies! Woe unto you; you mischeivous lets and prejudices to the edification of the Church!

CHAP. V.

That the Ceremonies are inexpedient, because they are occasions of injury and cruelty.

THe Ceremonies serve to be instruments of cruelty against Sect. I the sincere servants of Christ: they are used, as Absolons sa­crifice, to be clokes of wicked malice, they occasion the fyn­ing, confyning, depriving, imprisoning, and banishing of very worthy and good men.

Gen. 49. 5. Such instruments of cruelty, brought into the habitation; not of the sonnes of Iacob, but of the God of Iacob, are to be accursed by all who love the peace of Ierusalem, or beare the bowels of Christian compassion within them, because they are not of Christ the meek (r) Isa. 42. 2. 3. lambe of God, who did not crie, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street, who did not breake the bruised reed, nor quench the smoaking flaxe, but they are of Antichrist: Apoc. 17. 7. to whom it is given to make warre with the Saincts.

Surely, those bowels of mercies, kyndnesse, meeknesse, and for­bearance, [Page 23] which Col. 3. 12 13. the Apostle requireth, as they should be in every Christian, so chiefly in iu qui praesunt, as com. in illum locum Melanchton noteth; 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 allwayes but chiefly when there is no contempt nor refractary disposition, but only a modest and Christian desire, to conserve the peace of a pure conscience, by forbearing to doe that which it is perswaded is not right. Let Magistrates remember well.

Parcere subjectis & debellare superbos.

If there were no more, but such a dolefull and woefull effect, as Sect. II the cruell dealing with the faithfull ministers of Iesus Christ, occa­sioned by the Ceremonies; this is too much for evincing the incon­veniency of them.

Dr. Burgesse in a Sermon preached before King Iames, related a speach of the Emperour Augustus, who commanded, that all the glasses should be broken, that no man might incurre such a fright as one Pollio was put into, for breaking one of his masters glasses. Whereby (as pr [...]f. of the answ. pag. 17. he expounds himselfe) he meant to intimate unto that wise King, that it were better to take away the Ceremonies then to throw out the Ministers for them. Yet it is the verdict Sarav. N. fratri & amico art. 17. of some, that the blame lyeth not upon the Ceremonies, but upon Ministers themsel­ves, who leave their places, and drawe all this evill upon themselves. This is even as 1. Sam. 23. 10. Naball blamed David for breaking away from his master, when he was chased away against his will; And as Socrat. lib. 3. c. 12. Iulian, when he had impoverished the Christians, laughed them to scorne, as if they had impoverished themselves, to get that blessing which Christ had promised to the poore.

The Canon Law speaketh for the Lords Bishops, which are perse­cuted from citty to citty. decr. part. 2. cau­sa. 7. q. 1. c. 36. Nec ipsi in hoc peccant, quoniam non sponte sed coacte hoc agunt: sed illi qui eos persecuuntur: 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 leave their owne places & callings, when they would faine abyde in them, and with heavie hearts are thrust from them.

Neither is this all the injury which is occasioned by the Ceremo­nies: Sect. III they make godly and zealous Christians to be mocked & nick­named Puritans, except they can swallow the Camell of Conformity. Our consciences beare us witnesse, how without all reason we are branded with the name of those auncient Heretikes, the pa­stor and the praelat p. 36. from whose opinions and maners, O! how farre are we? And as for our selves, notwithstanding all this, we shrinke not to be reproched for the cause of Christ, we know the old Waldenses before us, Histor. of the Wal­dens. lib. 1. cap. 3. were also [Page 24] named by their adversaries, Cathares or Puritanes: and that without cause hath this name been given both to them & us. But we are most sorry, that such as are walking humbly with their God, seeking ea­gerly after the meanes of grace and salvation, and making good conscience of all their wayes, should be made odious, and that Piety, Humility, Repentance, Zeale, Conscience, &c. should be mocked, and all by occasion of the Ceremonies.

CHAP. VI.

That the Ceremonies are inexpedient, because they har­den and confirme the Papists.

THe Papists make advantage of the Ceremonies, and thereby Sect. I confirme themselves in Popery. First, in that they use them as the bellowes to blow up the fire of contention among us, remembring the old rule, divide & impera. They set us by the eares among our selves, that they may be in peace, and that intestine dis­cord may make us forget the common adversary. Iohn Calv epist. & resp. col. 132. Calvine wrote to the Earle of Summerset, fieri non posse quin Papistae superbius insolesce­rent, nisi mature compositum esset dissidium de Ceremoniis; way to the Church ans. to sect. 33. Dr. White saith, that our strife about Ceremonies is kindled and nourished by Pa­pists. If we were liberate from the Ceremonies, then might we doe more against the Papists, and they should not insult as they doe.

But they have yet more advantage from our Formalists: for they like very well the course of Conformity, as the way of returning to Sect. II Popery, and some of them tell us in broad tearmes, that they hope we are comming fast home to them. They perceave us receaving & 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 backe to them. This was ere now, both foreseene and foretold by the wiser sort.

epist. ad regin. Elis: lib. 1. Episto­lar p. 112. Zanchius told, that he seemed to himselfe, to heare the Monkes & Iesuites saving among themselves, Ipsa quoque Regina Angllae doctissima & prudētissima, paulatim incipit ad Sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae redire Religionem; resumptis jam Sanctissimis & Sacratissimis Clericorum vestibus: sperandum est fore ut reliqua etiam omnia, &c. Papists count all to be Calvino-Papistae, i. e. halfe Papists, who are not Puritans, and dayly invite them to an association with them against the Puritans, as of the Crosse. c. 9. sect. 1. Parker sheweth out of a Treatise intitled, Concertatio Ecclesiae Catholicae in Anglia contra Cal­vino [Page 25] Papistas & Puritanos. And we may perceave out of expos. confess. Angl. art. 37. & pro­blem. 2. de praedest. Franciscus a Sancta clara, that they dispare of any agreement with Puritans, yet hoping that Formalists will agree with them. In these hopes they are still more and more confirmed, whiles they observe this con­formity in Ceremonies to be yet prevailing and proceeding, and not like to take a stand. Whereupon they (poore soules) delight to stay still in Babylon, finding us so fast turning backe thither, as if we repented we come out from thence.

Some would here defend the Ceremonies, as being most expedient Sect. III to gaine 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 winne them, and fostering of them in the same, were to weane them from it. Woefull proofe hath taught us, that they are but more and more hardened, and resolutely confirmed in Popery by these Romane remainders among us; neither will they, whiles they exspect that wee are turning backe to them, doe so much as meet us midway: but Ma [...]. don. com. in Math. 8. they flee from us quam longissime: their over­passing and overreaching Pharisaicall zeale, makes them hold fast the least point of their Religion, and adhere to the whole entire fa­brike of the Romane both Doctrine and Discipline.

Of the gaining of the Adversaries, de verb. dom. serm. 6. Augustine speaketh better, for if you demand, unde vincantur pagani, unde illuminentur, unde ad sa­lutem vocentur? He maketh this answer, deserite omnes solennitates es ip­sorum, deserite nugas eorum: & si non consentiunt veritati nostrae, saltem pu­d [...]at (m) Conrad Schlussel­burg. apud Park of the Crosse. p. 2. pag. 97. paucitatis suae. Nulla est concedenda gratia adversariis (say the Di­vines of Germany,) in mutatione Ceremoniarum, nisi prius nobiscum con­sentiant in fundamento, hoc est, in vera doctrina & usu Sacramentorum. They that yeeld to the Adversaries in matters of Rite, eos hoc ipso in impie­tate sua confirmant; and the Adversaries cessione ista non parum adjuvan­tur saith de cas. consc. lib. 4. cap. 11. cas. 3. Balduin. Bellarmine rejecteth de laici [...] cap. 19. Cassander his reconcilia­tion, for this reason among others, because according to the judge­ment of the Fathers, we should not change nor innovate the smal­lest matters, for gratifying of Heretikes.

The best way then which we can use, for winning of the Papists, is Phil. 2. 15. 16. to shine as lights in the world, holding forth the word of life by a pure and plaine profession: to be blamelesse and harmelesse, the sonnes of God without rebuke in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, 1. Tim. 6. 1. that so the name of God and his Doctrine bee not blasphemed. If thus we hold fast the profession of the trueth, and walke in all honest conversation according to the trueth so many as are ordained to eternall life shall be converted, and 1. Pet. 2. 12. made to glo­rify God in the day of visitation.

If it be said, that the Apostle observed some Iewish Ceremonies Sect. IV for winning of the Iewes, as we read, Act. 18. 21. & 20. 16. & 21. 26. [Page 26] and that it appeareth, wee may by the same reason yeeld to some Popish. Ceremonies, for winning of the Papists. Ans. 1. There is not alike reason of the weake Iewes, 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 Gospell, which was done before the full promulgation of the same. Io. Calv. epist. & resp. col. 451. 452. Nor 3. Is so much honour to be given, and so great respect to bee had to Popish and Antichristian Rites, as to the Ceremonies which were ordained by God himselfe. These were to be suffered a while, 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 Ierusalem; At Antioch Peter sinned by using Iewish Rites; because there the greatest part were Gentiles, who had both heard his preaching and seene his practise against the Ceremonies of the Iewes. But at Ierusalem Paul had to doe with the weake Iewes, who had heard litle or no preaching against those Ceremonies, and had seen as litle practise contrary unto them; Now Scotland must not be likened to Ierufalem: no not to Antioch; for Scotland hath been filled both with preaching and practise contra­ry to the Ceremonies of the Papists, yea hath moreover spewed them out openly & solemnely, with a religious and strict oath never to licke them up againe.

CHAP. VII.

That the Ceremonies are inexpedient, because they disturbe the peace of the Church.

THe great evils which have befallen to many famous Chur­ches Sect. I through the meanes of intestine dissentions, should teach us not to admit the occasions of the like inconvenien­cies among our selves, for as by concord minima crescunt, so by dis­cord maxima dilabuntur.

Now, the Ceremonies are the bane of our Churches peace, & the unhappy instruments of lamentable discord among bretheren who should dwell togiter in unity. I know, that the refusers of the Cere­monies are blamed, as if they were the troublers of the peace of the Church, & the tumultuating contentious spirits, who make so much adoe about matters of Rite and Ceremony. But I know also, that none have beene more ordinarily and commonly blamed for trou­bling the peace of the Church, then they who least deserved to be blamed for it. So was [...]. Reg. 1 [...]. 17. Elijah himselfe thought to be he that trou­bled [Page 27] Israell, when he contended against the corruptions of the Church in his time. I will therefore observe foure markes where by it may be knowen, when contentions are in a Church, which side is re­prehensible, and also who are to be blamed [...] the troublers of our Israell.

In contentions raised in the Church, we are to consider the motive, Sect. II the measure, the matter, the manner. And 1. touching the motive; They who contend in a Church reprehensibly, are moved and indu­ced to the course which they followe, by some worldly respect. Act. 19. 25. 1. Tim. 6. 5. Now, as for those in our Church, who con­tend for the Ceremonies, many of them are ledde 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 doe not judge them, when we say so, but by their fruits we know them. As Platin. in vita Innoc. 7. Pope Innocent the 7. whiles he was yet a Cardinall, used to repre­hend the negligence and timidity of the former Popes, who had not removed the schisme & trouble of the Church of Rome, yet when himselfe was advanced to the Popedome, he followed the footsteps of his Predecessors, governing all thinges tumultuously, & making the schisme worse: so among our Opposites, not a few have been over­come with ease, pleasure, riches, favour, preeminence, &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 over­stayes to contend for them, except (I say not the seeking of (lest I be thought uncharitable) but) their beeing sought by some worldly benefite? And how could such a one excuse himselfe, but by Paris his Apology, Ingentibiis ardent, judicium domis sollicitare meum. And what marvell that Numb. 22. 17. Balaks promotion, and Sauls 1. Sam. 22. fields and vineyards, prevaile with such as 2. Tim. 4. 10. love this present world.

The Popish oyle and Chrisme were defended by Islebius and Sido­nius, Sleid. com. lib. 21. pag. 376. ut ipsi nimirum discederent unctiores. How like to them have we knowen many Formalists? The best respect which epist. co the past. of the kirk of Scotl. B. Lindsey na­meth for kneeling at the Communion, is, the eshewing the Prince his offence; But as for us, let it be told who hath ever of a Conformist become a Non-conformist, for any worldly benefire which he might exspect by his non-confirmity? What worldly respect have we to move us to refuse the Ceremonies? What wealth? What preferment? What ease? What pleasure? What favour? Doe we not expose our selves to the hazard of all these things? Only our consciences suffer us not to consent to such things as we see to be unlawfull and hurtfull for the Church.

2. Let it be considered, which side exceeds in contending, they Sect. III [Page 28] are in the fault, 1 Tim. 6. 4. Now our Opposites doe farre overmatch us and overstride us in contention. For, 1. They harbour a invete­rate dislike of every course and custome which we like well off; and they carpe at many deeds, words, writings, opinions, fashions, &c. in us, which they let passe in others of their owne minde. Whereas we (God knowes) are glad to allowe in them, any thing which wee allow in others, and are so farre from nitimur in vetitum semper cupi­musque negata, that most heartily we condescend to apply our selves by all possible meanes to observe them, please them, and entertaine peace with them, who impose and urge upon us, a unconscionable observation of certaine Ceremonies, and to doe as much for them as any ground of conscience or reason can warrant. Phil. 3. 16 So farre as we have attained, we walke by the same rule with them, and so ex­ceed not in the measure. 2. It may be seen, that they exceed in con­tending with us, if we be compaired with the Papists: against them they contend more remissely, against us more intensively. Sarav. N. fratri & amico art. 17. Saravia professeth, that he thinketh worse of us, then of Papists. He hath rea­son Park of the crosse cap. 6. sect. 21. who complaineth of Formalists their desire not to sturre and contend against the Papists, and their fiercenesse against their owne bretheren. This (saith he) is ill provided for, and can have no excuse; that some not to contend with Papists should contend with their bretheren, and displease the sonnes of their owne mother, to please the enimies of their Father, and beate not the dogge before the Lyon, but the Lyon for favour of the dogge, and make the natu­rall childe to weepe, while the sonne of the bondwoman doeth triumph. 3. That they exceed, appeareth from the effects of their contending: hurt & dam­nage is a maine effect of contention. Calvine, Perkines, & Pareus observe upon Gal. 5. 15. that contentions breed hurtfull & pernitious effects, which tend to consumption and destruction. Now wherein doe we injure or harme our Opposites, in their persons, callings, places, &c? yet in all these and many other things doe 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 meanes, both of the strife and of all the evill which ariseth out of it? Put away the Ceremo­nies, cast out this Ionus, and beholde, the storme will cease. A wise Pilot, will in a urgent storme, cast out even some pretious wares; that the rest may be safe. And shall vve then saith ibid. sect. 22. Park [...], cast out the Pilots of the ship themselves, and all to spare the wa [...] of Ro [...] which are no lavv­full trafficque?

3. Let the matter be looked to, for which each side contendeth; Sect. IV Bretheren saith the Serm. at Perth. As­smb. Archb. of Sainctandrews, to contend is not a fault, if so it be for a weighty matter, but to be contentious in a light busines this is faultie. Now I wish it may please him to understand, that when we contend about the removall of the Ceremonies, we contend for a very waighty matter, for we prove the removall of them, to bee neces­sary [Page 29] in respect of their inconveniency, and unlawfullnesse. 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 Gods Word, against all corruptions of Idolatrie and Superstition. That the Ceremonies can neither be purged of Superstition nor Idolatry, I have proved in the 3. part of this Dispute.

4. If the manner of contending be observed, our Opposites will Sect. V be found reproveable; 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 Superiours, and the will of the Law, we contend from Gods Word and good reason, they from mans will and no reason. This was clearely seene at the first conclusion of the five Articles at Perth Assembly.

B. Lindsey him selfe relating the proceedings of the same, part. 1. p. 63. tels us, that Mr. Iohn C [...]icholl and Mr. William Sco [...]e alledged, that if any would prese to abolish the order which had been long keeped in this Church, and draw in things not receaved 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 is was the Prince (who by himselfe had power to reforme such things as were amisse in the out­ward policy of the Church) that required to have the change made: Well, since they must needs take the opponents part, they desired this question to be reasoned: [...] [...] or [...] at the Communion were the fitter gesture? This also was refused, and the question was propounded thus. His Majestydesires our gesture of sitting at the Communion to be changed into kneeling: why ought not the s [...]me to be do [...]? At lentgh when Mr. Iohn Carmichall brought an Argument from the custome and practise of the Church of Scotland, ibid pag. 64 it was answered that albeit the Argument held good against the motions of private men, yet his Majesty requiring the practise to be changed▪ matters behoved to admit a new consi­deration, and that because it was the Prince his priviledge, &c.

I must say, the B. 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 Majesties Auctority, did both exeeme the af­firmers from the paines of probation, (contrary to the lawes of dis­putation) and state the question, and also answeare 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 minde: [...] on the King: looke to the King. This, B. Lindsey passeth over in deepe silence, though it be challenged by his Antagonist. natur. Hist l [...]b. 10. cap. ult. Plinius proveth, that animalia infecta doe sometimes sleepe, because sometimes when light is holden neere them, yet they [Page 30] sturre not. And may not we conclude, that the B. was sleeping, when tho both in this, and diverse other places, such convincing light was holden out before him, yet hath he said nothing nor stur­red himselfe at all for the matter? Yet further, we finde that B. Spots­wood in his Sermon at that pretended Assembly, answeareth all such as can not yeeld to the Ceremonies with the peace of their conscien­ces; That without any more adoe, they may not controule publike judgement, but must alwayes esteeme that to be best and most seem­ly, which seemeth so in the eye of publike auctority; 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 Superiours ought to direct us and be a sufficient ground to our con­science for obeying. This is the best of their reasoning, and before all faile. Serm. on 1 Cor. 11. 16. The B. of Winchester reasoneth from bare custome. Have we not cause to renew the complaint which Thuan. Hist. lib. 16. p. 506. Ioh. Lascus made in behalfe of the Protestants in Germanie: nulla cognitione causa per colloquium aut a [...]icam suffragiorum collationem habita, sed prajudicio tantum ipsorum sen­tentiam damnari.

CHAP. VIII.

That the inexpediency of the Ceremonies, in respect of the Scandall of the weake, may be plainely perceived, 12 propositions touching Scandall are premitted.

THere remaineth yet another inconveniency found in the Ceremonies, which is Scandall; They hinder our spirituall Sect. I edification, and groweth in Faith and Plerophory, & make us stumble in stead of going forwarde. Math. 5. 29. 30. 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 bee. And what if some wide consciences thinke the Ceremonies no stumbling blockes? Nay, what if some pretend, that they edify? Plin na­tur. Hist. lib. 24. cap. 1. Ferulae asinis gratissime sunt in pabulo, [...]teris vere jumentis praesentanto vt­neno. It is enough to evince the inconveniency of the Ceremonies, that some are scandalized, yea many tender consciences are made to stumble by their meanes. We learne from our Master, Math. 18. 6. that the Scandall of one is to be cared for, much more the Scandall of many, especially if those many, be of the number of the litle ones which believe in him. But for our clearer proceeding in this Argu­ment, I will premit these propositions, of which we are to make use.

[Page 31] I. [...]; Scandall or offence is not the Sect. II grieving or displeasing of my brother; for peradventure when I grieve him or displease him, I doe edify him; now Edification and Scandall are not compatible. But Scandall, is a word or deed pro­ceeding from me, which is or may be the occasion of another mans halting, or falling into, or swerving from the straight way of righ­teousnesse. Scandulum (saith com. in Math. lib. 2. c. 15. [...]) nos offendiculum, vel ruinam & im­pactionem pedis possumus dicere: quando ergo legimus, quicunque de minimis istis scandalizaverit quempiam: hoc intelligimus: quicunque dicto factove occasionem ruina cuiquam dederit. Scandalum saith synt. Theol. lib 6. cap. 3. Col. 19. Almandus Polanus, est dictum vel fa­ctum, quo alius deterior redditur.

II. This occasion of halting, stumbling, or swerving, which we call Scandall, is sometimes onely given on the part of the offender, sometimes onely taken on the part of the offended, sometimes both given on the one part, and taken on the other. The first sort is, Scan­dall given, and not taken; The second is, Scandall taken, and not given; The third is, Scandall both taken and given.

III. All these three kindes of Scandall are sinfull. The first is the sinne of the offender; for it is a fault to give my brother occasion of stumbling, though he stumble not. The second is the sinne of the offended, who should not take offence where he hath no cause. The third is a sinne 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 hee have occasion.

IV. A Scandall given or active, is not onely such a word or deed, whereby we intend the fall of our Brother, but Aquin. 2. 2a. q. 43. art. 1. Marc. Ant. de dom. de Rep. Eccl. lib. 5. cap. 10. n. 44. also, such a word Sect. III or deed, quod de sui ration [...] habet, quod sit inductivum ad peccandum, puta cum aliquis publice facit peccatum, vel quod habet similitudinem peccati. Ioh. 16. 2. Put the case a man stay away from the Christian Assemblies, and publike worship of God, intending to employ his studies all this time, for the good of the Church by writing; such a man doth not onely not intend the fall of others, but by the contrary he intendeth edification; yet doth he scandalize them, because ratio & conditio ope­ris is scandalous and inductive to sinne.

V. An active Scandall is given (and so is faulty) many wayes. If it be in a thing lawfull, then it makes our brother condemne our lawfull deed, yea animates him by our example, to that which in his conscience he condemneth, both which are sinne. If it be in a thing unlawfull, then is the Scandall given and peccant, if either our bro­ther be made to fall into the outward act of sinne; or 2. If he bee made to stumble in his conscience, and to call in question the way of trueth; or 3. If it doe so much as to make him halt, or weaken his plerephory or full assurance; or 4. If it hinder his growth and [Page 30] [...] [Page 31] [...] [Page 32] going forward, and make him, though neither to fall, nor to stum­ble, nor to halt, yet to have a smaler progresse. Or 5. If none of these evils be produced in our brother, yet when either through our intention, and the condition of the deed togither, or through the condition of the deed alone, occasion is given him of sinning any one of these wayes. Opu [...] nostrum (r) saith a great Proctor for Popish Ceremonies, quot [...]s sive natura sua, sive superaddito accidente alicujus circum­stantiae, ( [...]) Marc. Ant de dom. de rep. Eccl. lib. 1. cap. 11. n. 18. est inductivum proximi ad peccatum, sive causativum magni mali, sive turbativum boni spiritualis; sive impeditivum fidei &c. quamvis etiam effectus non s [...]queretur, malum est & peccatum.

VI. A passive Scandall, which is taken and not given, is not onely faulty, when it proceedeth of malice, but also, when it proceedeth Sect. IV of ignorance and infirmity: and Scandalum pusillorum, may be Scandalum acceptum, on the part of the offended faulty, as well as Scandalum Pha­ris [...]orum. When weake ones are offended at me for the use of a law­full thing, before I know of their weakenesse, and their taking of offence, the Scandall is onely passive, and so we see, that weake ones may take offence where none is given, as well as the malitious. Now, their taking of offence, though it proceed of weaknesse, yet is sin­full, for their weaknesse and ignorance is a fault, and doth not ex­cuse them.

VII. A Scandall may be at first onely passive, & yet afterward be­come active. For example, Gedeons Ephod, and the brasen Serpent, were monuments of Gods mercies, and were neither evill, nor ap­pearances of evill, so that when people were first scandalized by them, the Scandall was merely passive, but the keeping and retai­ning of them, after that Scandall rose out of them, made the Scan­dall to become active also, because the reserving of them after that time, was not without appearance of evill.

VIII. The occasion of an Scandall which is onely passive should be removed, if it be not some necessary thing, & we are not onely to Sect. V shunne that which giveth Scandall, but also that whereupon follow­eth a Scandall taken, whatsoever it be, if it be not necessary. This is so evident, that Papists themselves subscribe to it, for com in 2m. 2a. q. 43. art. 7. both Cardinall Cajetan, and Dominicus Bannes say, that we should abstaine even [...] spiritualibus non necessariis when Scandall riseth out of them.

IX. Neither can the indifferency or lawfullnes of the thing done, nor the ordinance of Auctority commanding the use of it, make the Scandall following upon it, to bee onely passive, which otherwise, i. e. in case the thing were neither lawfull, nor ordained by Aucto­rity, should be active. Not the former; for Hēming. Enchir. Theol class. 3. cap. 17. Magde. burg. cent. 1. lib. 2. cap 4. Col 448. 449. our Divines teach, that Scandalum datum riseth sometimes, ex facto-in se adiaphoro when it is done intempessive, contra charitatis regulam. Not the latter; for no [Page 33] humane Auctority can take away the condition of Scandall, from that which otherwise should be Scandall, because Ames. lib. 5. de consc c. 11. q. 6. nullu [...] homo po­tist vel charitati, vel conscientiis nostris imperare, vel periculum scandali d [...]ti pres­tar [...], saith a learned Casuist.

X. A Scandall is passive and taken by the scandalized, without the fault of the doer, onely in this case, Ames. ibid q 3. cum factum unius est alteri occasio peccandi, prater intentionem facientis, & conditionem facti so that to the making of the doer blamelesse, is not onely required, that he intend not his brothers fall, but also that the deed be neither evill in it selfe, nor yet done inordinately, and with apperance of evill.

XI. The Scandall not to be cared for, is onely in necessary things, Sect. VI such as the hearing of the Word, Prayer, &c. from which we may not abstaine, though all the world should be offended at us: In these I say, and these onely, Scandalum quod oritur ex rebus per s [...] bonis & necessa­riis, non licet evitare, &c. at rerum legittimarum sed non necessariarum disparest ratio, &c. Cam [...]ro praelect. in Mat. 18. 7. de scand. saith a great Formalist.

XII. We ought for the Scandall of the malitious, to abstaine from all things from which we ought to abstaine for the Scandall of the weake; for we ought not to abstaine from necessary things for the Scandall of the weake, no more then for the Scandall of the mali­tious, and from things that are not necessary, we ought to abstaine for the Scandall of the malitious, as well as for the Scandall of the weake. So that weaknesse and malice in the offended non variant spe­ci [...]m scandali, but onely gradum ejusdem speciei. Both his fault who is offended through malice is greater, then his fault who is offended through weaknesse, and likewise his fault who offends the weake in the Faith, is greater then his fault who offends those who are mali­tious against the Faith, because as we ought to doe good to all men, so chiefly to those of the houshold of Faith. Neverthelesse, the kind of Scandall remaines the same, whether we have to doe with the malitious or the weake.

They are therefore greatly mistaken, who conclude from Paul his not circumcising of Titus, Gal. 2. 4. 5. that he cared not for the Scan­dall of the malitious. The Argument were good if those false bre­theren had been scandalized by his not circumcising of Titus; but they were onely displeased hereby, not scandalized. The Apostle saw, that they were to be scandalized by his circumcising of Titus, there­fore of very purpose he circumcised him not; Because he foresaw statim for [...] ut illi traherent in calumniam saith com. in illum locum. Calvine: Ne eo circumciso glo­riarentur Evangelieam libertatem quam Paulus praedicabat sublatam saith com­ment ibid. Bul­linger. If they had compe [...]led him to circumcise Titus, falsis fratribus parata erat calumniandi ansa adversus Paulum, saith com. ib. Par [...]us, who also in­ferreth well from this place, that we are taught to beware of two ex­treames, to wit, the Scandall of the weake on the one part, and the [Page 34] pervicacie of false bretheren on the other part: si enim (saith he) us [...] rerum mediarum videmus, vel illos offendi, hoc est in fide labefactari, vel istos in fals [...] opinione obfirmari, omittende potius sunt, quia. [...]nc per accidens fiunt illicita. Whereupon I throw back the Argument, & proves from this place, that Paul cared to shunne the Scandall of the malitious, which should have followed upon his circumcising of Titus, as well as he cared to shunne the offence of the weake, which should have followed upon his not circumcising of Timothee. And that Paul cared for the Scandall of the malitious, is further confirmed by his not taking wages at Co­rinth; they who would have been offended at his taking wages there, were malitious, and did but seeke occasion against him, 2 Cor. 11. v. 12. yet his taking wages there, not being necessary (as appeareth from, 2 Cor. 11. 9.) he abstained.

Christ his not caring for the Scandall of the Pharisees, is also ob­jected to prove, that if the thing bee lawfull or indifferent, wee are not to care for the offence of the malitious. But of the crosse part. 2. p. 57. Parker an­swereth well. The Scandall 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 doe. And Luk. 13. 15. when he defendeth his healing on Sabbaths; and his Disciples plucking cares, upon this reason, they are duties of necessity, and charity, he plainely insinuateth, there (e) Math. 12. 7. is no defence for deeds unnecessary when the malitious are scandalized. When the thing was indifferent, doth he not forgoe his liberty for to please them, as Math. 17. 27. when he payed Tribute lest he should offend them, although he know they were malitious.

Thus have I evinced a maine point, namely, that when Scandall is knowne to follow upon any thing, if it be not necessary, there is no respect whatsoever which can justify it.

CHAP. IX.

All the defences of the Ceremonies, used to justify them against the Scandall imputed to them, are confuted.

FRom that which hath been said, it followeth inevitably, Sect. I that since Scandall riseth out of the controverted Ceremo­nies and since they are not things necessary, they are to bee condemned and removed as most inconvenient. But that the incon­veniency of them, in respect of the Scandall which they cause, may be particularly and plainely evinced, I come to discusse all the de­fences which our Opposites use against our Argument of Scandall. These Formalists who aknowledge the inconveniency of the Cere­monies in respect of Scandall, and yet conforme themselves to the [Page 35] same, are brought in by Eccl. Pol. pag. 246. Hooker making their Apology on this wise. Touching the offence of the weake, we must adventure it, if they perish, they perish &c. our Pastorall charge is Gods absolute commandement, ra­ther then that shall be taken from us, &c. The opinion of such, beside that it will be hatefull and accursed to every one who considereth it, I have supra cap. 1. said enough against it heretofore.

Wherefore I will here medle onely with such, as goe about to Sect. II purge the Ceremonies from the inconveniency of Scandall. And first, they commonly answer us, that the Scandall which followeth upon the Ceremonies, is passive and taken onely, not active and given: which answer I find both impertinent and false. It is imper­tinent, because put the case the Scandall were onely 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 8. 11. and 12 Proposi­tions; and if any of our Opposites will denie this, let them blush for shame. Mal [...] ­nat. com. in illum locum. A Iesuite shall correct them, and teach them from Math. 17. 27. That Christ shunned a Scandall, which would have been merely passive, and therefore that this is not to be taken for a sure and perpetuall rule, Scandalum datum, non acceptum esse vitandum. Pareu [...] com. ibid. One of our owne Writers upon this same place noteth, that this Scandall which Christ eshewed, had been a Scandall taken onely, because the exactors of the tribute money, ought not to have been ignorant of Christ his immunity and dignity, yet because they were ignorant of the same, lest he should seeme to give a Scandall; cedere potius sua libertate voluit. Ideo non tantum dicit: ne scandalizentur: sed ne scandalizemus cos, hoc est, ne scandali materiam eis demus.

Their answeare is also false; 1. There is no scandall taken, but (if Sect. III it be knowen to be taken, and the thing at which it is taken be not necessary,) it is also given. The Scandall of the weake in the Apostles times, who were offended with the liberty of eating all sorts of meats, was passive and taken, as com. in Eph. 4. 13. Zanchius observeth, yet was that Scandall given and peccant, upon their part who used their liberty of eating all sorts of meats, & so cared not for the offence of the weake. 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 a knowledge; and that they are not necessary in respect of the Churches determination, I have proven in the first part of my Dis­pute. Wherefore having no necessity in them, they ought to be abo­lished, when scandall is knowen to arise out of them.

2. Giving and not graunting, that the Scandall of them who were first offended at the Ceremonies, was only passive, yet the using of [Page 36] them after Scandall is knowen to rise out of them, must be an active Scandall, because the keeping of a thing which is not necessary, af­ter scandall riseth out of it, is an active Scandall, though the Scandall which at first rose out of it, had beene only passive, as I shew in my seventh Proposition.

3. The trueth is, that both first and last, the Scandall of the Cere­monies is active and given; for an active Scandall is dictum vel factum vere malum, aut mali speciem habens, quo auctor aliis peccandi occasionem prae­bet, say Polan. Synt. theol. lib. 6. c. 3. col. 19. our Divines. An active Scandall is ever a sinne in him who offendeth, quia vel ipsum opus quod facit est peccatum, vel etiam si ha­beat speciem peccati, &c. Say the Aquin. 2. 2 [...]. q. 43. art. 2. Schoolmen. A scandall given and faulty, id opus aut ex se malum, aut apparenter, say Marc. Ant de dom. de rep. eccl. lib. 1. c. 11. n. 18. Formalists themselves.

Now to say the least that can be said, the Ceremonies have a very Sect. IV great appearance of evill, and so the Scandall which followeth them shall be proven to be active. Cent. 1. lib. 2. cap. 4. col. 450. The Divines of Magdeburge inferre from 1. Thess. 5. 22. speciem mali etiam scandala conficere. com. in Daniel. 1. 8. Iunius tea­cheth that Scandall is given sive exemplo malo, sive speciem habente mali. de rep. Eccles. lib. 5. cap. 10. n. 44. M. Ant. de dominis maketh the scandall sinne, 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 evill which is in the Ceremo­nies, let us consider with comm. in 1 Thess. 5. 22. Zanchius, that the appearance of evill, from which the Apostle exhorteth to abstaine, may be expounded two wayes. First, it may be referred to the preceeding words, and so meant of Prophecie and trying the Doctrine of Prophets or Prea­chers, for we should be ware in this matter, of all which hath any ap­pearance of evill, 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 Sonne of God, but of the sonne of man. Now if any suppressing that negative, should say, we are saved by the blood of the sonne of man, though this might receave a right explication, yet it hath an appea­rance of evill, because from it Nestorius might confirme his heresie. Appearance of evill thus expounded, will be found in the Ceremo­nies in question. If a Phrase or forme of speaking, from which He­retikes may draw bad consequences, & confirme their errors, though not truly, yet in shew, be an appearance of evill; then much more are visible Ceremonies and receaved Customes, from which Here­tikes get occasion to confirme their hereticall errors and damnable superstitions, very plaine and undeniable appearances of much evill.

Now Papists confirme many of their superstitions by the English [Page 37] Ceremonies. of the crosse cap. 3. sect. 6. Parker giveth too many cleare instances, namely, that by the English Crosse, Martiall justifyeth the Popish Crosse; And Saunders, the Popish Images; That the English Service booke, is dra­wen by Parsons and Bristowe, to a countenancing of their Masse­booke: That Rainold draweth privat Baptisme, to a proofe of the necessity which they put in that Sacrament: That the Rhemists drawe the Absolution of the sicke, prescribed in the Communion-booke, to an approbation of their Absolution, Auricular Confession, and Sacrament of Pennance. To these Instances I adde, that annot. on Gal. 4. 10. the Rhe­mists confirme their Feast of the assumption of Mary, from the other Feasts which the Church of England observeth. And so doth, confer. with Rain. c. 8. div. 2. pag. 408. 410. I. Hart.

It will be said, that Papists have no ground nor reason to confirme Sect. V any of their superstitions by the English Ceremonies. But I answere: 1. If it were so, yet for asmuch, as Papists draw them to a confir­mation of their superstitions, we should abstaine from them as ap­pearances of evill. Eating (at a privat banquet) of that which was sacrificed to Idols, did confirme ane Idolater and Infidell in his religion, as com. in 1. Cor. 10. 28. Pareus noteth: yet from this, the Idolater had no reason to confirme himselfe in his Idolatry; but because the Idolater seeing it, might draw it to a confirmation; the Apo­stle will have it for that respect foreborne. When the Arrians abused Trin immersion in Baptisme, to signify three natures of the three persons, lib. 1. epist. 41. Pope Gregory and Can. 5. the fourth Councell of Toledo ordained, that in Spaine, thrise washing should no longer be used in Baptisme, but once only. The Arrians had no just reason to draw such a signification from the Ceremony of Trin-immersion: yet was it abolished when those Heretikes did so abuse it. If any say, that we are saved by the blood of the sonne of man, the phrase is orthodoxe, because of the communication or rather communion of properties, and the Nestorians can not with good reason by it confirme their He­resie, yet are we to abstaine from this forme of speach, in Zan­chius his judgment, when it is drawen to the confirmation of that error.

I conclude with that which ubi su­pra. Parker alledgeth out of the Harmony of Confessions. Cum adiaphora rapiuntur ad confessionem, libera esse desinunt. Marke rapiuntur. 2. The Ceremonies doe indeed greatly counte­nance those superstitions of Papists: because Bald. de cas. consc. lib. 2. cap. 14. cas. 7. Communio rituum est quasi symbolum communionis in Religione: 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, & making both their opinions and their practi­ses to be better, then we reckon them to be.

[Page 38] N fratri & amico art. 13. Saravia perceaving how much the Popish Sacrament of Con­firmation, is countenanced & confirmed by our Bishoping, thinkes 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 doe not extoll the dignity of the Sacrament of Confirmation above Baptisme. But he should have considered that which Annot. on Act. 8. sect. 5. Cartwright marketh out of the first Tome of the Councells, that in the Epistle which is ascribed to Eusebius & Melciades Bishops of Rome, it is plainly affirmed, that the Sacrament of Confirmation is more to be reverenced then the Sacrament of Baptisme.

Zanchius hath another exposition of the appearance of evill, which doth also agree to the Ceremonies. The appearance of evill which Sect. VI maketh Scandall, and from which the Apostle would have us to ab­staine, may be taken generally of all sorts of sinne, & all evill things whatsoever: for so we should abstaine from all that which hath any appearance of evill; nullam praebentes occasionem proximo nostro aliquid mali de nobis suspicandi. He instanceth for example, the ea [...]ing of Ido­lothytes in Pauls time, 1. Cor. 10. now if the eating of Idolothyte Meats, was an appearance of evill, and so scandalous, because it gave the weake occasion to suspect some evill of such as did eat them; much more Idolothyte Rites which have not only beene dedicated and consecrated to the honour of Idolls, but also publikely and com­monly used and imployed in Idolatrous [...]ship; surely whosoever useth such Idolothytes, gives great occ [...]on to his brother to suspect some evill of him, because of such evill favoured appearances. And thus we see, how great appearance of evill, is more then mani­fest in the Ceremonies, which maketh the Scandall active, if there were no more. But afterwards we shall see the Ceremonies to be evill and unlawfull in themselves, and so to be in the worst kinde of active Scandall.

Two things are objected here by our Adversaries, to make it ap­peare Sect. VII that the Scandall of Conformity, is not active nor fautly upon their part. 1. They say, they are blamelesse, because they render a reason of that which they doe, so that we may know the lawfullnesse of it. To this, sufficient answere hath beene made allready, by one whose answeres I may well produce to provoke Conformists there­with, because no reply hath ever beene made to them. This saith Park. of the crosse part. 2. pag. 57. 1. Thess. 5. 14. Rom. 14. 16. 1. Cor. 9. 12. 1. Thess. 2. 7. Act. 20. 34. Math. 18. 6. he, if it be true, then see we an end of all the duty of bearing with the weake: of forbearing our owne liberty, power, and auctority in things indiffe­rent, for their supportance: yea an end of all the care to prevent their of­fence, by giving them occasion Cornel. Iansen. conc. Evang. c. 71. aut condemnandi factum nostrum, aut illud [Page 39] imitandi contra conscientiam, which we have Aug. de mor. b Manich l. 2. cap. 14. Rom. 14. 20. so often, so seriously, with so many reasons, obtestations, yea woes and threatnings commanded to us throughout the Word What needed Paul to write so much against the scandall of meates, and against the scandall of Idolothious meats? This one precept might have sufficed, let the strong give a reason for his eating, &c. Though be hath given many reasons to them of Corinth for the lawfullnesse of taking wages: though he hath given divers reasons for the lawfullnesse of all sorts of meats to them of Rome; yet neither will he take wages himselfe, nor suffer others to eat all sorts of meats, when others are offended. And what is that which he writeth Rom. 14 Take and receave the weak for their supportance, and not for contraversy and disputation? &c.

It will be said, that they are to be thought obstinate, who after a rea­son given, are still scandalized. But the answere is in readinesse, Ames. lib. 5. de consc. c. 11. q. 6. Fieri potest ut quidam nondum sint capaces rationis redditae, qui idcirco quamvis ratio sit illis reddita, habendi sunt adhuc pro pusillis. They are ra­ther to be thought obstinate in scandalizing, who perceiving the scandall to remaine notwithstanding of their reason given, yet for all that, take not away the occasion of the scandall. But say Dr For­besse Iren. lib. 2. c 20. num. 27. some, whoever ought to be esteemed weake, or not capable of reason, Mi­nisters must not be so thought of. Whereunto I answere with Dido­clavius; Infirmitatem in doctiores cadere posse, neminem negaturum puto, & superiorum temporum historia de dimicatione inter doctores Ecclesiae, ob Cere­monias, (l) Alt. da­masc cap. 9. pag. 556. 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 Auctority; or if at any time they give another reason, it is such a one as can not cleare nor resolve our con­sciences. But let their reasons be so good as any can be, shall we be thought obstinate for being offended not with standing of their rea­son? Dare they say that those who contended so much of old about the Celebration of Easter, and about the Fast of the Sabbath, were not weake, but obstinate & malicious, after a reason was given? Why consider they not, Park. of the crosse part. 2. pag. 75. that men may for their science be profitable mini­sters, and yet faile of that measure of prudency whereby to judge of a parti­cular use of indifferent things.

2. They say, they give no Scandall by the Ceremonies, because Sect. VIII they have no such intent as to drawe any into sinne by them. Ans. A scandalous and inordinat quality, or condition of an action any way inductive to sinne, maketh an active Scandall, though the doer have no intention to draw into sinne. This I made good in my 4. Pro­position; and it is further confirmed by that great Scandall whereby Peter compelled the Gentiles to judaize Gal. 2. 14. He constrained them saith com. upon this place. Perkins, by the auctority of his example, whereby he caused them to thinke that the observation of the Ceremoniall Law was necessary. It was then the quality of his action which made the Scandall active, because [Page 40] that which he did was inductive to sinne, but we are not to think that Peter had an intention to drawe the Gentiles to sinne. Tom. 1. an. 55. n. 39. Cardinall Baronius laboureth to make Peter blamelesse, & his fact free of all fault; quia praeter ipsius spem id acciderat, and it fell forth only ex accidenti & inopinato, ac praeter intentionem ipsius. de rep. eccl. lib. 1. cap. 11. n. 18. M. Ant. de dominis consuteth him well: Est scandalum & cum peccato, quando quis licet non intendat pecca­tum alterius, facit tamen opus aut ex se malum aut apparenter, ex quo scit, aut scire debet, consequuturum alterius peccatum, aut quodcunque malum: nam etiam dicitur illud volentarium interpretative.

I will yet descend more particularly to confute our Opposites their severall answeares and defences, which they have used against Sect. IX our Argument of Scandall. And I beginne with our Lord Chancel­lour; As for the Godly amongst us Serm. at Perth. as­semb. saith he, we are sorry they should be grieved, but it is their owne fault: for if the things be in themselves lawfull, what is it that should offend them?

Ans. 1. He does not well expresse Scandall (whereof he is there speaking) by griefe, for I may be grieved, yet not scandalized, and scandalized, yet not grieved, according to my first proposition touch­ing Scandall.

2. To what purpose tells he, it is their owne fault? Thinkes he that there are any offended without their owne fault? Non enim solum scandaliza­re, sed etiam scandalizari peccatum, est, quia in­firmitatis est saith Mal­donat. upon Math. 18. 7. To be offended is ever a fault, as I shew in my 3. and 6. Propositions; so that if a Scandall be not removed, where it is mens owne fault that they are offended, then no Scandall shall ever be removed; because all who are scandalized, commit a fault in being Scandalized. Nihil potest esse hominicausa sufficiens peccati, quod est spiritualis ruina, nisi propria vo­luntas, & ideo dicta vel facta alterius hominis possunt esse solum causa imper­fecta aliqualiter inducens ad ruinam, saith 2. 2a. q. 43 art. 1. Aquinas; giving a reason why in the definition of Scandall, he saith not, that it giveth cause, but that it giveth occasion of ruine.

3. Why thinkes he, that if the things be in themselves lawfull, they are purged of Scandall? 1. Cor. 10. 23. what if they edify not? what if hey be not expedient? are they not therefore scandalous, because in themselves lawfull? this shift is destroyed by my 9. Proposi­tion. And I pray, were not all meats lawfull for the Gentiles in the Apostles times? yet this could not excuse their eating all sorts of meats, when the Iewes were thereby offended.

4. Whereas he demandeth, if the thinges be in themselves lawfull; what is it that should offend them? I demand againe; though adul­tery, murder &c. be in themselves unlawfull, what is it that should offend us? should we offend or be scandalized for any thing? hay, then we should sinne, for to be offended is a sinne.

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 answere, [Page 41] that there is a twofold Scandall which may be and hath beene given by thinges lawfull in themselves, (as I touched in my. 5. Proposition) Viz. the giving of occasion to the weake to condemne our lawful deeds, & the animating of them to followe our example against their owne consciences: both wayes we make them to sinne. The Apostle 1. Cor. 10. 29. where he is speaking of a certaine kind of Idolothyts which are in themselves lawfull, and only evill in the case of Scandall, sheweth, that if the weake in a privat banquet, see the stronge eating such meates as have beene offered to Idolls, notwith standing of war­ning given, then is the weake one scandalized; because would the A­pole say, Pare us com in il­lumlocum. velipse etiam edet tuo exemplo, vacillante conscientia, vel tacite factum tuum damnabit. Behold what Scandall may arise, even out of thinges which are in themselves lawfull, which also ariseth out of the Ceremonies, (let them be as lawfull as can be.) 1. We are pro­voked to dissallow of lawfull thinges, and to condemne the doers, as superstitious and popishly affected. 2. We are animated by the ex­ample of Formalists to practise Conformity, which in our conscien­ces we condemne, and by consequence doe sinne, because he that doubteth is damned, and whatsoever is not of faith, is sinne.

Let us see next how the Bishop of Edinburgh can helpe the cause. Sect. X He will have us not to respect Scandall, because it is removed by the Law. For Epist. to the past. of the Church of Scotland saith he, by obedience to a lawfull ordinance, no man gives Scandall. And if any take offence, both the cause and occasion thereof is the perversnesse only of the person offended. Tertullian saith well, res bona nemi­nem offendit nisi malam mentem.

Ans. 1. I shew in my 9. Proposition, that the ordinance of Su­periours can not make that to be no scandall which otherwise should be Scandall. If this be not taken well from us, let Dr. For­besse Iren. lib. 2. cap. 20. num. 19. one of our Opposites speake for us; who aknowledgeth, that human power can not make us doe that which we can not doe without giving of Scan­dall, and that in this case, the pretext of obedience to Superiours shall not excuse us at the hands of the Supreme judge.

2. I would learne of him what makes a lawfull ordinance about matters of fact or thinges to be done? Not the will of Superiours; else there shall be no unlawfull ordinances; (for every ordinance hath the will of the ordainer:) Not the lawfullnesse of the thing in it selfe which is ordained neither; for then every ordinance, which prescri­beth a thing lawfull in it selfe, were it never so inexpedient in respect of supervenient circum stances, should be lawfull. To a lawfull or­dinance then required, not only that the thing ordained be lawfull in it selfe, is also that it be not inexpedient. So that a thing may be lawfull in itselfe, yet not lawfully ordained, because the ordinance commandeth the doing of it, whereas there are many thinges lawfull which ought not to be done, because they are not expedient, 1. Cor. 6. 12.

[Page 42] 3. Since it can not be a lawfull ordinance which ordaineth a thing inexpedient, it can not be a lawfull obedience which is yeelded to such an ordinance.

4. If by a lawfull ordinance he meane (as it seems he doth) an or­dinance prescribing, that which is lawfull in it selfe, then his answere is false. What if an ordinance of Superiours, had ordained the Corin­thians to eate freely of all meates which were in themselves cleane? Durst the Bishop say, that this ordinance of Superiours had beene of greater waight and superiour reason, then the Law of Charity which is Gods Law? Had no man given scandall 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 lawfull prescribed by an ordinance, the cause thereof is indeed in himselfe (yet it is not al­wayes his perversnesse, but oftimes weaknesse:) 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 shew already.

6. As for that sentence of Tertullian, it must admit the exception of a reverend Divine. He signifieth (saith comm. in. 1 Cor. 8. 9. Paraeus) scandall not to be properly committed, save in thinges evill in themselves, or else indifferent: quanquam interdum circa bonas intempestive factas etiam com­mitti possit.

In the third place we will looke what weapons of warre Dr. lib 2. c. 20. num. 5. & 6. For­besse Sect. XI produceth in his Irenicum, falsly so called. And first, he will not heare us touching Scandall, except we first a knowledge the Ceremo­nies not to be evill in themselves: otherwise he thinks we debate in vaine about Scandall, since we have a more convenient way to exter­minat the Ceremonies by proving them to be evill in themselves, and also because when we are pressed with the weight of Arguments, we will still runne back to this point, that nothing which in it selfe is un­lawfull, can be done without Scandall.

Ans. 1. The Argument of Scandall is not vainly or idly debated, for though we prove the Ceremonies to be evill in themselves, yet fitly we argument also from the Scandall of them, because this ma­keth yet more. 1. ad rem; For the Scandall of a thing is more then the unlawfullnesse of it: every unlawfull 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 yeeld the Ce­remonies to be in themselves indifferent, therefore they must a know­ledge that they are to be foreborne, because scandall followeth upon them, & they should abstaine from thinges indifferent, in the case of scandall.

2. Whereas he thinkes we will still turne back to the unlawfull­nesse [Page 43] of the Ceremonies in themselves, albeit we may justly make use of this answear, when they goe about to purge the Ceremonies from Scandall by the lawfullnesse of them in themselves, (because the Argument of Scandall doeth not presuppose our concession of the lawfulnesse of the Ceremonies, but theirs;) yet he deceives him­selfe in thinking that we can not handle this Argument without it, for were they never so lawfull in themselves, we supra sect. 4. 5. 6. evince the Scan­dall of them from the appearance of evill which is in them, so that without respecting the unlawfullnesse of the Ceremonies in them­selves, we can and doe make good our Argument of Scandall, so farre as concerneth the Ceremonies considered by themselves.

But when our Opposites object, that many are scandalized by us who refuse the Ceremonies, we here compare the Scandall of Non-conformity, if there be any such (for though some be displeased at it, I see not how they are scandalized by it,) with the Scandall of Conformity, and shew them that the Scandall of Non-conformity is not to be cared for, because it is necessary, and that by reason of the unlawfullnesse of the Ceremonies. I will make all this plaine by a simile.

A Pastor dealing with a Fornicator, layeth before him both his sinne and the Scandall of it too. Now as touching the Scandall, 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 Scandall riseth out of it, you should abstaine. And so amongst many Arguments against Forni­cation, the Pastor useth this Argument taken from the Scandall of it, both for aggravating the sinne in it selfe, and for convincing the sinner, and this Argument of Scandall, the Pastor can make good against the Fornicator, out of his owne ultroneous and unre­quired concession of the indifferency of Fornication (because things indifferent and in the case of Scandall, and when they are done with the appearance of evill, should be forborne) without ever mentio­ning the unlawfulnesse of it. But if in an froward tergiversation, the Fornicator beginne to reply, that he also is scandalized and pro­voked to goe on in his Fornication obstinately, by the Pastors re­buking him for so light a matter, and that the Pastors reproofe to him hath appearance of evill, as much as his Fornication hath to the Pastor: Albeit here it may be answered, that the Pastors reproofe is not done inordinatè, neither hath any appearance of evill, except in the Fornicators perverse interpretation, yet for stopping the For­nicators mouth as well more forcibly as more quickly, the Pastor rejoyndeth, that if any scandall followe upon his reproofe, it is not to be regarded, because the thing is necessary and that because For­nication beeing a great sinne, he may not but reprove it.

So, albeit our Argument of Scandall holdeth out against the Ce­remonies [Page 44] considered by themselves, without making mention of the unlawfulnesse of them in themselves: albeit also when the Scan­dall of Non-conformity (if there bee any such) is compared with the Scandall of Conformity, we say truly, that this hath appearance of evill 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, & darting through their most subtile subterfuges, with a mortall stroke, we send them away with this finall answer; you should abstaine from the Ceremo­nies when Scandall riseth out of them, because you confesse them to be in themselves indifferent. But we doe avouch and prove them to be unlawfull, wherefore it is necessary for us to abstaine, though all the world should be offended.

The ibid. num. 7. Dr. proceedeth to throw backe the Argument of Scandall upon our own heads, and to charge us with scandalizing both the Sect. XII Church and common wealth, by our refusing the Ceremonies. But what? should a Doctor be a Dictator? or a Proctor, a Prater? why then doeth he ventilate words for reason? That some are displeased at our Non-conformity, we understand to our great griefe: but that thereby any are scandalized, we understand not, and if we did, yet that which is necessary, such as Non-conformity is, can be taken away by no Scandall.

But Num. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. the Dr. goeth forward, denying that there is in the Cere­monies so much as any appearance of evill, to make them Scanda­lous. Where I observe, that he dare not adventure to describe how a thing is said to have appearance of evill, and consequently a scan­dalous condition. The man is cautelous, and perceiveth peradven­ture, that the appearance of evill can be made to appeare no other thing, then that which doeth more then appeare in the Ceremo­nies. And this I have heretofore evinced out of Zanchius.

The Num. 15, 16. Dr. holdeth him upon kneeling in receiving the Sacramen­tall Elements, and denieth that it is scandalous, or any way indu­ctive to spirituall ruine. But (if he will) he may consider, that the ruder sort who can not distinguish betwixt worshipping the Bread, and worshipping before the Bread, nor discerne 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 downe before the consecrated Bread, in the very same forme and fashion, wherein Papists are seen to worship it, but can not 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 ruine, being animated by his example to doe that which their consciences doe condemne.

[Page 45] There occurreth next an objection taken from Paul his not taking wages at Corinth, (though he might lawfully) for shunning the of­fence both of the malitious and the weake: In the solution whereof Num. 17. the Dr. spendeth some words. The substance of his answer is this: that Paul taught it was lawfull to take wages, and that they should not be offended at it, and if we doe as he did, we must teach that the Ceremonies are lawfull in themselves, yet not using our power for the time, lest the weake be offended, or lest the malitious 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 Ecclesiasticall 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 Ecclesiasticall Auctority, abstaine from taking of wages, but we can not without contempt of the Church, reject the Articles.

Ans. 1. This importeth, that if the question were not de jure, and if we misliked the Ceremonies, and were offended at them, for some other reason then their unlawfulnesse, for this offence they would abstaine. It may be his reverend Fathers returne him small thankes for this device. For let some men be brought forth, acknowledging the Ceremonies to bee in themselves indifferent, yet offended at them for their inexpediency, whether they be weake or malitious, the Dr. thinkes he should abstaine for their cause.

2. How knowes he, that they who were offended at Paul his ta­king of wages at Corinth, thought not his taking of wages there un­lawfull, even as we thinke the Ceremonies unlawfull?

3. Why judgeth he that we are not scandalized through weak­nesse, but through malice and contumacy? So he giveth it forth both in this place, and Iren. lib. 1. cap. 10. §. 2. else where. Who art thou that judgeth another mans servant?

But 4. If we were malitious in offending at the Ceremonies as things unlawfull, and in urging of Non-conformity as necessary, should they therefore contemne our beeing scandalized? Those that would have Titus circumcised, were they not malitious? Did they not urge Circumcision as necessary? Held they it not unlawfull, not to circumcise Titus? yet did the Apostle abstaine, because they were to be scandalized, that is, made worse and more wicked calumnia­tors, by the circumcising of Titus, as supra cap. 8. sect. 6. I have shewed; so that albeit wee are not to care for the displeasing of men, that malitiously and contumaciously, urge (as necessary) abstaining from that which is lawfull to be done; yet must we care for scandalizing them and ma­king them worse: rather ere that be, we ought to abstaine from the use of our liberty.

5. If an Ecclesiasticall decree had commanded Paul at that time [Page 46] to take wages at Corinth, the Dr. thinkes hee had contemned Eccle­siasticall Auctority in not taking wages, though some should be of­fended at his taking wages. What? could an Ecclesiasticall decree command Paul to take wages in the case of Scandall? or could hee have obeyed such a decree in the case of Scandall? We have seen be­fore, that no humane Auctority, can make that no Scandall, which otherwise were Scandall: so that Paul had not contemned Ecclesias­ticall Auctority, by not obeying their command, in this case of Scan­dall which had followed by his obeying: for he had not been bound to obey, nay hee had been bound not to obey in such a case, yea further, albeit Scandall had not been to follow by his taking wages, yet he had no more contemned the Church by not obeying a com­mand to take wages, then he had done by living unmarried, if the Church had commanded him to marry. The bare Auctority of the Church could neither restraine his liberty nor ours in things in diffe­rent, when there is no more to binde but the Auctority of an ordi­nance.

6. Why holds he us contemners of the Church, for not receiving the five Articles of Perth? we can not be called contemners for not obeying, but for not subjecting our selves, wherewith we can not be charged. Could he not distinguish betwixt subjection and obe­dience? Art thou a Doctor in Israell, and knowest not these things? Nay, art thou a Conformist, and knowest not what thy Field of the Church lib. 4. cap. 34. & Bils. apud Parker of the Crosse part. 2. pag. 33. fellow Conformists doe hold?

One point more resteth, at which ibid. l. 2. cap. 20. num. 14. the Dr. holdeth him in this Argument, namely, that for the offence of the weake, necessary Sect. XIII things are not to be omitted, such as is obedience to Superiours, but their mindes are to be better informed.

Ans. 1. Obedience to Superiours can not purge that from Scan­dall which otherwise were Scandall, as supra cap. 8. sect. 5. & cap. 9. sect, 10. we have seen before.

2. That information and giving of a reason, can not excuse the doing of that out of which Scandall riseth, ibid. sect. 7. we have also proven already.

3. That the Ordinance of Superiours can not make the Ceremo­nies necessary, I have proven in the first part of this Dispute. This Morney mister. of iniq. in the conclus. is given for one of the chiefe markes of the man of sinne, That which is indifferent, he by his lawes and prohibitions maketh to be sinne, and shall they who professe to take part with Christ against Antichrist, doe no lesse then this? It will be replyed, that the Ceremonies are not thought necessary in themselves, nor Non-conformity, unlaw­full in it selfe, but onely in respect of the Churches ordinance. Iust so Aquin. 3. q. 66. art. 8. Rh [...]m. an­not. on Math. 16. sect. 5. Bell. de Pontif. Rom. lib. 4. cap. 18. & de sacrif. miss [...] lib. 6. c. 13. the Papists professe, that the omission of their Rites and ob­servances, is not a sinne in it selfe, but onely in respect of contem­ning [Page 47] the Churches Customes and Commandements. How comes it then, that they are not ashamed to pretend such a necessity for the stumbling blockes of those offending Ceremonies among us, as Pa­pists pretend for the like among them?

But the English Formalists have here somewhat to say, which we will heare. Eccl. Pol. lib. 4. 11. 12. Mr. Hooker tell us, that Ceremonies are scandalous Sect. XIV either in their very nature, or else through the agreement of men to rise them unto evill; and that Ceremonies of this kind, are either de­vised at first unto evill, 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 owne nature; nor because they were devised unto evill; nor yet be­cause they of the Church of England abuse them unto evill.

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 trophees of Antichrist, and the reliques of Romes whoorish bravery: they must be graunted, at least for this respect, to be more then manifest appearances of evill, and so scan­dalous.

But 2. It is falle which he saith, for kneeling in receiving the Com­munion, is in its owne nature evill and Idolatrous, because reli­gious Adoration, before a mere creature, which purposly wee set before us in the act of adoring, to have state in the worship, espe­cially if it be an actuall Image in that act representing Christ to us, (such as the Bread in the act of receiving,) draweth us within the compasse of coadoration or relative worship, as shall be copiously proven afterwards.

Other of the Ceremonies that are not evill in their owne nature, yet were devised to evill, for example, the Surplice. The cap. 1. sect. 3. replier to Dr. Mourtons Particular defence, observeth, that this superstition about apparell in Divine worship, beganne first among the Frensh Bishops, unto whom Caelestinus writeth thus. Discernendi, &c. We are to be distinguished from the common people and others, by Doctrine, not by Garment, by Conversation, not by Habite, by the Purity of minde, not by At­tire: for if wee study to innovation, we tread underfoot the order which hath been delivered unto us by our Fathers, to make place to idle superstitions; where­fore we ought not leade the mindes of the Faithfull into such things: for they are rather to be instructed then played withall: neither are we to blinde and be­guile their eyes, but to infuse instructions into their mindes. In which words Caelestinus reprehends this apparell, as a novelty which [...]nded to su­perstition, and made way to the mocking and deceiving of the faith­full.

[Page 48] Lastly, whereas he saith, the Ceremonies are not abused by them in England I instance the contrary in Holy-dayes. expos. of the creed art. of Christs birth. Perkins saith, that the Feast of Christs Nativity, so cōmonly called, is not spent in praising the name of God, but in riffling, dycing, carding, masking, mumming, and in all licentious liberty, for the most part, as though it were some Heathen Feast of Ceres or Bacchu [...]. And com. on Gal. 4. 10. elsewhere he complaineth of the great abuse of Holy-dayes among them.

As touching the rule which is alledged against the Ceremonies out of Pauls Doctrine, namely, that in those things from which Sect. XV we may lawfully abstaine, we should frame the usage of our liber­ty with regard to the weaknesse of our bretheren. Hooker answea­reth to it. 1. That the weake bretheren among them, were not as the Iewes, who were knowne to be generally weake, whereas saith he, the imbecillity of ours is not common to so many, but onely here and there some such a one is found. 2. He tels us, that these scandalous meats, from which the Gentiles were exhorted to ab­staine for feare of offending the Iewes, can not 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 him­selfe did; but the Ceremonies are publike constitutions for orde­ring the Church, and wee are not to looke that the Church is to change her publike lawes and ordinances, made according to that which is judged ordinarily and commonly fittest for the whole, al­though it chaunce 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 bee better instructed.

Ans. 1. This is bad divinity, that would make us not regard the scandalizing of a few particular men; Christs Math. 18, 6. woe stricketh not onely upon them who offend many, but even upon them who of­fend so much as one of his litls ones.

2. That which he saith of the few in England, and not many, who are scandalized by the Ceremonies, hath been answered by a Parker of the crosse cap. [...]. sect. 10. Countryman of his owne. 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 scandalized by the Ceremonies: some are ledde by them to drinke in superstition, and to fall into sundry grosse abu­ses in Religion; others are made to use them doubtingly and so dammably. And how many who refuse them, are animated to use them against their consciences, and so to bee damned? who is not made to stumble? and what way doe they not impede the Edifica­tion of the Church?

[Page 49] 3. What if there had been a publike constitution, commanding the Gentiles to eat all meates freely, and that this had been judged ordinarily and commonly fittest for the whole, even to signifie the liberty of the Church of the New Testament? should not the Gen­tiles notwithstanding of this constitution, have abstained because of the Scandall of the Iewes? How comes it then that that which the Apostle writeth against the Scandall of meates, & the reasons which he giveth, are found to hold ever good, whether there be a consti­tution or not?

4. As for his remedy against the Scandall of particular men, which is to instruct them better, it hath beene answeared sect, 7. before.

Now if I reck on Paybody to be no body, perhaps some body will Sect. XVI: not take it well. I will therefore examine how he handleth this Ar­gument. Four things are answered Apol. part. 3. cap. 5. by him to those places, Rom. 14. and 15. 1 Cor. 8. and 10. Muth. 18. 6. which are alledged against the use of things indifferent, when wee can not use them without Scandall.

First, he saith, that all those Scriptures which are quotted as condemning the scandalizing of others in things indifferent, speake onely of scandalizing them who are weake.

Ans. 1. be it so: thought he that they are all malitious, and none weake, who are offended by the Ceremonies? He himselfe descri­beth the weak whom we are forbidden to scandalize, to be such as are weake in knowledge and certainty of the truth. Now there are many who are in this respect weake, scandalized 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, & that stability which should accompa­ny all their actions, in the particular usage of such things as they knowe certainely in their generall kinde to bee agreeable to trueth and righteousnesse. 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 scandalized according to my fifth Proposition. Si quis nostra culpa vel impingit, vel abducitur a recto curs [...], vel tardatur, cum di­cimur offendere saith com. in Mat. 18. 6. Calvine. Porro scandalum est dictum vel factum quo impeditur Evangelij cursus, cujus ampliationem & propagationem, totius vitae nostrae scopum esse oportet saith com. 1 Cor. 8. Martyr.

2. It is a fault to give offence even to the strong, or else Math. 16. 23. Peter was not to be blamed for giving offence to Christ. Yea it is a fault [Page 50] to offend the very malitious by-things that are not necessary, as I have proven in my 12 Proposition.

Secondly saith he, all those Scriptures condemne onely the Scan­dall of the weake, which is made at that time, when we know they Sect. XVII will be scandalized.

Ans. 1. If he speake of certaine and infallible knowledge, none but God knoweth whether a man shall be scandalized or not, by that which we are to doe: He must meane therefore of such knowledge as we can have of the event of our actions: and so his answere brin­geth great damnage to his owne cause. Formalists knowe, that their weake bretheren have been of a long time scandalized by the Cere­monies, and they heare them professing that they are yet scandali­zed, and how then can they but knowe that Scandall will still follow upon that which they doe?

2. Albeit they know not that their bretheren will be scandalized by the Ceremonies, yea albeit their bretheren should not be scandali­zed thereby, yet because the Ceremonies are appearances of evill; inductive to sinne; and occasions of ruine; Scandall is given by them, whether it be taken by their bretheren or not, according to my 4 and 5 Propositions.

Thirdly saith Paybody, all those Scriptures condemne onely that Sect. XVIII offence of another in things indifferent, which is made by him who is at liberty and not bound: they speake not of using or refusing those things, as men are tied by the commandement of Auctority. Where he laboureth to prove, that obedience to the Magistrate in a thing indifferent, is a better duty then the pleasing of a private person in such a thing.

Ans. 1. I have proven heretofore, that the commandement of Auctority, can not make the use of a thing indifferent to bee no Scandall, which otherwise were Scandall.

2. I have also proven in the first part of this Dispute, that an Ec­clesiasticall constitution can not bind us nor take away our liberty in the using or not using of a thing indifferent in it selfe, except some other reason bee shewed us then the bare Auctority of the Church. As touching the civill Magistrate, his place and power, to judge and determine in things pertaining to the worship of God, we shall see it afterwards, and so shall we knowe how farre his decisions and ordinances in this kinde of things, have force to binde us to obe­dience.

3. He should have proven, that obedience to the Magistrate in a thing indifferent, is a better duty then abstaining from that which [Page 51] scandalizeth many Christians: he should not have opposed pleasing and scandalizing (for perhaps a man is most scandalized when he is most pleased;) but edifying and scandalizing, according to my first Proposition. Now will any body, except Paybody, say, that obe­dience to the Magistrate in a thing indifferent, out of which Scan­dall riseth, is a better duty then forbearing for the edification of many Christian soules, and for shunning to scandalize them. This wee must take to bee his meaning, or else he saith nothing to the purpose.

His fourth answere is, that all those Scriptures condemning scan­dall, Sect. XIX must needs especially condemne that which is greatest. Peter and his companions comming to Antioch, were in danger of a double scandall; either of the Iewes by eating with the Gentiles, which was the lesse, or of the Gentiles in refuising their company, as if they had not beene bretheren, which was farre the greater: Now Paul bla­med Peter very much, that for the avoiding the lesser scandall he & and his companions fell into the greater.

Ans. 1. He is greatly mistaken, whiles he thinkes that a man can be so straited betwixt two scandalls, that he can not choose but give the one of them; Ames. lib. 5. de consc. c. 11. For Nulla datur talis perplexitas, ut necessarium sit pio homini sive hoc sive illud faciat, scandalum alicui dare.

2. That sentence of choosing the least of two evills, must be un­derstood of evills of punishment, not of evills of sinne, as I shew supr [...] cap. 1. before, so that he is in a foule error, whiles he would have us to choose the least of two scandalls.

3. As for the example which he alledgeth, he deceiveth himselfe to thinke that Peter had given scandall to the Iewes, by his eating with the Gentiles. Cum Gentibus cibum capiens, recte utebatur libertate Christiana, say cent. 1. lib. 2. c. 10. col. 560. the Magdeburgians: but when certaine Iewes came from Iames he withdrew himselfe, fearing the Iewes, and so quod ante de libertate Christiana edificarat, rursus destruebat: By eating then with the Genti­les he gave no scandall, but by the contrary he did edify. And fur­ther I say, that his eating with the Gentiles was a thing necessary, and that for shunning of two great scandalls; the one, of the Genti­les, by compelling them to judaize; the other, of the Iewes, by con­firming them in judaisme, both vvhich followed upon his withdraw­vving from the Gentiles; so that by his eating vvith the Gentiles no scandall could be given, and if any had beene taken, it was not to be carred for. Wherefore there was but one scandall, which Peter and his companions were in danger of, which also they did give, & for which Paul reprehended them, namely, their withdrawing of them­selves from the Gentiles, & keeping company only with the Iewes; [Page 52] whereby both the Iewes and the Gentiles were scandalized, because both were made to think, (at least occasion was given to both for thinking) the observation of the Ceremoniall law necessary. That which deceiveth Paybody, is the confounding of scandalizing and di­spleasing. Peter by eating with the Gentiles perhapes had displeased the Iewes, but he had thereby edifyed them though: The scandall which he gave them was by judaizing; Iudaizabat olim Petrus per dissi­mulationem saith de ause­rib. pap [...] consider 12. Gerson: by this judaizing through such dissimula­tion and double dealing, as was his eating with the Gentiles first, & then withdrawing of himselfe, when certaine Iewes came; for kee­ping company with them only, he scandalized the Iewes and confir­med them in judaisme, as comm. in illum lo­cum. Paraeus noteth. How then can it be said, that he had scandalized them by his eating with the Gentiles: for here upon it should followe that there was a necessity of doing evill laid upon Peter, so that he behooved to offend the Iewes, 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 plaine, that if he scandalized the Iewes by his not eating with the Gentiles, as I have shewed, then had he not scandalized them, but edifyed them by his eating with the Gentiles.

4. I perceive he would say, that the scandall of Non-conformity is a greater scandall, then the scandall of Conformity; and so he would make us gaine litle by our Argument of scandall. ubi su­pra. p. 441. He is bold to object, where one is offended with our practise of kneeling, twentie; I may say ten thousand are offended with your refusall. O Adventurous A­rithmetique! O huge Hyperbole! O desultorious Declamation! O ro­ving Rethorike! O prodigall Paradoxe!

Yet I reply, 1. Though sundry (yet not ten thousand for one) are displeased by our refusall, who can shew us, that any are thereby scandalized, that is, made worse, and induced to ruine? This man is bold to say well to it; but we have solidly proven, that scandall ri­seth out of kneeling, and the rest of the Ceremonies, let it be mea­sured to us, with the same measure wherewith we mette.

2. Put the case that ten thousand were scandalized by our re­fusall, will it thereupon follow, that our refusall is a greater scandall then their practising? Nay then, let it be said that the Crosse of Christ is a greater scandall, then a privat mans Fornication, because both 1. Cor. 1. 23. Iewes and Greeks were offended at that, whereas perhaps a small Congregation only is offended at this.

3. Our refusall is necessary, because of the unlawfulnesse of the Ceremonies which we refuise, so that we may not receive them, but [Page 53] must refuse them, notwithstanding of any scandall which can follow upon our refusall. If he had ought to say against this answere, why is he silent? he might have found it at home. Our forbearance of Con­formity saith of the Crosse part. 2. pag. 79. Parker, is a necessary duty, there is therein no fault of any scandall in us.

4. Our Opposites should doe well to assoyle our Argument of scandall, before they propound another Argument against us, for [...]o long as they make it not evident, that the scandall of the Ceremo­nies, which we object, is no active or faulty scandall; as long they can not object the scandall of Non-conformity to us; because if the scandall (which is to be avoided) be in their practising of the Cere­monies, it can not 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 scanda­lized, the Bishop of Winchester teacheth as well as wee. Many times Serm. on 10. 16. 7. saith he, 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 doe they meane, vvho say they are scandalized, or made vvorse by our Non-conformity? for neither doe we make them condemne our lavvfull deed as unlavvfull, nor yet doe vve animate them by our example to doe that vvhich in their consciences they judge unlavvfull. They themselves aknovvledge, that sitting is as lavvfull as kneeling; that the not observing of the fyve Holy-dayes is as lavvfull, as the observing of them; that the not Bishoping of chil­dren is as lavvfull as the Bishopping of them. Doe they not aknovv­ledge the indifferency of the thinges themselves? Doe 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 Bishopping of Children, and the ministration of the Sacraments in private places? As for our selves, we make our mea­ning plaine, when we object the scandall 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 dregges of Popish superstition & for­mality, from which they were not well purged. Others are made to practise the Ceremonies, with a doubting and dissalowing con­science, and to say with Naaman, in this the Lord be mercifull unto us, if we [...] erre: with my owne eares have I heard some say so. And even those who have not practised the Ceremonies, for that they can not see the lawfullnesse of them, yet are animated by the example of practising Conformists, to doe these things which in their conscien­ces they condemne as unalwfull (which were to sinne damnably:) [Page 54] and if they doe them not, then is there no small doubting and dis­quietnesse, trouble and trepidation, harboured in their consciences. And thus one way or other, some weakening or deterioration com­meth to us by the means of the Ceremonies. And if any of our Opposites date thinke, that none of us can be so weake as to stum­ble or take any harme in this kinde, because of the Ceremo­nies; we take God himselfe to witnesse who shall make mani­fest the counsells of the heart, that wee speake the trueth, and lie not.

Finally, let that be considered, which Divines Parau [...] comm. in Rom. 15. 1. Serm. on. I [...]. 16. 7. observe to be the perpetuall condition of the Church; namely, that as in any other family, there are found some great, some small, some strong, some weake, some wholesome, some sickely; 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 indued with moe gifts of God, and some with fewer.

The third Parte, Against the lavvfulnesse of the Ceremonies.

CHAP. 1.

That the Ceremonies are vnlawfull, because superstitious, which is particularly instanced in holy dayes, & ministring the Sacraments in private places.

THE strongest tower of refuge to which our Op­posites Sect. 1 make their maine recourse, is the preten­ded lawfulnesse of the Ceremonies, which now we are to batter downe and demolish, and so make it appeare how weake they are even where they thinke themselves strongest.

My first argument against the lawfulnesse of the Ceremonies, I drawe from the superstition of them. I cannot marvell enough how Dr. Mourtoun and Dr. Burges could thinke to rub the superstition vpon non-conformists, whom they set forth as fancying their abstinence from the Ceremonies to be a singular peece of service done to God, placing Religion in the not vsing of them, & teaching men to abstaine from them for con­science sake. Fresh sute ag. Ce­rem. cap. 9. pa. 96. 100. Dr. Ames hath given a sufficient answ [...]r, namely, that abstaining from sinne 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 doe not abstaine from those Ce­remonies, but as from other vnlawfull corruptions, even out of the compasse of worship. We abstaine from the Ceremonies even as from lying, cursing, stealing, &c. Shall we be houlden superstitious for abstaining from things vnlawfull? The superstition therefore is not on our side, but on theirs.

For first, superstition is the opposite vice to Religion, in the ex­cesse Sect. 2 as our Divines describe it, for it exhibites more in the worship of God then he requires in his worship. Porro saith lib. 1. de vit ext. cult oppos. Col. 501. 502. Zanchius in cul­tum ipsum excessu peccatur, si quid illi quem Christus instituit, jam addas, aut ab aliis additum sequaris: ut si Sacramentis à Christo institutis, alia addas Sa­cramenta: [Page 2] si Sacrificiis, alia sacrificia: si Ceremoniis cujusvis Sacramenti, alios add. is Ritus: qui merito omnes superstitionis nomine appellantur. We see he accounteth superstition to be in the addition of Ceremonies, not in­stituded by Christ, as well as in the addition of more substantiall matters. Superstitio, (as some derive the word) is that which is done supra statutum; and thus are the controverted Ceremonies supersti­tious, as being vsed in Gods worship, vpon no other ground then the appointment of men.

2. Superstition is that which exhibites divine worship, vel cui non Sect. 3 debet, vel non co modo quo debet, saith the Aquin. 2. 2a q 92. art. 1. Schoolmen; Now our Ce­remonies, though they exhibite worship to God, yet this is done in­ordinately, and they make the worship to be otherwise performed then 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 Syn. pur. Theol. Disp. 44. thes. 53. Professors of Leyden condemne pri­vate Baptisme as inordinate, because Baptisme as publici ministerij, non privatae exhortationis est appendix. It Magdeb. cent. 4. cap. 6. Col. 427. is marked in the fourth centu­rie both out of Councels & Fathers, that it was not then permitted, to communicate in private places, but this custome was thought inordinate and vnbeseeming. If it be said, that the communion was given to the sicke privately, in the auncient Church. I answer: some­times this was permitted, but for such speciall reasons as doe not con­cerne us; for as we may see plainly by the 14 Canon of the first counsell of Nice (as those Canons are collected by Ruffinus;) the 69 Canon of the Councell of Eliberis; and the 6 Canon of the Counsell of Ancyra, the communion was onely permitted to be given in pri­vate houses to the Paenitentes, who were abstenti and debarred from the Sacrament, some for three years, some for fyve, some for seven, some for ten, some for thirteen, some longer; and who should hap­pily be overtaken with some dangerous and deadly sicknesse, before the set time of abstention were expired. As for the judgment of our owne Divines, Calviniani saith de cas. consc. lib. 2. cap. 12. cas. 13. Balduine, morem illum quo Eucharistia ad aegrotos tanquam viaticum defertur, improbant, tamque non nisi in caetibus publicis usurpandam censent. For this he alledgeth Beza, Aretius, & Muscu­lus. It was a better ordinance then that of Perth, which said Conil. Laodic. can. 58. non opor­tet in domibus oblationes ab Episcopis sive Presbyteris fieri: but to returne.

3. The Ceremonies are proven to be superstitious, by this reason, Sect. 4 if there were no more they have no necessary nor profitable use in the Church (as hath been proved) which kinde of things, cannot be used without superstition. It was according to this rule, that the Hist. of the Walden­ses part. 3. lib. 1. cap. 6. Waldenses and Albingenses taught, that the Exorcismes, Brea­things, Crossings, Salt, Spittle, Vnction, Chrisme, &c. Vsed by the Church of Rome in Baptisme, being neither necessarie nor re­quisite in the administration of the same, did occasion error and su­perstition, rather then edification to Salvation.

[Page 3] 4. They are yet more superstitious, for that they are not onely used in Gods worship vnnecessarely and vnprofitably, but likewise they hinder other necessary duties. They, who though they serve the true God, yet with needlesse offices, and defraud him of duties necessary, are superstitious in Eccles. Pol. lib. 5. sect. 3. Hookers Iudgment. I wish he had said as well to him, as from him. What offices more vnnecessary, then those Romane Ritualls? yet what more necessary duties, then to worship God in a spirituall and lively manner, to presse the power of God­linesse vpon the consciences of Professors, to maintaine and keepe faithfull and well qualified Ministers in the Church, to beare the bo­wels of mercy and meeknesse, not to offend the weake, not to con­firme Papists in Popery, to have all things in Gods 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 necessarie duties shut quite out off doores by our needlesse Ceremoniall service.

5. The Ceremonies are not free of superstition, in as much as Sect. 5 they give to God an externall service, and grace-defacing worship, which he careth not for, and make fleshly observations to step into the roume of Gods most spirituall worship. Augustine apud A­quin. 2. 2 q. 93. art. 2. alledg­eth that which is said Luc. 17. The Kingdome of God is within you, a­gainst superstitious persons, who exterioribus principalem curam impen­dunt. The Christian worship ought to be in spirit, without the carnall Ceremonies and rites, saith I. Rainol­des, confer: with I. Hart cap. 8. divis. 4. p. 489. one of our Divines, yea the Kingdome of God commeth not cum apparatu aut Pompa mundana, ita ut observari possit tempus vel locus, saith Stella com. in Luc. 17. 20. Sect. 6. a Papist. Carnall worship therefore, and Ceremoniall observations are (to say the least) superfluous in Religion, and by consequence superstitious.

6. Worship is placed in the Ceremonies, therefore they are most superstitious. To make good what I say, Holinesse and necessity are placed in the Ceremonies, ergo, worship. And 1. Holinesse is placed in them. Eccl. pol. l. 5. l. 70. Hooker thinkes festivall dayes clothed with outward robes of holinesse; nay he saith Ibid. s. 69. plainly, No doubt as Gods extraordi­nary presence hath hallowed and sanctified certaine places, so they are his ex­traordinary workes that have truly and worthily advanced certaine times, for which cause they ought to be with all men that honour God, more holy then other dayes. Ibid. s. 65. He callerh also the Crosse an holy signe. Of the lawfulnesse of kneeling. cap. 3. Dr. Burgesse defen­deth, that the Ceremonies are, and may be called worship of God, not onely ratione modi, as belonging to the reverend vsage of Gods pre­scribed worship, but also ratione medij, though nor medij pe [...]se, of and by it selfe, yet per aliud, by vertue of sommewhat else. Now doe not Papists place worship in their Crosse and Crucifixe? yet doe they place no holinesse in it per se, but onely per aliud, in respect of Christ Crucified thereby represented, and they tell vs, Aquin. 3. 4. 25. art. 4. that crea­turae [Page 4] insensibilinon debetur honòr vel reverentia, nisi ratione rationalis naturae; and that they give no religious respect vnto the tree whereon Christ was crucified, the nailes, garments, speare, mang [...]r, &c. but onely quantum ad rationem contactus membrorum Christi. Saith Dr. Burgesse any lesse of the Ceremonies? Nay he placeth every way as much holi­nesse, and worship in them, in the forequotted place. And ubi su­pra cap. 15. p 42. els­where he teacheth, that after a sort the Ceremonies are worship in themselves, even such a worship as was that of the freewill offerings vnder the Law, ibid. p. 41. and such a worship as was the building and vse of Altars here and there, (before God had chosen out the standing place for his Altar) though to the same end for which the Lords instituted Altar served. Thus we see, that they offer the Ceremo­nies, as worship to God: yet put the case they did not, the Aquin. 2. 2 q. 95. art. 2. Schoole saith▪ that a thing belongeth to the worship of God, vel quo ad offe­rendum, vel quo ad assumendum. Where-vpon it followeth, that super­stition is not onely to be layed to their charge, who offer to God for worship, that which he hath not commanded, but theirs also who assume in Gods worship, the helpe of any thing as sacred or holy, which himselfe hath not ordained. 2. They place as great a ne­cessity in the Ceremonies, as Papists place in theirs, whereby it shall also appeare, how superstitiously they place worship in them, for quaecunque obseruatio quasi necessaria commendatur, continuo censetur ad cultum Dei pertinere, saith de vera eccl reform. pag. 367. Calvine. annot on Matth. 15. Sect. 5. The Rhemists thinke, that meates of themselves, or of their owne nature, doe not defile, but so farre as by accident they make a man to sinne: as the disobedience of Gods commande­ment, or of our Superiours, who forbid some meates for certaine times and causes, is a sinne. And they adde; that neither flesh nor fish of it selfe doth defile, but the breach of the Churches praecept defileth. 3. q. 66. art. 6. Aquinas defendeth that trin-immersion is not de necessitate baptismi, onely he thinkes it a sinne to baptise otherwise, because this rite is Instituted and vsed by the Church. Doe not formalists place the same necessity in the Ceremonies, while-as they say they vrge them not as necessary in themselves, but onely as necessary in respect of the determination of the Church, and the ordinance of those, who are set over vs? Nay Papists place not so great necessity in many ordinances of their Church, as Formalists place in the Ceremonies. If the cause be doubt­full 2. 2 q. 147. art. 4. Aquinas sends a man to seek a dispensation from the Supe­riour. But sicausa sit evidens, per se ipsum licite potest homo statuti obser­vantiam praeterire. What formalist dare yeeld vs such liberty, as by our selves, and without seeking a dispensation from Superiours, to neglect the observation of their statutes, when wee see evident cause for so doing? they thinke that wee have no power at our owne hand to Iudge, that we have an evident cause of not obeying those who are set over vs, yet thus much is allowed by this Papist, who also 3. q. 66. art. 10. elsewhere acknowledgeth that there is nothing necessary in bap­tisme, [Page 5] but the forme, the minister, & the washing of water, and that all the other Ceremonies which the Church of Rome vseth in baptis­me, are onely for solemnity. de sacr. M [...]ssae l. b. 6. cap. 13. Bellarmine saith, that the neglecting and not observing the Ceremonies of the Church, with them is not a mortall sinne, except it proceed excontemptu. And de Pont. Rom. lib. 4. cap. 18. that he who entering into a Church doth not asperge himselfe with holy water, sinneth not, if so be he doe it citra contemptum. Now to be free of con­tempt, will not satisfie our formalists, except wee obey and doe that same very thing which we are commanded to doe. Conc. Evang. cap. 60. Cornelius Ianse­nius commenting vpon these words; In vaine doe they worship me, tea­ching for doctrines the commandements of men, saith that the commande­ments of men there, forbidden & condemned, are those which com­mand nothing divine, but things merely hamane. And therefore he pleadeth for the constitutions of the Church about feasts, choyce of meats, festivities, &c. and for obedience to the same vpon no other ground then this, because pius quisque facile videt quam habeant ex scri­pturis originem & quomodo eis consonant, eo quod faciant, ad carnis castigatio­nem & temperantiam, aut ad fidelium unionem & aedificationem. I knowe 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 humane Auctority, he is a great deale more modest and lesse superstitious, then those our opposites, who avouch the Ceremonies as necessary, and will have vs bound to the practise of them, vpon no other ground, then the bare will and auctority of Superiours, who have injoyned them, as hath been shewed in the first parte of this Dispute. Yea some of them place a certaine and constant necessity in the Ceremonies themselves, even beside and without the Churches constitution (which is more then Papists have said of their Ceremonies.) Iren lib. 1. cap. 5. §. 6 & cap. 7. §. 7. Dr. Forbesse calleth the Articles of Perth, pauca necessaria, &c. a few things necessary for Gods glory, and the promoving of pietie in our Church, for order, peace, unity, and cha­rity, and particularily he teacheth, that a minister may not lawfully omit to administer the sacraments in privat places, and without the presence of the congregation, to such as through sickn esse can not come to the publicke assemblies; which he calleth eis necessaria mini­strare. To say the trueth, the ministration of the Sacraments in pri­vat places, importeth a necessity in the matter it self, for which cause, the apud Zanch epist. lib. 1. pag. 111. Divines of Geneva resolved that in Ecclesiis publice institutis, bap­tisme might not be administrat in private places, but only publikely in the congregation of the faithfull▪ partim ne sacramenta, &c. partly say they, lest the Sacraments being separat from the preaching of the word, should be againe transformed in certaine magicall ceremonies, as in Popery it was; partly that that grosse superstition of the absolute necessity of external Baptisme, may be rooted out of the mindes of men. Sure, the defenders of privat bap­tisme place too great necessity in that Sacrament. eccl. Pol. lib. 5. s. 60. Hooker plainly [Page 6] insinuateth the absolute necessity of outward baptisme, at least in wish or desire, whch is the distinction of the Schoolmen, and fol­lowed by the moderne Papists, to cloake their superstition. But whatsoever shew it hath, it was rightly impugned in the Coun­cell of Hist. of the Connc. of Trent. lib. 2. Trent by Marinarus, who alledged against it that the An­gell said to Cornelius, his prayers were acceptable to God, before ever he knewe of the sacrament of baptisme, so that having no knowledge of it, he could not be said to haue 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 can not say, but by divina­tion, that they knewe the Sacraments and made a vow.

7. I will now apply this Argument taken from superstition, par­ticulary to holy dayes. Superstitiosum esse docemus saith Conf [...]ss. cap. 5. art. 41. Beza, arbitrari Sect. 7 unum aliquem diem altero sanctiorem. Now I will shew that for malists observe holy dayes, as misticall and holyer then other dayes: how­beit Proc. in Perth. as­semb. part. 3 pag. 18. B. Lindsey thinks good to dissemble and denie it. Times saith he, are appointed by our Church for morning and evening prayers in great townes, houres for preaching on tuesday, thursday, &c. houres for weekly exercises of prophecying, which are holy in respect of the vse whereunto they are appointed; and such are the fyve dayes, which we esteeme not to be holy for any mistick si­gnification, which they have, either by Divine, or Ecclesiasticall institution, or for any worship which is appropriated vnto them, that may not be performed at an other time, but for the sacred vse wherevnto they are appointed to be em­ployed as circumstances onely, and not as misteries. Answ. this is but falsly pretended, for as Alt. Damasc. cap. 10. p. 878. Didoclavius observeth 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 an other vse, if he please, so the Church appointeth times and houres for preaching vpon the weeke dayes, yet reserving power to employ those times other wise, when shee shall thinke fit. Dedi­cation is when a man so devotes a thing to some pious or civill vse, that he denudes himselfe of all right and title, which thereafter he might claime vnto it: as when a man dedicates a somme of money for the building of an Exchange, a Iudgment-hall, &c. or a parcell of ground for a Church, a Churchyarde, a Glebe, a Schoole, a Hospi­tall; he can claime no longer right to the dedicated thing. Sanctifi­cation is the setting apart of a thinge for a holy or religious vse, in such sort, that thereafter it may be put to no other vse, Prov. 20. 25. Now, whereas times set apart for ordinary and weekly preaching, are onely designed by the Church for this end and purpose, so that they are not holy, but onely for the present they are applied to an holy vse; neither is the worship appointed as convenient or besee­ming for those times, but the times are appointed as convenient for the worship: festivall dayes are holy both by dedication and conse­cration [Page 7] of them. And this much the ubi su­pra pag. 29. B. himselfe forbeareth not to say, onely he laboureth to plaister over his Superstition with the vn­tēpered morter of this quidditative distinction; ibid. pa. 28. that some thinges are holy by consecration of them to holy misticall vses, as water inbapt isme, &c. but other things are made holy by consecration of them, to holy politicall vses. This way (saith he) the Church hath power to make a thing holy, as to build and consecrate places to be Temples, howses to be Hospitalls, to give rent, lands, money, and goods to the ministery, and to the poore, to appoint Veshells, and vestures, and Instruments for the publike worship, as Table, Tablecothes, &c. Ans. 1. The B. (I see) taketh vpon him to coyne new distinctions at his owne pleasure, yet they will not (I trust) passe current among the Iudicious: to make things holy by conse­cration of them to holy uses for policie, is an vncouth speculation, and I dare say, the Bishop himselfe comprehendeth it not. Gods designation of a thing to any vse which serves for his owne glory, is called the sanctification of that thing or the making of it holy: and so the word is taken Isa. 13. 3. & Ier. 1. 5. as G. Sanctius noteth in his commentaries vpon these places, and Calvine commenting vpon the same places expoundeth them so likewise. But the Chur­ches appointing or designing of a thing to an holy vse, can not be called the making of it holy. It must be consecrated at the command of God, and by vertue of the Word and Prayer: thus are breade and wine consecrated in the holy supper. Res Sacrae saith Theol. lib. 6. cap. 3. Fennerus, sunt quae Dei verbo in praedictum usum sanctificatae & dicatae sunt. Synt. lib. 6. c. 5 [...]. pag. 433. Polanus speaking of the Sacramentall elements, saith, sanctificatio rei terrenae est actio ministri, qua destinat rem teurenam ad sanctum usum, ex mandato Dei, &c. The Syn. pur. Theol. Disp. 21. Thes. 7. Professors of Leiden call onely such things persons, times, and places holy, as are consecrated & dedicated to God and his worship, and that divina praescriptione. If our ordinary meate and drinke can not bee sanctificed to vs, so that we may lawfully and with a good conscience vse those common things, but by 1 Tim. 4, 5. the word of God and praier; how then shall any thing be made holy for Gods worship, but by the same meanes? 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 wherevpon the Church is built, the stones and timber of an hospitall, the rents, lands, moneys or goods, given to the Ministery, and the poore, the veshels, vestures, ta­bles, napkines, basens, &c. appointed for the publike worship?

2. Times, places, and things which the Church designeth for Sect. 8 the worship of God if they be made holy by consecration of them to holy Politicalluses, then either they are made holy, by the holy uses to which they are to be applied, or else by the Churches dedi­cating of them to those vses. They can not be called holy by vertue [Page 8] of their application to holy uses, for then (as fresh sute cap. 5. pag. 59. Ames argueth) the aire is sacred, because it is applied to the Minister his speech whiles 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 vertue of the Churches dedicating of them to those uses for which she appoin­teth them: for the Church hath no such power as by her dedication to make them holy. Comm. in 1 Reg. 8. de templ. de­die. P. Martyr condemneth the dedication or consecration (for those words he vseth promiscuously, whereby the Papists hallowe Churches, and he declareth against it the Iudgment 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 & Bels, as appeareth by these words quanto sanius rectiusque decernimus. He implieth therefore that these things are onely consecrated, as every other thing is consecrated to vs. Of this kind of consecration he hath given examples. In libro Ne­hemiae dedicatio maenium civitatis commemoratur, quae nil aliud fuit nisi quod muris urbis instauratis, populus una cum Levitis & Sacerdotibus, nec non prin­cipibus, co se contulit, ibique gratias Deo egerunt de maenibus reaedificatis, & justam civitatis usuram postularunt, qua item ratione prius quam sumamus ci­bum, nos etiam illum consecramus. As the walls of Ierusalem then, and as our ordinary meate are consecrated, so are Churches consecrated, and no otherwise can they be said to be dedicated, except one would vse the word dedication, in that sense wherein it is taken, Deut. 20. 5. Where Calvine turnes the word dedicavit. Arias Montanus, initiavit. Tre­mellius, caepit [...]i. 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 coepit. Ita Sue­tonius in Nerone. Sic Pompejus dedicavit theatrum suum, cum primum illud public is ludis & communibus usibus aperuit; de quo Cicero lib. 2. Epist. 1. Any other sort of dedicating Churches, we holde to be supersti­tious. Peter Valdo, of whom the Waldenses were named. is Hist. of the Valdens. lib. 1. cap. 1. repor­ted to have taught, that the dedication of Temples was but an in­vention of the Divell. And though Churches be dedicated by prea­ching and praying, and by no superstition of sprinkling them with holy water, or vsing such magicall rites, yet even these dedications saith Cent. 4. cap. 6. col. 408. the Magdeburgians, ex judaismo natae videntur sine ullo Dei praece­pto. There is indeed no warrant for such dedication of Churches, as is thought to make them holy. Bellatmine would warrant it by Moses his consecrating of the Tabernacle, the Altar, and the Veshells of the same, but De orig. templ. lib. 4. cap. 2. Hospinian answereth him, Mosis factum expressum ha­buit Dei mandatum: de consecrandis autem templis Christianorum, nullum [Page 9] uspiam in verbo Dei praeceptum extat, ipso quoque Bellarmino teste. Where­vpon he concludeth, that this Ceremonie 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 Gods expresse commandement. What I have said against the dedication of Churches, holds good also against the dedication of Altars; The Table wherevpon the Ele­ments of the body and blood of Christ are set, is not to bee called holy: neither can they be commended who devised Altars in the Church, to be the seat of the Lords body and blood, as if any Ta­ble, though not so consecrated, could not as well serve the turne. And what though Altars were used in the auncient Church? yet this custome à Iudaica, in Ecclesiam Christi permanavit ac postea superstitioni materiam praebuit, say cent. 4. cap. 6. Col. 409. the Magdeburgians. Altars savour of nothing but Iudaisme, and the borrowing of Altars from the Iewes, hath made Christians both to follow their Priesthood, and their sacrifi­ces. Haec enim tria, scilicet Sacerdos, Altare, & Sacrificium, sunt correla­tiva, ut ubi unum est, caetera duo adesse necesse sit, saith comm. in Mal. 1. 11. Cornelius a La­pide.

3. If sometimes, places, and things, be made holy by the Chur­ches Sect. 9 dedication or consecration of them to holy uses, then it fol­loweth that othertimes, 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 prophane, and lesse apt to Divine worship, then 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. Eccles. Pol. lib. 5. s. 16. Hooker teacheth us, that the service of God, in places not sanctified as Churches are, hath not in it selfe (marke in it selfe) such perfection of grace and comlinesse, as when the dignitie of the place which it wisheth for, doth concurre; and that the very Majesty and holinesse of the place where God is wor­shipped, bettereth even our holiest and best actions. How much more soundly doe we hold with confer. with I. Hart. cap. 8. divis. 4. pag. 491. I. Rainoldes, that unto us Chri­stians, no land is strange, no ground unholy; every coast is Iewry: every towne Ierusalem: and every house Sion: and every faithfull company, yea every faith­full body, a Temple to serve God in? The contrarie opinion ubi su­pra. Hospinian rejecteth as savouring Iudaisme, 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 thinks most superstitiously. For of holy dayes Eccl Pol. lib. 5. s. 69. Hooker saith thus. No doubt as Gods extraordinarie pre­sence hath hallowed and sanctified certaine places, so they are his extraordinary workes, that have truly and worthily advanced certaine times, for which cause [Page 10] they ought to be with all men, that honour God, more holy then other dayes. What is this but Popish superstition? for just so the annot. on 1 Tim. 4. 5. Rhemists thinke that the times, and places of Christs Nativity, Passion, Bu­riall, Resurrection, and Ascension, were made holy: & just so decult. Sanct. cap. 10. Bel­larmine holdeth, that Christ did consecrate the dayes of his Nativity, Passion, and Resurrection, eo quod nascens consecrarit praesepe, moriens crucem, resurgens sepulchrum. Hooker hath bene of opinion, that the holy dayes were so advanced above other dayes by Gods great and extraordinary workes done upon them, that they should have bene holyer then other dayes, even albeit the Church had not ap­pointed them te be keeped holy. Yet B. Lindsey would have us be­lieve, that they thinke them holy, onely because of the Churches consecration of them to holy Politicall uses. But that now at last, I may make it appeare to all that have common sense, how falsely (though frequently) it is given forth by the Bishop, that holy dayes are kept by them onely for order and policie, and that they are not so superstitious, as to appropriate the worship to those dayes, or to observe them for mistery and as holier then other dayes.

First, I require the B. to shew us a difference betwixt the kee­ping Sect. 10 of holy dayes by formalists, & their keeping of the Lords day: for upon holy dayes they injoyne a cessation from worke, and a de­dicating of the day to Divine worship, even as upon the Lords day. The ubi su­pra pag. 21. Bishop alledgeth five respects of difference, but they are not true. First, he saith, that the Lords day is commanded to be obser­ved of necessity, for conscience of the Divine ordinance, as a day sanctified and blessed by God himselfe. Answ. 1. so have we heard from Hooker, that holy dayes are sanctified by Gods extraordinary workes, but because the B▪ dare not say so much, therefore I say. 2. This difference can not shew us, that they observe holy dayes onely for order and policy, and that they place no worship in the observing of them, as in the observing of the Lords day, (which is the point that we require) for worship is placed in the observing of humane, as well as of Divine ordinances; otherwise worship hath never bene placed in the keeping of Pharisaicall and Popish tradi­tions. This way is worship placed in the keeping of holy dayes, when for conscience of an humane ordinance, they are both kept as holy, and thought necessary to be so kept. 3. The B. contradicteth himselfe, for Ep. to the Past. of the Church of Scotl. elswhere he defendeth, that the Church hath power to change the Lords day. Secondly, he giveth us this difference, that the Lords day is observed, as the Sabbath of Iehovah, and as a day whereon God himselfe did rest after the creation. Ans. 1. This is false of the Lords day, for after the creation, God rested vpon the seventh day, not upon the first. 2. Dr Douname saith on praec. 5., that festi­vall dayes also are to be consecrated as Sabbaths to the Lord. Third­ly, the B. tells us, that the Lords day is observed in memory of the [Page 11] Lords Resurrection. Ans. 1. He shall never make this good, for, we observe the Lords day in memory of the whole worke of Re­demption. 2. If it were so, this could make no difference, for just so Christmasse is observed in memory of the Lords Nativity, Good-friday, in memory of his Passion, &c. His fourth & fifth re­spects of difference, are certaine misteries in the Lords day, But we shall see by and by, how his fellow Formalists who are more inge­nuous then himselfe, shew us misteries in the Festivall dayes also. Lastly, albeit the B. have told us that there is no worship appropria­ted unto the Festivall dayes, which may not be performed at any other time, yet this can not with him make a difference betwixt them and the Lords day: for in his Epistle which I have quotted, he de­clareth his judgment to be the same of the Lords 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 thinke fit. Now as the worship performed on the Lords 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 Festivall dayes, the wor­ship performed on the same.

2. If the holy dayes be observed by Formalists only for order and Sect. 11 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. Semel Deo dicatum non est ad usus humanos ulterius transferendum, saith one of the Bonifac. 8. de reg. ju­ris. reg. 51. Popes. And by the dedication of Churches, the founders surrender that right, which otherwise they might have in them, saith one of the Hook. eccl. pol lib. 5. s. 12. Formalists themselves. If then the Church hath dedicated holy dayes to the worship of God, then hath shee denuded her self of all power to change them, or put them to ano­ther use: which were otherwise, if holy dayes were appointed to be kept, onely for order and policy. Yea further, times and places which are applied to the worship of God, as circumstances onely for outward order and policy, may be by a private Christian applied to an civill use, for in so doing he breaketh not the ordinance of the Church: for example, Materiall 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 civill as in holy meetings, and not for any holinesse conceived, to be in them, more then in other houses. Now if I be standing in a Church-yard when it raineth, may not I go into the Church that I may be defended from the injury of the weather? If I must meet w [...]th certain men, for putting order to some of my wordly affaires, and it fall out that wee can not conveniently meet in any parte but in the Church, may wee not there keepe our tryst? A materiall Church [Page 12] then, may serve for a civill use, the same way that it serveth to a ho­ly use. And so for times appointed for ordinary preaching upon weeke dayes in great townes, may not I apply those times to a civill use, when I can not conveniently apply them to the vse for which the Church appointeth them? I trust our Prelates shall say, I may, because they use to be otherwise employed thē in Divine worship, during the times of weekly preaching. Now if holy dayes were commanded to be kept only for order and policy, they might be applied to another use, as wel as those ordinary times of weekly meetings in great townes: whereas we are required of necessity to keep them holy.

3. If the holy dayes be kept only for order and policie, why doe Sect. 12 they esteeme of some of them above others? doth not Serm. on Mat. 6. 16. B. Andrewes call the feast of Easter, the highest and greatest of our religion? And doth not ubi supra pag. 25. B. Lindsey himselfe with Chrysoftome call the festivall of Christs Nativity, metropolim omnium festorum? By this reason doth de cult. sanct. cap. 10. Bellarmine prove, that the feasts of Christians are Celebrated, non solum ratione ordinis & politiae, sed etiam misterij, because otherwise they should be all equall in celebrity, whereas Leo calls Easter festum fe­storum, and Nazianzene, celebritatem celebritatum.

4. If the holy dayes be kept only for order and policy, then the sanctification, of them should be placed, Zanch. in. 4. praec. p. 682. in ipso actuali externi cul­tus Sect. 13 exercitio. But Hooker hath told us before, that they are made holy, and worthily advanced above other dayes, by Gods extraordinary workes wrought upon them. Where upon it followeth, that as Paraeus comm. in Gen. 2. 3. Deus diem septimum sanctificavit vacatione sancta, & ordinatione ad usum san­ctum; so hath he made festivall dayes no lesse holy in themselves, and that as the Sabbath was holy from the beginning, because of Gods resting upon it, and his ordaining of it for a holy use, how­beit it had never beene applied by men to the exercises of Gods worship: even so festivall dayes are holy, being advanced truly and worthily, by the extraordinary workes of God, and for this cause commended to all men that honour God, to be holier with them then other dayes, albeit it should happen that by us they were never applied to an holy use. If B. Lindsey thinke that all this toucheth not him, he may be pleased to remember, that Vbi su­pra pag. 20. he him­self hath confessed, that the very presence of the festivity, puts a man in minde of the mistery, 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 mistery on such a day? What hath externall order and poli­cy to doe with the internall thoughts of a mans heart, to put in or­der the same?

5. By their fruits shall we knowe them; looke whether they give Sect. 14 so much liberty to others, and take so much to themselves, vpon [Page 13] their holy dayes, for staying from the publike worship, and atten­ding wordly businesse, as they doe at the diets of weekly and ordi­nary preaching: yet they wold make the simple beleeve, that their holy dayes are onely appointed to be kept, as those ordinary times set apart for Divine service on the weeke-dayes. Nay, moreover let it bee observed, whether or not they keep the Festivall dayes more carefully, and vrge the keeping of them more earnestly, then the Lords owne day. Those Prelates that will not abase themselves to preach upon ordinary Sabbaths, think the high holy dayes worthy of their Sermons. They have beene also often seene to travell upon the Lords day, whereas they hold it religion to travell vpon a holy day. And whereas they can digest the common prophana­tion of the Lords day, and not challenge it, they can not away with the not observing of their festivities.

6. By their words shall we Iudge them. Saith not ubi su­pra pag. 29. B. Lindsey, Sect. 15 that the five anniversary dayes are consecrate to the commemo­ration of our Saviour his benefites beeing separate from all other ordinary workes, and so made sacred and holy dayes? Will he say this much of ordinary times appointed for weekly preaching? I trow not. on praec. 4. Dr. Douname holdeth, that we are commanded in the fourth commandement, te keep the feasts of Christs Nativity, Passion, Re­surrection, Ascension, and Pentecost, and that these feasts are to be consecrated as Sabbaths to the Lord. B. Andrewes, a man of the greatest note amongst our opposites, affoordeth us here plenty of testimonies for proofe of the point in hand, namely, that the anni­versary Festivall dayes are kept for mistery and as holier then other dayes. Serm. on Psal. 85. 10. 11. he saith of Christmasse, that mercy and trueth, righteousnesse and peace, of all the dayes of the yeare, meet most kindly on this day. Serm. on Psal. 2. 7. he saith of the same day, that of all other hodie's, we should not let slip the hodie of this day, whereon as the law is most kindly preached, so it will bee most kindly practised of all others. Serm. on Hebr 12. 2. he saith of Good-fryday, let us now turne to him, and beseech him by the sight of this day. Serm. on 1 Cor. 5. 7. 8. he saith of the keeping of the Christian Passeover vpon Easter, that then it is best for us to doe it, It is most kindly to doe it, most like to please Christ, and to prosper with us. And indeed if at any time we will doe it, quando Pascha nisi in Pascha, &c. so that without any more adoe, the season pleadeth for this effectually, &c. Serm. on Coll. 3. 1. he saith, that there is no day in the yeare so fit for a Christian to rise with Christ, and seeke the things above, as Easter day. Serm. on Ioh. 2. 19. he saith, that the act of receiving Christs body is at no tyme so proper, so in season, as this very day. Serm. on 1 Cor. 11. 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 sinnes. Serm. on Act. 2. 1. 2. 3. he saith of [...]he Feast of Pentecost, that of all dayes we shall not goe away from the holy Ghost empty on this day; it is dies donorum: his giving [Page 14] day. Serm. on Ephes. 4. 30. he saith, this is the holy Ghosts day, and not for that originaly so it was: but for that it is to be intended, ever he will doe his owne chiefe worke upon his owne chiefe Feast, and opus diei, the dayes worke upon the day it self. Sermon. on Psal. 68. 18. he saith, that love will be best and soonest wrought, by the Sacrament of love, vpon Pentecost, the Feast of love. Serm. on Act. 10. 34. 35. he saith, that the receiving of the holy Ghost in a more ample measure is opus diei, the proper of this day. Serm. on Ia. 1. 16. 17. he calles 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. Serm. on Luk 4. 18. he saith of the same Feast, that because of the benefite that fell on this time, the time it selfe it fell on, is and can not be but acceptable, even eo nomine, that at such a time such a be­nefite happened to us. Much more of this stuffe I might produce out of See Serm. on Gal. 4. 4 Serm. on Luk. 2. 10. 11. Serm. on Lament. 1. 12. Serm on Io. 20. 19. Serm. on Iob. 19. 23 Serm. on Io. 20. 17. Serm. on Heb. 13. 20. 21. Serm. on Math. 6. 16. Serm. on Act. 2. 16. Serm. on Io. 5. 6. &c this Prelates holy dayes sermons, which I supersede as more tedious then necessary; Neither yet will I stay here to confute the errors of those and such like sentences of his; for my purpose is onely to prove against B Lindsey, that the Festivall dayes, wherea­bout we dispute, are not observed as circumstances of worship, for order and policy; but that as the chiefe parts of Gods worship are placed in the celebration and keeping of the same, so are they kept and celebrate most superstitiously, as having certaine sacred and misticall significationes, and as holier in themselves then other dayes, because they were sanctified aboue other dayes by the extra­ordinary workes and great benefites of God, which happened vpon them: So that the worship performed on them, is even appro­priated to them: all which is more then evident from those testi­monies which I have in this place collected.

And finally, the pag 67. Author of the nullity of Perth assembly proveth Sect. 16 this point forcibly: Doth not Hooker say, that the dayes of publike memo­rials should be cloathed with the outward robes of holinesse. They alledge for the warrant of anniversarij festivities, the Auncients, who call them Sacred and mysticall dayes. If they were instituted onely 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? fortie dayes betwixt the Re­surrection and Ascension? ten betwixt the Ascension and Pentecost? where­fore followe we the course of the Moone, as the Iewes did; in our moveable Feasts? &c. Wherefore is there not a certain day of the moneth kept for Easter, as well as for the Nativity? &c. That which is here alledged out of Hooker and [...]he Auncients, B. Lindsey passeth quite over, and nei­ther inserts nor answeres it. As touching those demands which tie him as so many gordian knots, because he can not vnloose them, he goeth about to break them, ubi supra pag. 23. telling us, that they order these things so for vnity with the Catholike Church. This is even as some na­turall Philosophers, who take upon them to give a reason and [Page 15] cause for all things in nature, when they can finde no other, they flee to Sympathia Phisica. When it is asked, wherefore the loadstone doth attract yron rather then other mettall? they answere, that the cause thereof is sympathia phisica inter magnetem, & ferrum. With such kind of etimology doth the B. here serve us, yet peradventure hee might have given us another cause. If so, my retractation is, that if he be excused one way, hee must be accused an other way, and if he be blamelesse of Ignorance, he is blameworthy for dissimula­tion. The true causes why those things are so ordered, we may find in B. Andrews his Sermons, which I have made use of in handling this argument. For example, Serm. on Mat. 12. 39. 40. the reason why there is but one day betwixt the Passion and the Resurrection, is, because that Ionas was but one day in the Whales belly, and Christ but one day in the bo­some of the earth, for in their going thither, he sets out Good-fry­day: in their being there Easter-eve: in their comming thence Easter day. As for the 50 dayes betwixt Easter and Pentecost, Serm. on Luk. 4. 18. 19. he saith, fiftie is the number of the Iubilee; which number agreeth well with this feast, the Feast of Pentecost. VVhat the one in yeares, the other in dayes. So that this is the Iubilee as it were of the yeare, or the yearly memory of the yeare of Iubilee: that, the Pentecost of yeares: this, the Iubilee of dayes. In the end of the same Sermon he tells us the reason, why there are ten dayes appoynted betwixt the Ascension, and Pentecost. The feast of Iubilee saith he, beganne ever after the high Priest had offered his Sacrifice, and had beene in the Sancta Sanctorum, as this Iubilee of Christ also tooke 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 unborne, at Easter. And it was the tenth day, that: and this now is the tenth day since. He hath told us also Serm. on Math. 6. 16.. why there is not a certaine day of the moneth appointed for Easter, as there is for the Nativity, namely, because the fast of Lent must end with that high feast, according to the Prophecy of Zachary. Wherefore I conclude, aliquid misterii alunt, and so aliquid monstri too.

CHAP. II.

That the Ceremonies are unlawfull, because they are monuments of by-past idolatry, which not being necessary to be retained, should be utterly abolished, because of their idolatrous abuse: all which is particularly made good of kneeling.

I Have proven the Ceremonies to be superstitious; now I will prove them to be Idolatrous. These are different arguments, Sect. for every Idolatry is superstition, but every superstition is [Page 16] not Idolatry, as is rightly by Synop. pur. Theol. disp. 19. thes. 30. some distinguished. As for the Idolatry of the controverted Ceremonies, I will prove that they are thrice Idolatrous. 1. reductivè, because they are monuments of by­past Idolatry. 2 participativè, because they are badges of present Ido­latry. 3. formaliter, because they are Idols themselves. First then, they are Idolatrous, because having beene notoriously abused to Ido­latry heretofore, they are the detestable and accursed monuments, which give no small honour to the memory of that by-past Idolatry, which should lie buried in hell. Man­duct. pag. 38. Dr. Burgesse reckons for Idola­trous, all Ceremonies devised and used, in and to the honouring of an Idoll, whether properly or by interpretation such. Of which sort saith he, were all the Ceremonies of the Pagans, and not a few of the Papists. If an opposite writting against us be forced to aknowledge this much, one may easily conjecture, what inforcing reason wee have to double out our point. The Argument in hand I frame thus:

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

But the Crosse, Surplice, kneeling in the act of receiving the Commuion, &c. are things and rites, &c. and are not such as either God or nature, &c.

Ergo, they should be utterlie abolished, &c.

As for the proposition I shall first explaine it, and then prove it; I say, all things and rites, for they are alike forbidden as I shall shew. Sect. 2 I say, which have beene notoriously abused to idolatry, because if the abuse be not knowne we are blamelesse for retaining the things and rites which have beene abused. I say, if they be not such as either God or nature hath made to be of a necessary use, because if they be of a necessary use, either through Gods institution, as the Sacraments, or through na­tures law, as the opening of our mouths to speake (for when I am to preach or pray publikly, nature makes it necessary, that I open my mouth to speake audibly and articularly,) then the abuse can not take away the use. I say, they may not be used by us, as sacred things and rites pertaining to Divine worship, because without the compasse of worship, they may be used to a naturall or civill purpose. If I could get no other meat to eate, then the consecrated hoste which Papists Idolatrize in the circumgestation of it, I might lawfully eat [Page 17] it, and if I could get no other cloaths to put on, then the holy gar­ments wherein a Priest hath said Masse, I might lawfully weare them. Things abused to Idolatry, are only then unlawfull, when they are used no otherwise then religiously, and as things sacred.

The proposition thus explained, is confirmed by these five proofes, 1. Gods owne praecept, Isa. 30. 22. Ye shall defile also the Sect. 3 covering of thy graven images of silver, and the ornament of thy molten ima­ges of gold: thou shalt cast them away as a menstrous cloath, thou shall say unto it, get thee hence. The covering of the Idoll here spoken of, comm. in illum locum. Gaspar Sanctus rightly understandeth to be that, quo aut induebantur simulacra Gentilico ritu, aut bracteas quibus ligneae imagines integuntur, aut quo homines Idolis sacrificaturi amiciebantur. So that the lea [...]t appurte­nances of Idolls are to be avoided. When the Apostle Iud. 23. Iude would have us to heate the garment spotted with the flesh, his meaning is, detestandam esse vel superficiem ipsam mali five peccati, quam tunicae ap­pellatione subinnuere videtur, as our owne comm. in Thess. 5. 22. Rolloke hath observed. If the very covering of an Idoll be forbidden, what shall be thought of other things which are not only spotted, but irrecoverably pollu­ted with idolls? many such praecepts were given to Israëll, as Exod. 34. 13. Yee shall destroy their altars, breake their images, and cut downe their groves. Deut. 7. 25. 26. The grauen images of their Gods shall ye burne with fire: thou shalt not desire the silver and gold that is on them, nor take it unto thee, lest thou be snared therein: for it is an abomination to the Lord thy God. Reade to the same purpose Numb. 33. 52. Deut. 7. 5. and 12. 2. 3. Secondly, God hath not only by his praecepts com­manded us to abolish all the reliques of Idolatrie, but by his pro­mises also manifested unto us, how acceptable service this should be to him. There is a command Num. 33. 52. that the Israëlites should destroy the Canaanites, evertantque res omnes idololatricas ipso­rum: cui mandato saith anal. in illum locum. Iunius, subjicitur sua promissio, namely, that the Lord wold give them the promised land, and they should dis­possesse the inhabitants thereof, Vers. 53. yea there is a promise of remission and reconciliation to this worke. Isa. 27. 9. By this shall the iniquity of Iacob be purged, and this is all the fruit to take away his sinne: when he maketh all the stones of the Altar as chalke stones, that are beaten asunder, the groves and images shall not stand up.

Thirdly, the Churches of Pergamos and Theatyra are reproved for suffering the use of Idolothyts, Apoc. 2. 14. 20. Where the eating Sect. 4 of things sacrificed to Idolls is condemned as Idolatry and spirituall adultery, as expos. upon Re­vel. 2. 14. Perkins noteth. Paybody therefore is greatly mista­ken, when he thinkes, that meates sacrificed to Idolls, beeing the good Creatures of God, were allowed by the Lord, out of the case of scandall, notwithstanding of Idolatrous pollution, for Apoc. 2. the eating of things sacrificed to Idolls, is reproved as Idolatry, and 1. Cor. 10. 20. the cating of such thinges, is condemned as a fellow­ship [Page 18] with Divells. Now Idolatry and fellowship with divells, I sup­pose are unlawfull, though no scandall should followe upon them. And whereas he thinkes meates sacrificed to Idolls, to be lawfull enough out of the case of scandall, for this reason, because they are the good Creatures of God, he should have considered better the Apostles mind concerning such Idolothyts. Which In praec. 2. p. 534. Zanchius setteth downe thus, Verum est, per so haec nihil sunt, sed respectu eorum quibus immolantur aliquid sunt: quia per haec, illis quibus immolantur, nos consocia­mur. Qui isti? Daemones. For our better understanding of this matter, we must distinguish two sorts of Idolothyts, both which we finde 1 Cor. 10. Of the one, the Apostle speakes from the 14 Verse of that Chapter, to the 23. Of the other, from the 23. verse to the end; This is Beza his distinction in his Annotations on that Chapter. Of the first sort, he delivers the Apostles minde thus; that as Christians have their holy banquets, which are badges of their communion both with Christ and among themselves, and as the Israëlites by their sa­crifices did seale their copulation in the same religion, so also Ido­laters cum suis idolis aut potius daemonibus, solemnibus illis epulis copulantur. So that this sort of 1 Cor. 8. 10. Idolothyts were eaten in Temples, and publike solemne banquets, which were dedicated to the honour of idolls. annot. on 1 Cor. 10. 21. Cartwright sheweth, that the Apostle is comparing the Table of the Lord, with the Table of Idolaters: whereupon it followeth, that as wee use the Lords Table religiously, so that Table of Idolaters of which the Apostle speaketh, had state in the idolatrous worship, like that feast Num. 25. 3. quod in honorem falsorum Deorum celebrabatur, saith com. in illum locum. Calvine. This first sort of Idolathyts, anal. in 1 Cor. 10. Pareus calls the sacri­fices of Idolls, and from such he saith, the Apostle dissuadeth by this argument, Participare e [...]pulis Idolorum, est idololatria. Of the se­cond sort of Idolothyts, the Apostle begins to speake Vers. 23. The Corinthians moved a question, whether they might lawfully eat things sacrificed to Idolls? In privatis conviviis, saith ibid. Pareus. The A­postle resolves them that domi in privato convictu they might eate them, except it were in the case of scandall, thus annot. ibid. Beza. The first sort of Idolothyts are meant of Apoc. 2. as Beza there noteth, and of this sort must we understand de bono conjugali, cap. 16. Augustine to meane, whiles he saith, that it were better mori fame, quam Idolothytis vesci. These sortes are simply & in themselves unlawfull. And if meates sacrificed to Idols be so unlawfull, then much more such things and rites as have not only beene sacrificed and destinated to the honour of Idolls, (for this is but one kinde of Idolatrous abuse,) but also of a long time, publikly and solemnely employed in the worshipping of Idolls, and deeply defiled with Idolatry, much more I say, are they unlawfull to be applied to Gods most pure and holy worship, and therein used by us publikely and solemnely, so that the world may see us con­forming, and joyning our selves unto Idolaters.

[Page 19] Fourthly, I fortify my proposition by approven examples: and first, we find that Iacob, Genes. 35. 4. did not only abolish out of his Sect. 5 house, the Idolls, but their eare-rings also, because they were super­stitionis insignia, as Calvine; res ad idololatriam pertinentes, as Iunius; monilia idolis consecrata, as Pareus calleth them; all writting upon that place. We have also the example of Elijah, 1. Kings 18. 30. he would by no meanes offer upon Baals Altar, but would needs repaire the Lords Altar, though this should hold the people the longer in exspecta­tion. This he did in P. Martyrs Iudgment, because he thought it a great indignity, to offer sacrifice to the Lord, upon the Altar of Baal. Whereupon, comm. in illum locum Martyr reprehendeth those who in admini­string the true Supper of the Lord, uti velint Papisticis vestibus & instru­mentis. Further we have the example of Iehu, who is commanded for the destroying of Baal out of Israëll, with his image, his house, and his very vestments. Read, 2. Kings, 10. from the 22. Verse to the 28. And what example more considerable, then that of Heze­kiah, who not only abolished such monuments of Idolatry, as at their first institution were but mens inventions, but brake downe also the Brazen serpent (though originally set up at Gods owne com­mand,) when once he saw it abused to Idolatry? 2 Kings 18. 4. This deed of Hezekiah, Pope apud wolphium com. in 2 Reg. 18. 4. Steven doth greatly praise, and pro­fesseth that it is set before us for our imitation, that when our pre­decessors have wrought some things, which might have beene with­out fault in their time, and afterward they are converted into error and superstition, they may be quickly destroyed by us who come after them. Io. Calv. epist. & resp. pag. 79. Farellus saith, that Princes & Magistrates should learne by this example of Hezekiah, what they should doe with those significant rites of mens devising which have turned to superstition. Yea, the serm. on Phil. 2. 10 B. of Wincester aknowledgeth, that whatsoever is taken up at the injunction of men, when it is drawne to superstition, com­meth under the compasse of the Brazen serpent, and is to be abo­lished. And he excepteth nothing from this example, but only things of Gods owne prescribing, Moreover, we have the exam­ple of good Iosiah, 2 Kings 23. for he did not only destroy the hou­ses and the high-places of Baal, vers. 19. but his vessels also, vers. 4. and his grove, vers 6. 14. and his Altars, vers. 12. yea the horses and char­rets, which had beene given to the Sun, vers. 11. The example also of penitent Manasseh, who not only overthrewe the strange Gods, but their Altars too 2 Chron. 33. 15. And of Moses the man of God, who was not content to execute vengeance on the Idolatrous Israe­lites, except he should also utterly destroy the monument of their Idolatry, Exod. 32. 27. 20. Lastly, we have the example of Daniel, who would not defile himself with the portion of the Kings meate, Dan. 1. 8, because saith com. in locum illum Iunius, it was converted in usum idolola­tricum, for at the banquets of the Babylonians and other Gentiles, erant [Page 20] praemessa sive praemissa, quae dijs praemittebantur. They used to conse­crate their meate and drinke to Idolls, and to invocate the names of their Idolls upon the same, so that their meate and drinke fell un­der the prohibition of Idolothyts. This is the reason, which is given by the most part of the Interpreters, for Daniels fearing to pollute himself, with the kings meate, and wine: and it hath also the approbation of G. San­ctius com. ibid. a Papist.

Fiftly, our proposition is backed with a twofold reason, for things which have beene notoriously abused to Idolatry, should be Sect. 6 abolished, 1. quia monent, 2. quia movent: first then, they are moni­tory, & preserve the memory of Idolls, monumentum in good things, is both monimentum & munimentum, but monumentum in evill things, (such as Idolatry,) is only monimentum, which monet mentem to remember upon such things as ought not to be once named amōg Saincts, but should lye buried in the eternall darknesse of silent oblivion. Those re­liques therefore of Idolatry, quibus quasi monumentis posterit as admoneatur (as com. in 2 Reg. 23. 6. Wolphius rightly saith,) are to be quite defaced and destroyed, be­cause they serve to honour the memory of cursed Idolls. God Exod. 23. 13. Deut. 12. 3. Ios, 23. 7. would not have, so much as the name of an Idoll, to be remembered a­mong his people, but commanded to destroy their names, as well as themselves. Whereby we are admonished, as com in Isa. 27. 9. Calvine saith, how detestable Idolatry is before God, cujus memoriam vult penitus deleri, ne posthac ullum ejus vesligium appareat, Calv. com. in Exod. 23. 24. yea he requireth, eorum om­nium memoriam deleri, quae semel dicata sunt idolis. If Esther. 3. 2. Mordecay would not give his countenance, nor doe any reverence to a living monu­ment of that nation, whose name God had ordained Deut. 25. 19. to be blotted out from under heaven; much lesse should we give connivence, and farre lesse countenance, but least of all reverence to the dead and dumbe monuments of those Idolls which God hath devoted to ut­ter destruction, with all their naughty appurtenances, so that he will not have their names to be once mentioned or remembered againe. But secoundly, movent too: such Idolothyous remainders move us to turne back to Idolatry. For usu compertum habemus, super­stitiones etiam postquam explosae essent, si qua relicta fuissent earum monu­menta, cum memoriam sui ipsarum apud homines, tum id tandem ut revoca­rentur obtinuisse, saith ubi supra Wolphius. Who here upon thinks it behovefull, to destroy funditus such vestigies of superstition, for this cause, if there were no more; ut &▪ aspirantibus ad revocandam idololatriam spes frangatur, & res novas molientibus ansa pariter ac materia praecipiatur. God would have Israell to overthrow all idolotrous monuments, lest thereby they should be snared, Deut. 7. 25. and 12. 30. And if the Exod. 21. 33. law command to cover a pit, lest an oxe or an asse should fall therein: shall we suffer a pit to be open, wherein the pretious soules of men and women, which all the world can not ransone, are likely to fall? Did God command Deut. 22. 8. to make a battlement for the roofe [Page 21] of a house, and that for the safety of mens bodies? And shall we not only not put up a battlement, or object some barre for the safety of mens soules, but also leave the way sl [...]pty and full of snares? Reade we not that the Lord, who knewe what was in man, & saw how propense he was to Idolatry, did not only remove out of his peo­ples way, all such things as might any way allure or induce them to Idolatry, (even to the cutting of the names of the Idolls out of the land, Zecbar. 13. 2.) but also hedge up their way with thornes, that they might not find their paths, nor overtake their Idol-Gods, when they should seeke after them, Hos. 2. 6. 7? And shall we by the very contrary course, not only not hedge up the way of Ido­latry with thornes, which may stop and stay such as have an incli­nation aiming forward, but also lay before them, the inciting and entising occasions, which adde to their owne propension, such delectation as spurreth forward with a swift facility?

Thus having both explained and confirmed the proposition Sect. 7 of our present argument, I will make me next for the confutation of the answeres, which our opposites devise to elude it. And first, they tell us, that it is needlesse to abolish utterly, things and Rites which the Papists have abused to Idolatry and superstition, and that it is enough to purge them from the abuse; and to restore them again to their right use. Hence N fratri & amico art. 17. Saravia will not have pium crucis usum to be abolished cum abusu, but holds it enough that the abuse and superstition be taken away. Iren. lib. 1. cap. 7. 9. 6. Dr Forbesse his answere is, that not only things instituted by God, are not to be taken away for the abuse of them, but further, neque res mediae ab hominibus prudenter introductae, propter sequentem abusum semper tollendae sunt. Abusi sunt Papistae Tem­plis, & Oratoriis, & Cathedris, & sacris Vasis, & Campanis, & benedictione Matrimoniali: nec tamen res istas, censuerunt prudentes reformatores abjicien­das. Ans. 1. resp. ad versipel. pag 41. 4. Calvine answering that which Cassander alledged out of an Italian writer, abusu non tolli bonum usum; he admits it only to be true, in things which are institute by God himself: not so in things ordained by men: for the very use of such things, or rites, as have no necessary use in Gods worship, and which men have de­vised, only at their owne pleasure, is taken away by Idolatrous abuse. Pars tutior here, is to put them wholly away, and there is by a great deale more danger in retaining; then in removing them. 2. The proofs which I have produced for the proposition, about which now we debate, doe not only inferre that things and Rites, which have beene notoriously abused to Idolatry, should be abo­lished, in case they be not restored to a right use, but simply and absolutely that in any wise they are to be abolished. e God com­manded (b) Isa. 30. 22. to say to the coverings, and the ornaments of Idolls get you hence. It is not enough they be purged from the abuse, but simplici­ter, they themselves must pack them, and be gone. How did Iacob [Page 22] with the eare rings of the Idolls; Elijah with Baals Altar; Iehu with his vestments; Iosiah with his houses; Manasseh with his Altars; Moses with the golden Calfe; Iosua with the Temples of Canaan; Hezekiah with the Brazen Serpent? did they retaine the things themselves, and only purge them from the abuse? belike if these our Opposites had beene their counsellers, they had advised them to be contented with such a moderation: yet we see they were better counselled, when they destroyed utterly the things themselves: whereby we know, that they were of the same mind with us, and thought that things abused to Idolatry, if they have no necessary use, are farre better away then aplace. Did Daniel refuse Bels meate, because it was not restored to the right use? Nay, if that had beene all, it might have beene quickly helped, and the meate sanctified by the word of God and prayer. Finally, were the Churches of Perga­mos and Theatyra, reprooved, because they did not restore things sa­crificed to Idolls, to their right use? or, were they not rather re­prooved for having any thing at all a doe with the things them­selves?

3. As for that which Dr. Forbesse objecteth to us, we answere, that Sect. 8 Temples, places of Prayer, Chaires, Veshells, and Bells, are of a necessary use, by the light and guidance of nature it selfe, and Ma­trimoniall benediction is necessary by Gods institution, Gen. 1. 28. So that all those examples doe except themselves from the argu­ment in hand. But ubi supra the Dr. intendeth to bring those things with­in the category of things indifferent, and to this purpose he alled­geth, that it is indifferent to use this, or that place, for a Temple, or a place of prayer: also to use these Veshells, and Bells, or others; And of Matrimoniall benediction to be performed by a Pastor, he saith, there is nothing commanded in scripture. Ans. Though it be indifferent to choose this place, or that place, &c. also to use these Veshells, or other Veshells, &c. yet the Dr (I trust) will not denie that Temples, houses of prayer, Veshels, and Bells are of a neces­sary use, (which exeemeth them from the touch of our present ar­gument:) whereas beside, that it is not necessary to kneele in the communion in this place, more then in that place, neither to keep the feasts of Christs Nativity, Passion, &c. upon these dayes more then upon other dayes, &c. the things themselves are not necessary in their kinde, and it is not necessary to keep any festuall day, nor to kneel at all in the act of receiving the communion. There is also another respect which hindereth Temples, Veshells, &c. from comming within the compasse of this our argument: but neither doth it agree to the controverted Ceremonies. Temples, houses of Prayer, Veshells for the ministration of the Sacraments, and Bells, are not used by us in Divine worship, as things Sacred; or as holier then other houses, Veshells, and Bells; But we use them only for [Page 23] naturall necessity, partly for that common decency, which hath no lesse place in the actions of Civill, then of sacred assemblies: yea in some cases, they may be applied to Civill uses, as supra cap. 1. sect. 11. hath been said. Whereas the controverted Ceremonies are respected & used, as sacred Rites, and as holier then any circumstance, which is alike common to civill and sacred actions, neither are they used at all, out of the case of worship. We see now a double respect, wherefore our argument inferreth not the necessity of abolishing and de­stroying such Temples, Veshells and Bells, as have been abused to Idolatry, viz. because it can neither be said, that they are not things necessary, nor yet that they are things sacred.

Neverthelesse (to add this by the way) howbeit for those reasons, Sect. 9 the retaining and using of Temples which have been polluted with Idolls, be not in it selfe unlawfull, yet the retaining of every such Temple is not ever necessary, but sometimes it is expedient for fur­ther extirpation of superstition, to demolish and destroy some such Temples, as have been horribly abused to Idolatry, as Com. in Deut. 12. 2. Calvine also and In 4. praec. Col. 709. Zanchius doe plainly insinuate. Whereby I meane to defend (though not as in it selfe necessary, yet as expedient pro tunc, that which the Reformators of the Church of Scotland did in casting downe some of those Churches, which had been consecrate to Po­pish Idolls, and of a long time polluted with Idolatrous worship. As on the one part the Reformators (not without great probability) feared, that so long as these Churches were not made even with the ground, the memory of that superstition, whereunto they had been employed and accustomed, should have been in them preserved, and with some sort of respect, recognized: so on the other parte they saw it expedient to demolish them, for strengthening the hands of such as adhered to the Reformation, for putting Papists out of all hope of the reentry of Popery, and for hedging up the way with thornes, that the Idolatrously minded, might not find their pathes. And since the pulling downe of those Churches wanted neither this pious intent, nor happy event, I must say, that the bitter invectives given forth against it, by some who carry a favourable eye to the pompous bravery of the Romish whoore, and have deformed to much of that which was by them reformed, are to be detested by all such, as wish the eternall exile of Idolatrous monuments, out of the Lords land: yet let these Momus-like spirits understand, that their censorius verdicts doe also reflexe upon those auncient Chri­stians Magdeb. Cent. 4. cap. 15. Col. 1538. 1539. of whom we read, that with their owne hands they destroy­ed the Temples of Idolls. And upon Chrysostome, who stirred up some Monkes, and sent them into Phaenicia, togither with workmen, and sustained them on the expences and charges of certaine godly women, that they might destroy the Temples of Idolls, as the Cent 5. cap. 15. Col. 1511. Mag­deburgians have marked out of Theodoret: Likewise upon them of [Page 24] the Religion in France, of whom Thuanus recordeth, that templa con­fractis ac disjectis statuis & altaribus, expilaverant. Lastly, upon Daneus Polit. Christ. lib. 3 p. 229 Polan. synt. Theol. lib. 10 cap. 65. for­taine Divines, who teach, that not onely Idola, but Idolia also, and omnia Idololatriae instrumenta should be abolished. Moreover, what was it else, but reasons light which made Cambyses to feare, that the superstition of Egypt could not be well rooted out, if the Temples wherein it was seated were not taken away; so that offensus supersti­tionibus Aegyptiorum, Apis caeterorumque Deorum aedes dirui jubet: ad Am­monis quoque nobilissimum templum expugnandum, exercitum mittit, saith Epit. Hist. lib. 1. Iustinus. And is not the danger of retaining Idolatrous Churches, thus pointed at by P. Martyr. Curavit &c. Iehu (saith Com. in 2 Reg. 10. 27. he) tooke care to have the Temples of Baall overthrowne, lest they should returne any more to their wonted use Wherefore it appears, that many doe not rightly, who having imbraced the Gospell of the Sonne of God, yet notwithstanding keep still the in­struments of Popery. And they have farre better looked to piety who have taken care, to have Popish Images, statues, and ornaments, utterly cut off, for as we read in the Ecclesiasticall Histories, Constantine the great, after he had given his name to Christ, by an edict provided and tooke order, that the Temples of the Idolls might be closed and shut up. But because they did still remaine, Iu­lian the Apostate did easily open and unlock them, and thereafter did prostitute the Idolls of old superstition to be worshipped in them: which Theodosius the best and commended Prince, animadverting, commanded to pull them downe, lest they should againe any more be restored. But because I suppose no so­ber spirit will denie that sometimes and in some cases, it may be ex­pedient to rase and pull downe some Temples polluted with Idolls, where other Temples may be had to serve sufficiently the assemblies of Christian congregations, (which is all I plead for:) Therefore I leave this purpose, and returne to D. Forbesse.

As touching matrimoniall benediction, it also is exeemed out of Sect. 10 the compasse of our present argument, because through Divine in­stitution, it hath a necessary use, as we have said. And though the Dr to make it appeare, that a Pastors performing of the same is a thing indifferent, alledgeth, that in Scripture there is nothing com­manded thereanent. Yet plaine it is from Scripture it selfe, that Matrimoniall benediction ought to be given by a Pastor, for Num. 6. God hath commanded his Ministers, to blesse his people, which by just Analogy belongeth to the Ministers of the Gospell; neither is there any ground for making herein a difference, betwixt them and the Ministers of the Law, but we must conceive the commandement, to t [...]e both alike to the blessing of Gods People. Vnto which Mini­steriall duty of blessing, because no such limits can be set, as may exclude Matrimoniall blessing; therefore they are bound to the per­formance of it also. And if further we consider Hebr 6. 7. that the duty of blessing was performed by the Minister of the Lord, even before the law of Moses, we are yet more confirmed, to thinke that the [Page 25] blessing of the people, was not commanded in the Law as a thing peculiar and proper to the Leviticall Priesthood, but as a Mo­rall & perpetuall duty, belonging to the Lords Ministers for ever. Wherefore notwithstanding of any abuse of Matrimoniall benedi­ction among Papists, yet forasmuch as it hath a necessary use in the Church, and may not (as the controverted Ceremonies may) be wel spared; It is manifest, that it commeth not under the respect and account of those things, whereof our Argument speaketh.

Lastly, whereas the Dr. would beare his Reader in hand, that in the Sect. 11 Iudgment of wise Reformators, even such things as have been brought in use by men only, without Gods institution, are not to be ever taken away, for the abuse which followeth upon them: let Calv. Res. ad Ver­sipel. p. 413. Reformators speake for themselves. Nos quoque priscos ritus, quibus indifferenter uti licet, quia verbo Dei consentanei sunt non reijcimus, modo ne superstitio & pravus abusus cos abolere cogat. This was the judgment of the wisest Reformators; that Rites which were both auncient, and lawfull, & agreeable to Gods Word, were notwithstanding of ne­cessity to be abolished, because of their superstition and wicked abuse.

Secondly, our Opposites answer us, that beside the purging of things and Rites abused by Idolators, from their Idolatrous pollu­tion, and the restoring of them to a right use, preaching and teaching against the superstition, and abuse which hath followed upon them, is another means to avoid that harme, which we feare to ensue upon the retaining of them. Ans. 1. This is upon as good ground pretended for the keeping of images in Churches. At inquiunt sta­tim docemus has imagines non esse adorandas. Quasi vero saith de ima­gin, Col. 402. Zanchius, non idem olim fecerit diligentius Deus, per Mosen & Prophetas, quam nos fa­ciamus. Cur igitur etiam volebat tolli imagines omnes? quia non satis est ver­bo docere non esse faciendum malum: sed tollenda etiam sunt malorum offen­dicula, irritamenta, causae, occasiones. It is not enough with the Scribes and Pharises to teach out of Moses Chaire, what the people should doe, but all occasions, yea appearances of evill, are to be taken out of their sight. Efficacius enim & plus movent, quae in oculos quam quae in aures incidunt. Potuerat & Hezekias populum monere, ne Serpentem adora­rent, sed maluit confringere & penitus è conspectu auferre, & rectius fecit faith Tho. N [...]o. georgus in 1 10. 5. 21. one well to this purpose. 2. Experience hath taught, to how little purpose such admonitions doe serve. Ioh. Calv. Epist. & resp. pag. 86. Calvine writing to the Lord Protector of England, of some Popish Ceremonies which did still remaine in that Church, after th [...] Reformation of the same, de­sireth, that they may be abolished, because of their former abuse, in time of Popery. Quid enim (saith h) illae Ceremoniae aliud fuerunt, quam totidem lenocinia quae miseras animas ad malum perducerent, &c. But because he saw, that some might answer, that which our Formalists answer now to us, and say, it were enough to warne and teach men [Page 26] that they abuse not these Ceremonies, and that the abolishing of the Ceremonies themselves were not necessary. Therefore imme­diately he subjoyneth these words. Iam si decautione agitur, monebun­tur homines scilicet, ne ad illas nunc impingant, &c. Quis tamen non videt ob­durari ipsos nihilominus, nihil ut infaelici illa cautione obtineri possit. Where­upon he concludes, that if such Ceremonies were suffered to re­maine, this should be a meane to nourish a greater hardnesse and obfirmation in evill, and a vaile drawne, so that the sincere doctrine which is propounded, should not be admitted as it ought to be. Ibid. Col. 136. In­another Epistle to Cranmer Archbishop of Canterbury, he complaineth, that externall superstitions were so corrected in the Church of En­gland, ut residui maneant innumeri surculi, qui assidue pollulent. And what good then was done by their admonitions, whereby they did in some sort snedde the reviving twigs of old superstition, since for­asmuch as they were not wholly eradicat, they did still shoot forth againe. If a man should digge a pitt by the way side, for some com­modity of his owne, and then admonish the travellers to take heed to themselves, if they goe that way in the darknesse of the night, who would hold him excusable? How then shall they be excused, who digge a most dangerous pit, which is like to ruine many soules, and yet will have us to thinke that they are blamelesse, for that they warne men to beware of it?

Thirdly, we are told, that if these answers which our Opposites Sect. 13 give, get no place, then shall we use nothing at all which hath been abused by Idolaters, and by consequence, neither Baptisme nor the Lords Supper. But let comm. in Col. 2. 17. Zanchius answer for us, that these things are by themselves necessary, so that it is enough they be purged from the abuse. And de ima­gin. Col. 403. elsewhere he resolveth, that things which are by themselves both good and necessary, may not for any abuse bee put away. Si vero res sint adiaphorae sua natura & per legem Dei, eoque tales quae citra jacturam salutis omitti possunt, etiamsi ad bonos usus initio fuerunt institutae: si tamen postea videamus illas in abusus pernitiosos esse con­versas: pietas in Deum, & charitas erga proximum, postulant ut tollantur, &c. He addes for proofe of that which he saith, the example of Hezekiah in breaking downe that Brazen Serpent, which example doth in­deed most pregnantly enforce the abolishing of all things or rites, notouriously abused to Idolatry, when they are not of any neces­sary use, but it warranteth not the abolishing of any thing which hath a necessary use, because the Brazen Serpent is not contained in the number of those things quibus carere non possumus, saith com. in 2 Reg. 18. 4. Wol­phius, answering to the same objection, which presently I have in hand. Now that the Ceremonies have not in themselves, nor by the Law of God any necessary use, and that without hazarde of Sal­vation, they may be omitted, is aknowledged by Formalists them­selves, wherefore I need not stay to prove it.

[Page 27] Beside these answeres which are common in our adversaries Sect. 14 mouthes, some of them have other particular subterfugies, which now I am to search. We must consider saith r B. Lindsey, the Ceremony (b) Proc. in Perth assemb part. 2. pag. 120. it self (dedicated to, and polluted with Idolatry), (whether it be of hu­mane, or Divine institution; If it be of humane institution, it may be removed, &c. but if the Ceremony be of Divine institution, such as kneeling is; for the same is commended by God unto us in his word; then we ought to consider whe­ther the abuse of that Ceremony, hath proceeded from the nature of the action wherein it was used: for if it be so, it ought to be abolished, &c but if the abuse proceed not from the nature of the action, but from the opinion of the agent; then the opinion being removed, the religious Ceremony may be used with­out any prophanation of Idolatry. For example, the abuse of kneeling in ele­vation, &c. proceeded not only from the opinion of the agent, but from the nature of the action which is idolatrous and superstitious, &c. and therefore both the action, and gesture ought to be abolished. But the Sacrament of the Supper, being an action instituted by God, and kneeling beeing of the owne nature an holy and religious Ceremony, it can never receive contagion of ido­latry from it, but only from the opinion of the agent: then remove the opinion, both the action it selfe may be rightly used, and kneeling therein, &c. Ans. 1. since he graunteth that a Ceremony dedicated to, and polluted with Idolatry; may (he answereth not the argument which there he propoundeth, except he say must) be abolished, if it be of hu­mane Institution: he must graunt from this ground, if there were no more, that the Crosse, Surplice, kneeling at the communion, &c. having been so notoriously abused to Idolatry, must be abo­lished, because they have no institution except from men only. But, 2. Why saith he, that kneeling is a Ceremony of Divine insti­tution? Which he pronounceth not of kneeling, as it is actuated by some individuall case, or clothed with certaine perticular circum­stances, (for he maketh this kneeling whereof he speaketh, to be found in two most different actions, the one Idolatrous, the other holy,) but of kneeling in the generall, per se, and praecise ab omnibus circumstantijs. Let him now tell, where kneeling thus considered is commended unto us in Gods word. He would possibly alledge that place. Psal 95, 6. O come, let us worship and bowe downe: let us kneel before the Lord our maker. Which is cited in the Canon of Perth about kneeling. But I answer; whether one expound that place with sCal­vin, ( [...]) com. in illum locum in this sence, ut scilicet ante arcam faederis populus se prosternat, quia sermo de legali cultu habetur: Whereupon [...] should follow, that it commendeth kneeling, only to the Iewes in that particular case: or whether it be taken more generally, to commend kneeling, (though not as necessary, yet as laudable and beseeming,) in the solemne acts of Gods immediat worship, such as that, praise and thanksgi­ving, whereof the beginning of the Psalme speaketh, whether I say it be taken in this, or that sence, yet it commendeth not kneeling, [Page 28] except in a certaine kinde of worship only. And as for kneeling in the generall nature of it, it is not of Divine institution, but in it self indifferent, even as sitting, standing, &c. all which gestures are then only made good, or evill, when in actu exercito they are actuated and individualized by particular circumstances. 3. If so be, the Cere­mony be abused to Idolatry, it skills not how, for as I have shew­ed before, the reasons and proofs which I have produced for the proposition of our present Argument, hold good against the retai­ning of any thing which hath beene knowne to be abused to Ido­latry, and only such things as have a necessary use are to be excep­ted. 4. The nature of an action, wherein a Ceremony is used, can not be the cause of the abuse of that Ceremony, neither can the abuse of a Ceremony proceed from the nature of the action where­in it is used, as one effect from the cause, for Aquin. 2. 2a. q. 43. art. 1. nihil potest esse homini causa sufficiens peccati, except only propria voluntas. 5. The abuse of kneeling in the Idolatrous action of elevation, proceedeth not from the nature of the action, but from the opinion of the agent, or ra­ther from his will, (for principium actionum humanarum, is not opi­nion, but will chosing that which opinion conceiteth to be chosen, or voluntas praeeunte luce intellectus.) It is the will of the agent only, which both maketh the action of elevation to be Idolatrous, and likewise kneeling in this action to receive the contagion of Idolatry. For the elevation of the bread materialiter, is not Idolatrous, (more then the lifting up of the bread among us by Elders or Deacons, when in taking it off the table, or setting it on, they lift it above the heads of the communicants;) but formaliter only, as it is elevated with a will and intention to place it in state of worship. So likewise kneeling to the bread, materialiter, is not Idolatry, (else a man were a Idolater, who should be against his will thrust downe, and hol­den by violence kneeling on his knees, when the bread is eleva­ted,) but formaliter, as it proceedeth from a will and intention in men, to give to the bread elevated, a state in that worship, and out of that respect to kneel before it. 6. What can he gaine by this device, that the abuse of kneeling in the Lords Supper proceeded not from the nature of the action, but from the will of the agent? Can he hereupon inferre, that kneeling in that action is to be retai­ned, notwithstanding of any contagion of Idolatry, which it hath receaved? Nay then, let him say, that Hezekiah did not rightly, in breaking downe the Brazen Serpent, which was set up at Gods command, and the abuse whereof proceeded not from the thing it self, which had a most lawfull, profitable, and holy use, but only from the perverse opinion and will of them who abused it to Ido­latry.

But the comparing of kneeling to the Brazen Serpent, is very Sect. 15 unsavory to the B. And wherefore? The Brazen Serpent saith he, in [Page 29] the time it was abolished, had no use: that ceased with the vertue of the cure, that the Israelites received by looking upon it; the act of kneeling continueth allwise in a necessary use, for the better expressing of our thankfulnesse to God. Ans. 1. Both kneeling, and all the rest of the Popish Ceremonies, may well be compared to the Brazen Serpent. And Divines doe commonly alledge this example, as most pregnant, to prove that things or rites polluted with I dolls, and abused to Idolatry, may not be retained, if they have no necessary use, and I have cited before the B. of Winchester, aknowledging that this argument holdeth good against all things which are taken up, not at Gods prescription, but at mens injunction. Confer. vvith 1. Hart cap. 8. divis. 4. pag. 509. I. Rainoldes argumenteth, from Hezekiah his breaking downe of the Brazen Serpent, to the plucking downe of the signe of the Crosse. 2. Why saith he, that the Brasen Serpent in the time it was abolished had no use? the use of it ceased not with the cure, but it was still kept for a most pious and profitable use, even to be a monument of that mercy, which the Israelites received in the wildernesse, and it served for the better expressing of their thankefulnesse to God, which the B. here calleth a necessary use. 3. When he saith that kneeling continueth alwayes in a necessary use, we must understand him to speake of kneeling in the act of re­ceiving the Communion, else he runnes at randone, for it is not kneeling in the generall, but kneeling in this particular case vvhich is compared to the Brazen Serpent. Now to say, that this gesture in this action is necessary, for our better expressing of our thankeful­nesse to God, importeth that the Church of Scotland, and many fa­mous Churches in Europe, for so many yeares, have omitted that vvhich vvas necessary, for the better expressing of their thankful­nesse to God, and that they have not vvell enough expressed it. And moreover, if kneeling be necessary in the Lords Supper, for our better expressing of our thankfulnesse to God, then is it also neces­sary at our owne common tables. Though we be bound to be more thankfull at the Lords Table, and that because vve receive a benefit of infinit more vvorth. Yet we are bound to be tam grati, as vvell thankfull, at our owne tables, albeit not tanta gratitudine. If then the same kind of thankfulnesse be required of us at our owne Tables, (for intentio & remissio graduum secundum magis & minus, non va­riant speciem rei;) that vvhich is necessary for expressing of our thank­fulnesse, at the Lords Table, must be necessary also for the expres­sing of it, at our ovvne. When I see the B. sitting at his Table, I shall tell him, that he omitteth that gesture vvhich is necessary, for the expressing of his thankfulnesse to God. 4. Did not the Apostles receiving this Sacrament from Christ himself, vvell enough expresse their thankfulnesse to God? yet they kneeled not, but sate, as is evi­dent, and shall be aftervvards prooven against them vvho contra­dict every thing vvhich crosseth them. 5. God vvill never take a [Page 30] Ceremony of mens devising, for a better expressing of our thankful­nesse, then a gesture vvhich is commended to us by the example of his ovvne Sonne and his Apostles, together vvith the Celebration of this Sacrament in all points according to his institution. 6. Hovv shall vve knovv vvhere vve have the B. and his fellovves? it seemes they know not where they have themselvs: for sometimes they tell us, that it is indifferent to take the Communion sitting, or standing, or passing, or kneeling, yet here the B. tells, that kneeling is necessary. 7. I see the B. perceiveth, that no answere can take kneeling at the Communion, out of the compasse of the Brazen Serpent, except to say, it hath a necessary use, this is the dead lift, which yet helpeth not, as I have shewed. All things then which are not necessary, (where of kneeling is one,) being notoriously abused to Idolatry, fall under the Brazen Serpen [...].

Paybody also will here talke with us, therefore we will talke with Sect. 16 him too. He apol. part. 3. cap. 4. sect. 15. 16. 17. saith, that God did not absolutely condemne things abused to Idolatry, and tells us of three conditions on which it was lawfull to spare Idolatrous appurtenances: 1. If there were a needfull use of them in Gods worship: 2 In case they were so alte­red and disposed, as that they tended not to the honour of the Idoll, and his damnable worship, 3. If they were without certaine danger, of insnaring people into Idolatry. Ans. 1. Either he requires all these conditiones, in every Idolothyte and Idolatrous appurtenance which may be retained, or else he thinkes, that any one of them sufficeth: If he require all these, the last two are superfluous; for that which hath a needfull use in Gods worship, can neither tend to the honour of the Idoll, nor yet can have in it any danger of insnaring people into Idolatry: If he thinke any one of those conditions enough, then let us goe through them. The first I admit, but it will not helpe his cause, for while the world standeth, they shall never prove that kneeling in the act of receiving the Communion, & the other con­troverted Ceremonies, have either a needfull, or a profitable, or a lawfull use in Gods worship. As for his secound condition, it is all one with that which supra sect. 9. I have already confuted: namely, that things abused to Idolatry may be kept, if they be purged from their abuse, and restored to the right use. But he alledgeth for it a passage of Parker, of the Crosse, cap. 1. sect. 7. pag. 10. Where he sheweth out of Augustine, that an Idolothyte may not be kept for privat use, ex­cept 1. Omnis honor Idoli, cum apertissima destructione subvertatur. 2 That not only his honour be despoysed, but also all shew thereof. How doth this place (now would I know,) make any thing for Pay­body? Doe they keepe kneeling for privat use? Doe they destroy most openly all honour of the Idoll, to which kneeling was dedica­ted? Hath their kneeling not so much as any shew of the breaden-Gods honour? who will say so? and if any will say it, who will be­lieve [Page 31] it? who knoweth not that kneeling is kept for a publike, and not for a private use, and that the breaden Idoll receiveth very great shew of honour from it? He was scarce of warrants, when he had no better, then Parker could affoorde him. His third condition rests, and touching it I aske, what if those Idolatrous appurtenan­ces, be not without apparent danger of insnaring people into Ido­latry? are we not commanded to abstaine from all appearance of evill? Will he correct the Apostle, and teach us, that we need not care for apparent, but for certain dangers? What more apparent danger of insnaring people into Idolatry, then unnecessarie Cere­monies, which have been dedicated to, and polluted with Idolls, and which being retained, doe both admonish us to remember upon old Idolatry, and move us to returne to the same, as I have supr [...] sect. 6. before made evident?

Now as for the assumption of our present Argument, it can not Sect. 17 be but evident, to any who will not harden their mindes against the light of the truth, that the Ceremonies in question, have been most notoriously abused to Idolatry and superstition, and withall, that they have no necessary use to make us retaine them. I say, they have been notoriously abused to Idolatry. 1. Because they have been dedicated and consecrated to the service of Idolls. 2. Because they have been deeply polluted, and commonly employed in Ido­latrous worship. For both these reasons doth Epist. ad Regin. Elisab. Epistolar. lib. 1. pag. 112. Zanchius condemne the Surplice, and such like Popish Ceremonies, left in England, be­cause the Whoore of Rome hath abused, and doth yet abuse them, ad alliciendos homines ad scortandum. Sunt enim pompae istae omnes, & Cere­moniae Papisticae, nihil aliud quam fuci Meretricij, ad hoc excogitati, ut ho­mines ad spiritualem scortationem alliciantur. O golden sentence, and vvorthy to be engraven with a pen of Yron, and the point of a Dia­mond! For most needfull it is to consider, that those Ceremonies, are the very meretricious bravery, and inveagling trinkets, where­with the Romish Whoore doth faird and paint her self, whiles she propineth to the world the cup of her fornications. This makes Ibid. pag. 111. Zanchius, to call those Ceremonies, the Reliques & Symboles of Popish Idolatry and Superstition. When Queene Mary set up Po­pery in England, and restored all of it, which King Henry had over­throwne, she considered, that Popery could not stand well favou­redly, without the Ceremonies. Whereupon Sleid. comm. lib. 25. p. 48 [...]. she ordained, ut dies omnes festi celebrentur, superioris aetatis Ceremoniae restituantur, pueri adul­tiores ante baptisati, ab Episcopis confirmentur. So that not in remote re­gions, but in his Majesties dominions, not in a time past memory, but about fourscore yeares agoe, not by peoples practise onely, but by the lawes and edicts of the Supreme Magistrate; the Ceremonies have beene abused, to the reinducing and upholding of Popery and Idolatry. Both farre and neere then, both long since and lately, it [Page 32] is more then notorious, how grossely and grievously the Ceremo­nies have been polluted with Idolatry and Superstition.

I can not choose but marvell much, how Apol. part. 3. cap. 4. Paybody was not asha­med Sect. 18 to deny, that kneeling hath been abused by the Papists. Blush ô paper, which art blotted with such a notable lie! What will not desperate impudency dare to averre? But Proc. in Perth. as­semb. part. 2. p. 118. 119 B. Lindsey seemeth al­so to hold, that kneeling hath been abused by the Papists, onely in the elevation and circumgestation of the Hoste, but not in the participation; and that Honorius, did not command kneeling in the participation; but onely in the elevation and circumgestation. Ans. 1. Saltem mendacem oportet esse memorem. Saith not the Ibid. pag. 22. B. him­selfe elsewhere of the Papists, In the Sacrament they kneel to the signe, whereby he would prove a disconformity between their kneeling and ours: for vve kneel, saith he, by the Sacrament to the thing signi­fied. Now if the Papists in the Sacrament kneel to the signe, then they have Idolatrously abused kneeling, even in the participation, for the B. dare not say, that in the elevation, or circumgestation, there is either Sacrament or signe. 2. Why doe our Divines con­trovert with the Papists, de adoratione Eucharistiae, if Papists adore it not in the participation? for the Hoste carried about in a box, is not the Sacrament of the Eucharist. 3. In the participation, Papists think that the Bread is already transubstantiate into the body of Christ, by vertue of the vvords of consecration. Now if in the participation they kneel to that which they falsely conceit to be the body of Christ, (but is indeed corruptible bread) with an inten­tion to give it Latria or Divine worship: then in the participation they abuse it to Idolatry. But that is true. ergo. 4. Ration. lib. 5. tit. de prima & lib. 6. tit. de die sancta pasche. Durand sheweth, that though in the holy-dayes of Easter and Pentecost, and the fe­stivities of the blessed Virgin, and in the Lords dayes, they kneel not in the Church, but onely stand (because of the joy of the fe­stivity,) and at the most doe but bovv or incline their heads at prayer; yet in presentia corporis & sanguinis Christi, in presence of the bread and vvine, vvhich they thinke to be the body and blood of Christ, they cease not to kneel. And hovv vvill the B. make their participation free of this Idolatrous kneeling? The annot. on Math. 8. sect. 3. & on 1 Cor. 11. sect. 18. Rhemists shevv us, that when they are eating and drinking the body and blood of our Lord, they adore the Sacrament, and humbling themselves they say to it, Domine non sum dignus, Deus propitius esto mihi peccatori. 5. As for that which Honorius the 3 decreed, Way to the Church, answer to sect. 51. Dr. White calleth it, the ado­ration of the Sacrament. Which if it be so, then we must say, that he decreed adoration in the participation it self: because extra usum Sacramenti, the bread can not be called a Sacrament. Honorius com­manded, that the Priest should frequently teach his people, to bow downe devoutly, when the hoste is elevated in the celebration of the Masse, and that they should doe the same, when it is caried to [Page 33] the sicke. All this was ordained, in reference to the participation. Ad usum illa instituta sunt, saith exam. conc. trit de Euchar. can. 6. pag. 86. Chemnitius, speaking of this decrec, quando scilicet panis consecratur, & quando ad infirmos defertur, ut exhi­beatur & sumatur. So that that which was specially respected in the decree, was adoring in the participation.

Lastly, here we have to doe with Dr. Burgesse, who will have us to thinke, of the lawfull, of kneeling, cap▪ 21. p. 65. that adoration in receiving the Sacrament, hath not been Idolatrously intended to the Sacrament in the Church of Rome, neither by decree nor custome: not by decree; because albeit Hono­rius appointed adoration to be used in the elevation and circumge­station, yet not in the act of receiving. And albeit the Romane Rituall doe appoint, that Cleargie men comming to receive the Sa­crament, doe it kneeling, yet Ibid. p. 69. this was done in veneration of the Altar, or of that which standeth thereupon, and not for adora­tion of the Hoste put into their mouths. Not by custome▪ for [...]he will not have it said, that kneeling in the time of receiving, was ever in the Church of Rome, any rite of or for adoration of the Sa­crament, because albeit the people kneel in the act of receiving, yet I denie, saith he, that they ever intended adoration of the species, at that moment of time when they tooke it in their mouths, but th [...] turned them­selves to God &c. Ans. 1. As for the decree of Honorius, I have all ready answered with Chemnitius, that it had reference specially to the receiving. 2. When Cleargie men are appointed in the Ro­mane Rituall, to receive the Sacrament at the Altar kneeling, this was not for veneration of the Altar, to which they did reverence at all times when they approched to it, but this was required particu­larly in their receiving of the Sacrament, for adoration of it Nei­ther is there mention made of the Altar, as conferring any thing to their kneeling in receiving the Sacrament, for the Sacrament was not used the more reverently, because it stood upon the Altar, but by the contrary, for the Sacraments sake reverence was done to the Altar, which was esteemed the Seat of the body of Christ. It appeareth therefore, that the Altar is mentioned, not as concerning the kneeling of the Cleargie men in their communicating, but sim­ply as concerning their communicating, because none but they were wont to communicate at the Altar, according to that received Concil. Laodicaen. can. 19. See also Conc. Tolet. 4. can. 17. Canon. Solis autem Ministris Altaris liceat ingredi ad Altare, & ibidem communicare. The one of the Doctors owne conjectures, is, that they kneeled for reverence of that which stood upon the Altar. But I would know what that was, which standing upon the Altar, made them to kneele in the participation; if it was not the Hoste it self? Now whereas he denies, as touching custome, that people did ever intend the adoration of the species: I answer. 1. How knowes he what people in the Romane Church did intend in their mindes? 2. What warrant hath he for this, that they did not in the partici­pation [Page 34] adore the Hoste, which was then put into their mouths? 3. Though this which he saith, were true, he gaineth nothing by it; for put the case they did not intend the adoration of the species, dare he say, that they intended not the adoration of that which was un­der the species? I trow not. Now that which was under the species, though in their conceit it was Christs body, yet it was indeed Bread. So that in the very participation, they were worshipping the Bread. But, 4. What needeth any more? he maketh himself a lyar, and saith ubi su­pra pag. 71. plainly, that after transubstantiation was embraced, and when all the substance of the visible Creature was held to be gone, they did intend the adoration of the visible things, as if there had been now no substance of any creature left therein. Whereby he de­stroyeth all which he hath said, of their not intending the adoration of the species.

Last of all, for the other part of my assumption, that the Cere­monies Sect. 20 have no necessary use in Gods Worship, I need no other proof, then the common by word of Formalists, which saith, they are things indifferent. Yet the ubi su­pra pag. 118 (a) ubi su­pra. B. of Edimbrugh, & a Paybody, have turned their [...] bravery, and chosed rather to say any thing against us, then nothing. They spare not to answer, that kneeling hath a necessary use. They are most certainly speaking of kneeling in the act of receiving the Communion; for they, and their Opposites in those places, are disputing of no other kneeling, but this onely. Now we may easily perceive, they are in a evill taking, when they are driven to such an unadvised and desperate answer. For. 1. If kneeling in the act of receiving the Lords Supper be necessary, why have themselves two, written so much for the indifferency of it? O desultorious levity, that knows not where to hold it self! 2. If it be necessary, what makes it to be so? what law? what example? what reason? 3. If it be necessary, not onely many reformed Chur­ches, and many auncient too; but Christ himself and his Apostles, have in this Sacrament omitted something that was necessary. 4. If it be necessary, why doe many of their owne Disciples take the Communion, sitting in places where sitting is used? what need I to say more? In the first part of this dispute, I have proven that the Ceremonies are not necessary, in respect of the Churches ordinance, howbeit if it were answered in this place, that they are in this re­spect necessary, it helpeth not, since the Argument proceedeth a­gainst all things notoriously abused to Idolatry, which neither God nor nature hath made necessary. And for any necessity of the Ce­remonies in themselves, either our Opposites must repudiat, what hath unadvisedly fallen from their pennes hereanent, or else forsake their beaten ground of indifferency, and say plainly, that the Ce­remonies are urged by them, to be observed with an opinion of ne­cessity, as worship of God, and as things in themselvs necessary. [Page 35] Looke to your selvs, ô Formalists, for you stand here upon such slippery places, that you can not hold both your feet.

CHAP. III.

That the Ceremonies are unlawfull, because they sorte us with Idolaters, being the badges of present Idolatry among the Papists.

IT followeth according to the order, which I have propo­sed, to shew next, that the Ceremonies are Idolatrous, par­ticipativè. Sect. 1 By communicating with Idolaters in their Rites and Ceremonies, we our selves become guilty of Idolatry. Even as 2 Kings 16, 10. Ahaz was an Idolater, eo ipso, that he tooke the Paterne of an Altar from Idolaters. Forasmuch then, as kneeling before the con­secrated Bread, the Signe of the Crosse, Surplice, Festivall dayes, Bishopping, bowing to the Altar, administration of the Sacraments in privat places, &c. Are the wares of Rome, the baggage of Baby­lon, the trinkets of the Whoore, the badges of Popery, the ensignes of Christs enemies, and the very Trophees of Antichrist: we can not conforme, communicat, and symbolize with the Idolatrous Pa­pists, in the use of the same, without making our selves Idolaters by participation. Shall the Chast Spouse of Christ take upon her the ornaments of the Whoore? Shall the Israell of God symbolize with her, who is spiritually called Sodome and Egypt? Shall the Lords redeemed people weare the ensignes of their captivity? Shall the Saincts be seen with the marke of the beast? Shall the Christian Church be like the Antichristian, the Holy like the Prophane, Reli­gion like Superstition, the Temple of God like the Synagogue of Sathan? Our Opposites are so farre from being moved with these things, that both in Pulpits, and privat places, they use to plead for the Ceremonies by this very Argument, that we should not runne so farre away from Papists, but come as near them, as we can. But for proof of that which we say, namely, that it is not lawfull to sym­bolize with Idolaters, (and by consequence with Papists) or to bee like them in their Rites or Ceremonies, we have more to alledge, then they can answer.

For, 1. We have Scripture for us. Lev. 18. 3. After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not doe: and after the doings of Sect. 2 the land of Canaan, whether I bring you, shall ye not doe, neither shall ye walke in their ordinances. Deut. 12. 30. Take heed to thy self, that thou bee not snared by following them, &c. Saying, how did these Nations serve their Gods: even so will I doe likewise. Thou shalt not doe so unto the Lord thy [Page 36] God, Exod. 23 24. Thou shalt not doe after their workes. Yea, they were straitly forbidden, to round the corners of their Heads, or to make any cuttings in the flesh for the dead, or to print any marke upon them, or to make baldenesse upon their Heads, or between their eyes, for asmuch as God had chosen them to be a holy and a pecu­liar people, and it behoved them not to be framed nor fashioned like the Nations, Levit. 19. 27. 28. and 21, 5. and Deut. 14. 1. And whit else was meant by these lawes, which forbade them to suffer their cattel to gender with a diverse kinde, to sow their field with diverse seed, to weare a garment of diverse sorts, as of Woollen and Linnen, to plow with an oxe and an asse togither, Levit. 19. 19. Deut. 22. 9. 10. 11? This was to hold that people in simplicity and purity, ne hinc inde accersat ritus alienos saith Calvine upon these places. Besides, find we not, that they were sharply reprooved, when they made themselves like other Nations? 2 Chron. 13. 9. Ye have made you Priests after the manner of the Nations of other lands, 2 Kings. 17. 15. They followed vanity and became vaine, and went after the Heathen, that were round about them, concerning whom the Lord had charged them, that they should not doe like them. The Gospell commendeth the same to us which the Law did to them. 2 Cor. 6. 14. 15. 16. 17. Be not ye unequally yoked with unbeleevers: for, what fellow ship hath righteousnesse with unrighteousnesse? and what communion hath light with darknesse? and what concord hath Christ with Belial? and what agreement hath the Temple of God with Idolls? &c. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the uncleane thing, Revel. 14. 9. If any man worship the beast, and his image, and receive his marke in his forehead, or in his hand, the same shall drinke of the wine of the wrath of God. And the Apostle Iude v. 12. will have us to hate the very garment, spotted with the flesh, im­porting, that as under the Law men were made uncleane, not onely by leprosie, but by the garments, veshels, and houses of leprous men: so doe we contract the contagion of Idolatry, by communi­cating with the unclean things of Idolaters.

Before we goe further, we will see what our Opposites have said to those Scriptures which we alledge, Eccl. pol. lib. 4. s. 6. Hooker saith, that the reason Sect. 3 why God forbade his people Israëll the use of such rites & customes, as were among the Egyptians, and the Canaanites, was not because it behoved his people to be framed of set purpose, to an utter dissimili­tude with those Nations, but his meaning was to barre Israell, from similitude with those Nations, in such things as were repugnant to his ordinances and lawes. Ans. 1. Let it be so: he hath said enough against himself. For we have the same reason to make us abstaine from all the Rites & Customes of Idolaters, that we may be barred from similitude with them in such things, as are flatly repugnant to Gods word, because dissimilitude in Ceremonies, is a barre to stop similitude in substance, and on the contrary, similitude in Ceremo­nies [Page 37] openeth a way to similitude in greater substance. 2. His answer is but a begging of that which is in question, for as much as we al­ledge those lawes and prohibitions, to prove that all the Rites and Customes of those Nations, were repugnant to the Ordinances and Lawes of God, and that Israel was simply forbidden to use them. 3. Yet this was not a framing of Israel of set purpose to an utter dis­similitude with those Nations, for Israel used food & raiment, sow­ing and reaping, sitting, standing, lying, walking, talking, trading, lawes, governement, &c: notwithstanding that the Egyptians, and Canaanites used so. They were only forbidden to be like those Na­tions in such unnecessary Rites and Customes, as had neither insti­tution from God nor nature, but were the inventions and devices of men only. In things and rites of this kind alone, it is, that we plead for dissimilitude with the Idolatrous Papists. For the Ceremonies in controversy are not only proven to be under the compasse of such, but are besides made by the Papists, badges and markes of their religion, as we shall see afterwards.

To that place, 2 Cor. 6. apol. part. 3. cap. 4. s. 5. Paybody answereth, that nothing else is Sect. 4 there meant, then that we must beware & separate our selves from the comunion of their sinnes, and Idolatries. Ans. 1. When the Apostle there forbiddeth the Corinthians, to be unequally yoked with unbeleevers, or to have any communion or fellowship with Idola­ters, and requireth them so to come out from among them, that they touch none of their uncleane things. Why may vve not understand his meaning to be, that not only they should not partake vvith Pa­gans in their Idolatries, but that they should not marry vvith them, not frequent their feasts, nor goe to the theatre to behold their playes, nor goe to Law before their Iudges, nor use any of their Rites? for with such Idolaters we ought not to have any fellowship, as in pr [...]. 2. pag. 543. Zan­chius resolves, but only in so farre as necessity compelleth, and Cha­rity requireth. 2. All the Rites and Customes of Idolaters, which have neither institution from God nor nature, are to be reckoned among those sinnes, wherein we may not partake with them, for they are the improfitable workes of darknesse, all which com in illum locum. Calvin judgeth to be in that place generally forbidden, before the Apo­stle descend particularly, to forbid partaking with them in their Idolatry. As for the prohibition of divers mixtures, ubi supra. Paybody saith, the Iewes were taught thereby to make no mixture of true and false worship. Ans 1. According to his Tenets, it followeth upon this an­swere, that no mixture is to be made betwixt holy, and Idolatrous Ceremonies, for he calleth kneeling, a bodily worship, and a worship gesture more then once or twice. And we have seene before, how Dr. Burgesse calleth the Ceremonies, worship of God. 2. If mixture of true and false worship be not lawfull, then for as much as the Cere­monies of Gods ordinance, namely, the Sacraments of the New Tes­tament, [Page 38] are true worship. And the Ceremonies of Popery, namely Crosse, Kneeling, Holy-dayes, &c. are false worship, therefore there ought to be no mixture of them togither. 3. If the Iewes were taught to make no mixture of true and false worship, then by the self same instruction, if there had beene no more, they were taught also to shunne all such occasions as might any way produce such a mixture, and by consequence all symbolizing with Idolaters in their Rites and Ceremonies.

As touching these Lawes which forbade the Israelites to make round the corners of their heads, or to marre the corners of their Sect. 5 beards, or to make any cuttings in their flesh, or to make any balde­nesse betweene! their eyes, Eccl. pol. lib. 4. s. 6. Hooker answereth, that the cutting round of the corners of the head, and the tearing of the tufts of the beard, howbeit they were in themselves indifferent, yet they are not indifferent being used as signes of immoderat and hopelesse lamen­tation for the dead; in which sence it is, that the law forbiddeth them. To the same purpose saith ubi su­pra Paybody, that the Lord did not forbid his people, to marre and abuse their heads and beards for the dead, because the Heathen did so, but because the practise doth not agree to the Faith and Hope of a Christian, if the Heathen had never used it. Ans. 1. How much surer and sounder is com. in Levit. 19. 27. 28. Calvines Iudgment, non aliud fuisse Dei concilium, quam ut interposito obstaculo populum suum à pro­phanis Gentibus dirimeret? for albeit the cutting of the haire be a thing in it self indifferent, yet because the Gentiles did use it superstitious­ly, therefore saith Calvin, albeit it was per se medium, Deus tamen no­luit populo suo liberum esse, ut tanquam pueri diseerent ex parvis rudimentis, se non aliter Deo fore gratos, nisi exteris & praeputiatis essent prorsus dissi­miles, ac longissime abessent ab eorum exemplis, praesertim vero ritus omnes fugerent, quibus testata fuerit religio. So that from this law, it doth most manifestly appeare, that we may not be like Idolaters, no not in things which are in themselves indifferent, when we know that they doe use them superstitiously. 2. What warrant is there for this glosse, that the Law forbiddeth the cutting round of the corners of the head, and the marring of the corners of the beard, to be used as signes of immoderat and hopelesse lamentation for the dead, and that in no other sence, they are forbidden? Albeit the cutting of the flesh may be expounded, to proceed from immoderat grief, and to be a signe of hopelesse Lamentation, yet this can not be said of roun­ding the haire, marring the beard, and making of baldenesse: which might have beene used in moderat and hopefull lamentation, as wel as our putting on of mourning apparrel for the dead. The law saith nothing of the immoderat use of these things, but simply forbid­deth to round the head, or marre the beard for the dead; and that because this was one of the Rites, which the Idolatrous and supersti­tious Gentiles did use, concerning whom the Lord commmanded [Page 39] his people, that they should not doe like them, because he had cho­sen them to be a holy and peculiar people, above all people upon the earth. So that the thing which was fordidden, if the Gentiles had not used it, should have beene otherwise lawfull enough to Gods people, as we have seene out of Calvines commentary.

Secondly, we have reason for that which we say, for by parta­king Sect. 6 with Idolaters in their Rites and Ceremonies, we are made to partake with them in their Religion too. For, Ceremoniae omnes sunt quaedam protestationes fidei, saith 2. 2. q. 103. art 4. Aquinas. Therefore Communio rituum est quasi symbolum communionis in religione, saith de cas. consc. lib. 2. cap. 14. cas. 7. Balduine. They who did eate of the Iewish sacrifices were partakers of the Altar, 1 Cor: 10. 18. that is, saith com. in illum locum Pareus, socios Iudaicae religionis & cultus se profi­tebantur. For the Iewes by their sacrifices mutuam in una eademque re­ligione copulationem sanciunt, saith annot. ibid. Beza. Whereupon ag. the Rhem. ann. on 1. Cor. 10. s. 8. Dr. Fulk no­teth, that the Apostle in that place, doth compare our Sacraments with the Altars, Hostes. Sacrifices or immolations of the Iewes, and Gentiles, in that point which is common to all Ceremonies, to declare them that use them, to be pertakers of that religion, whereof they be Ceremonies. If then apud Gratian. decr. part. 1. dist. 37. c. 15. Isidore thought it unlawfull for Christians to take plea­sure in the fables of Heathen Poets, because non solum thura offerendo Daemonibus immolatur, sed etiam corum dicta libentius capiendo; much more have we reason to think, that by taking part in the Ceremonies of Idolaters, we doe but offer to Divells, and joyne our selvs to the service of Idolls.

Thirdly, as by Scripture, and reason, so by Antiquity we strengthen our Argument. Of old, Christians did so shunne to be like the Pa­gans, Sect. 7 that in the dayes of Tertullian, it was thought that Christians might not weare a Garland because thereby they had beene made conforme to the Pagans. Hence de Co­rona militis Tertullian justifieth the Souldier, who refused to weare a Garland as the Pagans did. partic. des. cap. 1. sect. 1. Dr. Mortone himself alledgeth another cafe out of Tertullian, which maketh to this purpose, namely, that Christian Proselytes did distinguish them­selvs from Roman Pagans, by casting away their gownes and wea­ring of cloakes. But these things we are not to urge, because we plead not for dissimilitude with the Papists, in civill fashions, but in Sacred and Religious Ceremonies. For this point then at which we hold us, we alledge Magd. cent. 3. cap. 6. Col 147. that which is marked in the third Centurie out of Origen, namely, that it was held unlawfull for Christians, to observe the feasts and Solemnities, either of the Iewes, or of the Gentiles. Nay we find Concil. Laodicaen. can. 37. a whole Councell determining thus Non opportet à Iudaeis vel Haereticis, feriatica quae mittuntur accipere, nec cum eis dies agere feriatos. The Councell of Nice also condemned those who kept Easter upon the fourteenth day of the moneth. That which made them pronounce so, (as is cleare from apud Theod. lib 1. cap. 10. Constantines Epistle to the Churches,) was, because they held it unbeseeming for Christians [Page 40] to have any thing common with the Iewes in their rites and obser­vances. epist. 86. ad Casulan. Augustin condemneth fasting upon the Sabbath day, as scandalous, because the Manichees used so, and fasting upon that day had beene a conformity with them. And wherefore did Gre­gory advise Leander, to abolish the Ceremony of trin-immersion? his lib. 1. epist. 41. words ar plaine. Quia nunc huc usque ab Haereticis infans in Baptis­mate tertio mergebatur, fiendum apud vos esse non censeo. Why doth apud Bellar. de ef­fect. sacr. lib. 2. c. 31. Epiphanius in the end of his bookes contra haereses, rehearse all the Ceremonies of the Church, as markes whereby the Church is dis­cerned from all other sects? If the Church did symbolize in Cere­monies with other sects, he could not have done so. And Moreover find we not in the Conc. African. can. 27. Conc. Tolet. 4. can. 5. & 10. Conc. Brac. 2. can. 73. Canons of the auncient Councels, that Chri­stians were forbidden to decke their houses with greene boughes and bay leaves, to observe the Calends of Ianuary, to keep the first day of every moneth, &c. Because the Pagans used so to doe? Last of all, read we not, in Magd. cent 4. cap. 6. col. 458. the fourth century of the Ec­clesiasticall history, that the frame of Christians in that age, was such, that nec cum haereticis commune quicquam habere voluerunt?

One would think that nothing could be answered to any of these things, by such as pretend no lesse, then that they have devoted Sect. 8 themselves to bend all their wishes & labours for procuring the imi­tation of venerable antiquity. Yet eccl. pol. lib. 4. s. 7. Hooker can coyne a conjecture, to frustrate all which we alleadge. ‘In things (saith he) of their owne nature indifferent, if either Councells, or particular men, have at any time with sound Iudgment misliked conformity betweene the Church of God and Infidells, the cause thereof hath not beene affe­ctation, of dissimilitude, but some special accident which the Church not beeing alwayes subject unto, hath not still cause to doe the like. For example (saith he) in the dangerous dayes of triall, wherein there was no way for the trueth of Iesus Christ to triumph over infidelity, but through the constancy of his Saincts, whom yet a naturall desire to save themselves from the flame, might peradvēture cause to joyne with the Pagans in externall Customes, too farre using the same as a cloak to conceale themselves in, and a mist to darken the eyes of Infidels withall; for remedy hereof, it might be, those lawes were provided.’ Ans. 1. This answer is altogither doubtfull, and conjectu­rall, made up of If, and peradventure, and it might be. Neither is any thing found which can make such a conjecture probable. 2. The true reason, why Christians were forbidden to use the Rites and Cu­stomes of Pagans, was neither a bare affectation of dissimilitude, nor yet any speciall accident which the Church is not alwayes sub­ject unto; but because it was held unlawfull, to symbolize with I­dolaters in the use of such rites, as they placed any religion in. For in the Fathers & Councells, which we have cited to this purpose, there is no other reason mentioned, why it behoved Christians to ab­staine [Page 41] from those forbidden customes, but only because the Pagans and Infidels used so. 3. And what if Hookers divination shall have place? doth it not agree to us, so as it should make us unlike the Pa­pists? yes sure, and more properly. For put the case, that those aun­cient Christians had not avoided conformity with Pagans, in those Rites and Customes, which we reade to have beene forbidden them, yet for all that, there had beene remaining betwixt them and the Pa­gans, by a great deale more difference, then will remaine betwixt us and the Papists, if we avoide not conformity with them in the con­troverted Ceremonies: for the Pagans had not the Word, Sacraments, &c. which the Papists doe retaine, so that we may farre more easily use the Ceremonies, as a mist to darken the eyes of the Papists, then they could have used those forbidden Rites, as a mist to darken the eyes of Pagans. Much more then, Protestants should not be permit­ted to cōforme themselves unto Papists, in Rites & Ceremonies, lest in the dangerous dayes of triall (which some Reformed Churches in Europe doe presently feele, and which seeme to be faster approaching to our selves, then the most part are aware of,) they joyne themselves to Papists in these externall things, too farre using the same as a cloake to conceale themselves in, &c. 4. We find that the reason, why the fourth Councell of Toledo, Can. 5. forbade the Ceremony of thrise dip­ping in water to be used in baptisme, was, lest Christians should seeme to assent to Heretikes who divide the Trinity. And the reason why the same Councell Can. 40. forbade Cleargie men to conforme them­selves unto the custome of Heretikes, in the sheaving of the haire of their head, is mentioned to have beene, the removing of conformity with the Custome of Heretikes, from the Churches of Spaine, as beeing a great dishonour unto the same. And we have heard be­fore, that Augustine condemneth conformity with the Manichees, in fasting upon the Lords day, as scandalous. And whereas afterwards the Councell of Caesaraugusta forbade fasting upon the Lords day, Sims. hist. of the Church. lib. 4. cent. 6. a grave Writer layeth out the reason of this prohibition, thus, It would appeare that this Councell had a desire to abolish the Rites and Customes of the Manichean Heretikes, who were accustomed to fast upon the Lords day. Last­ly, we have seene from Constantines Epistle to the Churches, that dissimilitude with the Iewes was one (though not the only one) rea­son, why it was not thought beseeming to keep Easter upon the fourteenth day of the moneth. Who then can thinke that any such speciall accident, as Hooker imagineth, was the reason why the Rites and Customes of Pagans were forbidden to Christians? Were not the Customes of the Pagans to be held unbeseeming for Christians, as well as the Customes of the Iewes? Nay, if Conformity with He­retikes (whom eccl pol. lib. 3. s. 1. Hooker aknowledgeth to be a part of the visible Church,) in their Customes and Ceremonies, was condemned as a scandall, a dishonour to the Church, and an assenting unto their He­resies; [Page 42] might he not have much more thought, that conformity with the Customes of Pagans was forbidden as a greater scandall, and dishonour to the Church, and as an assenting to the Paganisme and Idolatry of those that were without?

But to proceed. In the fourth place, the Canon Law it self spea­keth Sect. 9 for the Argument, which we have in hand. decr. part. 2. cau­sa. 26. quaest, 7. c. 13. Non licet iniquas observationes agere Calendarum, & otiis vacare Gentilibus, neque lauro, aut viriditate arborum, cingere domos: omnis enim haec observatio Paganismi est. And againe, ib. c. 14. Anathema sit qui ritum Paganorum & Calendarum observat. And after, ib. c. 17. dies Aegyptiaci & Ianuarij Calendae non sunt observandae.

Fiftly, our assertion will finde place in the Schoole too, which holdeth, Aquin. 1. 2a. q. 102. art. 6. resp. ad 6m. that Iewes were forbidden to we are a garment of diverse sorts, as of Linnen and Woollen togither, and that their women were forbidden to weare mens clothes, or their men Womens clothes; because the Gentiles used so, in the worshipping of their Gods. In like māner, ibid. resp. ad 11m. that the Priests were forbidden to round their heads, or marre their beards, or make incision in their flesh, because Baruch. 6. 3. Reg. 18. the Idolatrous Priests did so. And ibid. resp. ad 8m. that the prohibition which for­bade the commixtion of beasts of diverse kynds among the Iewes, hath a figurative sence, in that we are forbidden to make People of one kynd of Religion, to have any conjunction with those of ano­ther kynd.

Sixtly, Rhem. annot. on 2 Cor. 6. 14. Papists themselves teach, that it is generally forbidden to communicat with Infidells and Heretikes, but especially in any act of Religion. Yea Rhem. on 1 Tim. 6. sect. 4. they think, that Christian men are bound to ab­horre the very phrases and words of Heretikes, which they use. Yea Rhem. on Apoc. 1. 10. they condemn the very Heathenish names of the dayes of the wee­ke, imposed after the names of the planets, Sonday, Moneday, &c. Rhem. on 2. 10. 10 They hold it altogither a great and damnable sinne, to deale with Heretikes in matter of Religion, or any way to communicate with them in spirituall things. de effect. sacr. lib. 2. cap. 31. Bellarmine is plaine, who will have Ca­tholikes to be discerned from Heretikes, and other sects of all sorts, even by Ceremonies, because as Heretikes have hated the Ceremo­nies of the Church, so the Church hath ever abstained from the ob­servances of Heretikes.

Seaventhly, our owne Writers doe sufficiently confirme us in Sect. 10 this Argument. The bringing of Heathenish, or Iewish Rites in­to the Church, is altogither condemned by Magd. Cent. 4. c. 6 col. 406. them, yea Hospin. de orig. tēpl. l. 2. cap. 7. pag. 115. though the Customes & Rites of the Heathen, be received into the Church for gaining them, and drawing them to the true Religion, yet is it condemned, as proceeding ex [...] seu prava Ethnicorum imita­tione. Confer. with. I. Hart. divis. 4. cap. 8. I. Rainoldes rejecteth the Popish Ceremonies, partly because they ar Iewish, and partly because they are Heathnish. The same Ar­gument, [Page 43] Antith. Pap. & Christ. art 9. Th. Biza useth against them. In the secound command, as in 2. praec. col. 363. Zanchius expoundeth it, we are forbidden to borrow any thing ex ritibus idololatrarum Gentium. Fidelibus saith com. in Ps. 16. 4. Calvin fas non est ullo symbolo ostendere, sibi cum superstitiosis esse consensum. To conclude then, since not onely Idolatry is forbidden, but also as c Pareus noteth, every sort of communicating with the occasions, appearances, or instruments of the same, and since as synops. purior. Theol. disp 19. our Divines have declared, the Papists are in many respects grosse Idolaters, let us choose to have the commendation, which Vsher of the relig. prof. by the aunc. Irish. cap. 4. was given to the auncient Bri­tons, () com. in 1. Cor. 10. 14. for being enemies to the Romane Customes, rather then as apud Hosp. de orig. imag. pag. 200. Pope Pius the 5. was forced to say of Rome, that it did more Gen­tilizare, quam Christianizare; so they who would gladly wish, they could give a better commendation to our Church, be forced to say, that it doth not onely more Anglizare, quam Scotizare, but also more Ro­manizare, quam Evangelizare.

But our Argument is made by a great deal more strong, if yet fur­ther Sect. 11 we consider, that by the controverted Ceremonies, we are not onely made like the Idolatrous Papists, in such Rites of mans devising as they place some Religion in, but we are made likewise to take upon us those signes and symbols, which Papists account to be speciall badges of Popery, and which also in the account of many of our owne reverend Divines, are to be so thought of. In the oath ordained by Pius the 4. to be taken of Bishops at their crea­tion, as de vit. pii. 4. Onuphrius writteth, they are appointed to sweare, Aposto­licas & Ecclesiasticas traditiones, reliquasque ejusdem Ecclesiae observationes & constitutiones firmissime admitto & amplector. And after. Receptos quo­que & approbatos Ecclesiae Catholicae ritus, in supra dictorum Sacramentorum solemni administratione, recipio & admitto. We see Bishops are not crea­ted by this ordinance, except they not only believe with the Church of Rome, but also receive her Ceremonies, by which as by the badges of her Faith & Religion, cognizance may be had, that they are in­deed her Children. And further, h Papists give it forth plainely, that as he Church hath ever abstained from the observances of Heretikes, ( [...]) Bell. de effect. sacr. lib. 2. c. 31. so now also Ca holikes (they meane Romanists) are very we I distin­guished from Heretikes (hey mean those of the Reformed Religion) by the Signe of the Crosse, abstinence from flesh on Fryday, &c. And how doe our owne Divines understand the Marke of the Beast; spoken of Revel. 13. 16. 17? annot. in illum locum. Iunius comprehendeth confirmation under this marke: annot. ib. Cartwright also referreth the Signe of the Crosse to the marke of the Beast. l Pareus approveth the Bishop of Saris­bury his exposition, and placeth the common marke of the Beast in the observation of Antichrist his festivall dayes, and the rest of his () com. ibi. Ceremonies which are not commanded by God. It seemes this much hath beene plaine to Ioseph Hall, so that he could not deny it. For [Page 44] whereas the Brownists alledge, that not only after their separation, but before they separated also, they were, and are verily persuaded, that the Ceremonies are but the badges and liveries of that man of sinne, whereof the Pope is the head, and the Prelates the shoulders: he in this sect. 48 Apology against them, saith nothing to this point.

As for any other of our Opposites; who have made such answers Sect. 12 as they could, to the Argument in hand; I hope the strength and force of the same hath been demōstrated to be such, that their poore shifts are too weake for gainstanding it. Some of them (as I touched before) are not ashamed to professe, that we should come as neare to the Papists as we can, and therefore should conforme our selves to them in their Ceremonies, (onely purging away the superstition) because if we doe otherwise, we exasperate the Papists, and alienate them the more from our Religion and Reformation. Ans. 1. Elencis. Relig. Papist. in praefat. Ioh. Bastwick, propounding the same objection, Si quis obijciat nos ipsos per­tinaci Ceremoniarum Papalium contemptu, Papistis offendiculum posuisse, quo minus se nostris Ecclesiis associent, he answereth out of the Rom. 15. 2. Apostle, that we are to please every one his neighbour onely in good things to edification, & that we may not wink at absurd or wicked things, nor at any thing in Gods worship, which is not found in Scripture. 2. part. 2. cap. 6. I have shewed, that Papists are but more and more hardened in evill, by this our conformity with them in Ceremonies. 3. supra cap. 1. I have shewed also the superstition of the Ceremonies, even as they are re­tained by us, and that it is as impossible to purge the Ceremonies from superstition, as to purge superstition from it selfe.

There are others, who goe about to sow a cloake of figge leaves, Sect. 13 to hide their conformity with Papists, and to find out some diffe­rence, betwixt the English Ceremonies and those of the Papists. So say some, that by the signe of the Crosse they are not ranked with Papists, because they use not the materiall Crosse, which is the Po­pish one, but the aeriall onely. But it is known well enough, that Papists doe Idolatrize the very aeriall Crosse, for de imag. Sanct. cap. 29. Bellarmine holds, venerabile esse signum Crucis quod effingitur in fronte, aere, &c. And though they did not make an Idoll of it, yet forasmuch as Papists put it to a Religious use, and make it one of the markes of Romane-Catho­likes (as we have seen before) we may not be conformed to them in the use of the same. The Fathers of such a difference between the Popish Crosse, and the English, have not succeeded in this their way, yet their posterity approve their sayings, and follow their footsteps. Proc. in Perth as­smb part. 2. pag. 22. B. Lindsey by name will trade in the same way, and will have us to think, that kneeling in the act of receiving the Communion, and keeping of Holy-dayes, doe not sort us with Papists, for that, as tou­ching the former, there is a disconformity in the object, because they kneel to the Signe, we to the thing signified. And as for the lat­ter, the difference is in the employing of the time, and in the exer­cise [Page 45] and worship for which the cessation is commanded. What is his Verdict then, wherewith he sends us away? Verily, that peo­ple should be taught, that the disconformity between the Papists and us, is not so much in any externall use of Ceremonies, as in the substance of the service, and object, whereunto they are applied. But, good man, he seeks a knot in the Bulrush. For, 1. There is no such difference betwixt our Ceremonies and those of the Papists, in respect of the object and worship, whereunto the same is applied, as he pretendeth. For as touching the exercise and worship where­unto holy dayes are applied, Rhem. annot. on Act. 2. [...]. Papists tell us, that they keep Pasche and Pentecost yearly, for memory of Christs Resurrection, and the sending downe of the Holy Ghost; And I pray, to what other imployment doe Formalists professe, that they apply these Feasts, but to the commemoration of the same benefits? And as touching kneeling in the Sacrament, it shall be proven in the next Chapter, that they doe kneel to the Signe, even as the Papists doe. In the meane while it may be questioned, whether the B. meant some such matter, even here where professedly he maketh a difference betwixt the Papists their kneeling, and ours. His words wherein I apprehend this much, are these: The Papists in prayer kneel to an Idoll, and in the Sa­crament they kneel to the Signe, we kneel in our prayer to God, and by the Sa­crament to the thing signified. The Analogy of the Antithesis required him to say, that we kneel in the Sacrament to the thing signified: but changing his Phrase, he saith, that we kneel by the Sacrament to the thing signified. Now if we kneel by the Sacrament to Christ, then we adore the Sacrament as objectum materialè, and Christ as objectum for­malè. Iust so the Papists adore their Images, because per imaginem they adore prototypon. 2. What if we should yeeld to the B. that Knee­ling and Holy-dayes, are with us applied to another Service, and used with another meaning, then they are with the Papists? doth that excuse our conformity with Papists in the externall use of these Ceremonies? If so I. Rain. confer. with 1. Hart cap. 8. divis. 4. pag. 496. I. Hart did rigtly Argument, out of Pope In­nocentius, that the Church doth not judaize by the Sacrament of un­ction or anointing, because it doth figure and worke another thing in the New Testament, then it did in the Olde. Rainoldes answereth, that though it were so, yet is the Ceremony Iewish: & marke his rea­son, (which carrieth a fit proportion to our present purpose,) I trust saith he, you will not maintaine, but it were Iudaisme for your Church to sa­crifice a Lambe in burnt offering, though you did it to signify, not Christ, that was to come, as the Iewes did, but that Christ is come, &c Sainct Peter did constraine the Gentiles to Iudaize, when they were induced by his example and auctoxity, to follow the Iewish Rite in choice of meats; yet neither he nor they allowed it in that meaning, which it was given to the Iewes in. For it was given them to betoken that holinesse, and traine them up unto it, which Christ by his grace should bring to the faithfull. And Peter knew that Christ had do [...] [Page 46] this in trueth, and taken away that Figure, yea the whole yoke of the Law of Moses: which point he taught the Gentiles also Wherefore although your Church doe keepe the Iewish Rites, with another meaning then God ordained them for the Iewes, &c. yet this of Peter sheweth, that the thing is Iewish, and you to Iudaize who keepe them. By the very same reasons prove we, that For­malists doe Romanize, by keeping the Popish Ceremonies, though with another meaning, and to another use then the Romanists doe. The very externall use therefore, of any sacred Ceremony of hu­mane Institution, is not to be suffered in the matter of worship, when in respect of this externall use, we are sorted with Idolaters. 3. If conformity with Idolaters in the externall use of their Ceremonies be lawfull, if so be there be a difference in the substance of the Wor­ship and Object whereunto they are applied, then why were Chri­stians forbidden of old, (as vve have heard before) to keep the Ca­lends of Ianuary, and the first day of every moneth, forasmuch as the Pagans used so? Why was trin-immersion in Baptisme, and fasting upon the Lords day forbidden, for that the Heretikes did so? Why did the Nicen Fathers inhibite the keeping of Easter upon the fourteenth day of the month, Zanch. lib. 1. in 4. praec. Col. 674. so much the rather, because the Iewes kept it on that day? The B. must say, there was no need of shunning conformity with Pagans, Iewes, Heretikes, in the exter­nall use of their Rites and Customes, and that a difference ought to have been made, onely in the Object and use, whereunto the same was applied. Nay, why did God forbid Israell, to cut their haire as the Gentiles did? had it not been enough, not to apply this Rite to a superstitious use, as 1a. 2a. q. 102. art. 6. resp. ad 11 Sect. 14. Aquinas sheweth the Gentiles did? why was the very externall use of it forbidden?

There is yet another peece brought against us, but we will abide the proofe of it, as of the rest. Nobis saith N. Fra­tri & amico resp. ad art. 12••. Saravia, satis est, modestis & piis Christianis satisfacere, qui ita recesserunt à superstitionibus & Idololatriae Ro­manae Ecclesiae, ut probatos ab Orthodoxis Patribus mores, non reijciant. So have some thought to escape by this posterne, that they use the Ce­remonies, not for Conformity with Papists, but for Conformity with the auncient Fathers. Ans. 1. When ubi su­pra Pag. 510. Rainoldes speaketh of the abolishing of Popish Ceremonies, he answereth this subtilty. But if you say therefore, that we be against the auncient Fathers in Religion, be­cause we pluck down that, which they did set up. Take heed lest your speech doe touch the Holy Ghost, who saith that 2 Reg. 18. 6. Hezekias (in breaking downe the Brazen Serpent) did keep Gods commandements which he commanded Mo­ses. And yet withall saith, 2 Reg. 18 4. that he brake in peeces the Serpēt of Brasse which Moses had made. 2. There are some of the Ceremonies which the Fathers used not, as the Surplice (which we have seen supra part. 2. cap. 9. s. 14. before) and kneeling in the act of receiving the Eucharist, (as we shall see infra cap. 4. sect. 26. 27. 28. afterwards) 3. Yeelding by concession, not by confession, that all the Ceremonies about which there is controversy now among [Page 47] us, were of old used by the Fathers, yet that which these Forma­lists say, is, (as of the Crosse cap. 2 sect. 10. Parker sheweth) even as if a Servant should be cove­red before his Master, not as covering is a late signe of praeeminence, but as it was of old a signe of subjection, or as if one should preach, that the Prelates are Tyranni to their Brethren, Fures to the Church, Sophistae to the Trueth, & excuse himselfe thus. I use these words, as of old they signified, a Ruler, a Servant, a Student of Wisedome. All men know, that words and actions must be interpreted, used and received, according to their moderne use, and not as they have been of olde.

CHAP. IV.

That the Ceremonies are Idols among Formalists themselves; and that kneeling in the Lords Supper before the Bread and Wine in the act of receiving them, is formally Idolatry.

MY fourth Argument against the lawfulnesse of the Cere­monies, followeth: by which I am to evince that they are Sect. 1 not onely Idolatrous reductivè, because monuments of by­past, and participativè, because badges of present Idolatry, but that likewise they make Formalists themselves, to be formally, and in respect of their owne using of them, Idolaters, consideration not had of the by-past, or present abusing of them by others. This I will make good: first, of all the Ceremonies in generall; then, of kneeling in particular. And I wish our Opposites here, looke to themselves, for this Argument proveth to them the Box of Pandora, and containeth that which undoeth them, though this much be not seen, before the opening.

First then, the Ceremonies are Idols to Formalists. It had been good to have remembred that which upon Gen. 35. 4. Ainsworth noteth, that Ido­lothyts and monuments of Idolatry should be destroyed, lest them­selves at length become Idols. The Idolothyous Ceremonies, we se now, are become Idols to those who have retained them. The ground which the Bishop of Winchester taketh for his Sermon of the worshipping of imaginations, to wit, that the Deuill seeing that Idola­trous Images would downe, he bent his whole device, in place of them to erect and set up diverse imaginations, to be adored and magnified in stead of the former; is, in some things abused and mis­applied by him. But well may I apply it to the point in hand. For that the Ceremonies are the imaginations which are magnified, ado­red, and Idolized, in stead of the Idolatrous Images which were put downe, thus we instruct and qualify.

[Page 48] First, they are so erected and extolled, that they are more look­ed Sect. 2 to, then the weighty matters of the Law of God; all good Dis­cipline must be neglected, before they be not holden up. A cove­tous man is a Idolater, for this respect among others, as Expos. in Col. 3. 5. Davenant noteth, because he neglects the service which he oweth to God, and is wholly taken up with the gathering of mony. And I suppose e­very one will think, that those Mark. 7. 8. 9. Traditions, which the Pharisees kept and held, with the laying aside of the commandements of God, might vvel be called Idols. Shall vve not then call the Ceremonies Idols, vvhich are observed, vvith the neglecting of Gods com­mandements, & which are advanced above many substantiall points of Religion? Idolatry, Blasphemy, Prophanation of the Sabbath, Perjury, Adultery, &c. are over looked and not corrected nor re­prooved, nay, not so much as discountenanced, in these who fa­vour and follow the Ceremonies; and if in the fellowes, and favou­rites, much more in the Fathers. What if order be taken with some of those abominations, in certain abject poore bodies? Dat veniam corvis, vexat censura columbas. What will not a Episcopall confor­mitane passe away with, if there be no more had against him, then the breaking of Gods Commandements, by open and grosse wicked­nesse? But, O what narrow notice is taken of Non-conformity! How mercilesly is it menaced? How cruelly corrected? Well! the Cere­monies are more made of, then the Substance. And this is so evi­dent, that of the lawfull. of kneel. cap. 18. pag. 62 Sect. 3. D. Burgesse him self lamenteth the pressure of confor­mity, and denieth not that which is objected to him, namely, that more grievous penalties are inflicted upon the refusall of the Cere­monies, then upon Adultery and Drunkennesse.

Secoundly, did not 1 Sam. [...]. 29. Eli make Idols of his Sonnes, when he spa­red them and bare with them, though with the prejudice of Gods worship? And may not we call the Ceremonies, Idols, which are not onely spared and borne with, to the prejudice of Gods worship, but are likewise so erected, that the most faithfull Labourers in Gods House for their sake are depressed, the Teachers and Maintainers of Gods true worship, cast out? For their sake many Learned & Godly men are envied, contemned, hated, and nothing set by, because they passe under the name (I should say the Nickname) of Puritans. For their sake, many deare Christians have been imprisoned, fyned, ba­nished, &c. For their sake, many qualified and well gifted men, are holden out of the Ministery, and a doore of enterance denied to those, to whom God hath graunted a doore of utterance. For their sake, those whose faithfull and painfull Labours in the Lords Har­vest, have greatly benefited the Church, have been thrust from their charges, so that they could not fulfill the Ministery, which they have received of the Lord, to testify of the Gospell of the grace of God. The best Builders, the wise Masterbuilders, have been by them over­turned. [Page 49] This is objected to m Ioseph Hall, by the Brownists: and what can he say to it? forsooth, that not so much the Ceremonies are stood upon, as obedience. If God please to try Adam but with an apple, it is enough. What doe we quarrel at the value of the fruit, when we have a probition? She­mei is slaine: what? merely for going out of the Citie? the act was little, the bond was great: What is commanded matters, not so much, as by whom? Ans. 1. If obedience be the chiefe thing stood upon, why are not other Lawes and Statutes urged as strictly, as those which concerne the Ceremonies? 2. But what meanes he? what would he say of those Scottish Protestāts, imprisoned in the Caste of Scherisburgh in France, who Histor. of the Church of Scotl. lib. 1. pag. 181. beeing commanded by the Captaine to come to the Masse, answered, that to doe any thing that was against their conscience, they would not, neither for him nor yet for the King? If he approve this answer of theirs, he must allow us to say, that we will doe nothing which is against our consciences. We submit our selves, and all which we have to the King, and to inferior Governours we render all due subje­ction, which we owe to them. But no mortall man hath domination over our consciences, which are subject to one onely Law-giver, and ruled by his Law. I have shewed in the first Part of this Dis­pute, how conscience is sought to be bound by the Law of the Ce­remonies, and here by the way, no lesse may be drawne from Hals words, which now I examine. For he implieth in them, that we are bound to obey the Statutes about the Ceremonies, merely for their Auctorities sake who command us, though there be no other thing in the Ceremonies themselves, which can commend them to us. But I have also proven before, that humane Lawes doe not bind to o­bedience, but onely in this case, when the things which they pre­scribe, doe agree and serve to those things which Gods Law pre­scribeth: so that, as humane Lawes, they bind not, neither have they any force to bind, but onely by Participation with Gods Law. This ground hath seemed to part. 1. quest. 3. P. Bayne, so necessary to be knowne, that he hath inserted it in his briefe exposition of the fondamentall points of Religion. And beside all that, which I have said for it before, I may not here passe over in silence, this one thing, that lib. 2. Charact. of the superstit. Hall himselfe calleth it superstition to make any more sinnes, then the ten com­mandements. Either then, let it be shewed out of Gods word, that Nonconformity & the refusing of the English Popish Ceremonies, is a fault, or else let us not be thought bound by mens lawes, where Gods Law hath left us free. Yet we deale more liberally with our Opposites, for if we prove not the unlawfulnesse of the Ceremonies, both by Gods Word, and sound reason, let us be then bound to use them for Ordinances sake. 3. His comparisons are farre wide: they are so farre from running upon foure feet, that they have indeed no feet at all: whether we consider the commandements, or the breach of them, he is altogither extravagant. God might have comman­ded [Page 50] Adam to eate the Apple, which he forbade him to eate, and so the eating of it had been good, the not eating of it evill: whereas the Will & Commandement of men is not regula regulans, but regula re­gulata. Neither can they make good or evill, beseeming or not be­seeming, what they list, but their commandements are to be exa­mined by a higher rule. When Solomon commanded Shemei to dwell at Ierusalem, and not to goe over the brooke Kidron, he had good reason for that which he required: for as comm. in 1 Reg. 2. Peter Martyr noteth, he 2 Sam. 16 5. was a man of the family of the house of Saul, and hated the Kingdome and Throne of David, so that relictus liber multa fuisset molitus, vel cum Israëlitis, vel cum Palesthinis. But what reason is there, for charging us with the Law of the Ceremonies, except the sole will of the Law-makers? yet say, that Solomon had no reason for this his commandement, except his owne will and pleasure, for trying the obedience of Schemei, who will say, that Princes have as great li­berty and power of commanding at their pleasure, in matters of Religion, as in civill matters? If we consider the breach of the com­mandements, he is still at randone. Though God tried Adam but with an apple, yet A. Po­lan. synt. Theol. lib. 6. cap. 3. D. Pareus ex­plic. catechet. part. 1. quest. 7. 1. Schar­pius curs. Theolog. de peccato cap. 8 Divines marke in his eating of that forbid­den fruit, many grosse and horrible sinnes, as, Infidelity, Idolatry, Pride, Ambition, Self-love, Theft, Covetousnesse, Contempt of God, Prophanation of Gods name, Ingratitude, Apostasie, mur­dering of his posterity, &c. But I pray, what exorbitant evills are found in our modest and Christian-like deniall of obedience to the Law of the Ceremonies? When Schemei transgressed King Solomons commandement, besides 1 Reg. 2. 43. the violation of this oath, and the dis­obeying of the charge wherewith Solomon (by the speciall direction & inspiration of God) had charged him, (that ib. v. 44 his former wick­ednesse, and that which he had done to David, might be returned upon his Head, the Divine providence so fitly furnishing another occasion and cause of his punishment;) there was also a great con­tempt and misregard shewed to the King, in that Schemei knowing his owne evill deservings, aknowledged (as the trueth was,) he had re­ceived no small favour, and therefore consented to the Kings word as good, and promised obedience. Yet for all that, upon such a petty and small occasion, as the seeking of two runnagat servants, he reckoned not to despise the Kings mercy and lenity, and to set at nought his most just commandement. What? is Non-conformi­ty no lesse piacular? If any will dare to say so, he is bound to shew that it is so. And thus have we pulled downe the untempered mor­tar, wherewith Hall would hide the Idolizing of the Ceremonies.

But thirdly, did not Rachel make Iacob an Idoll, when she ascri­bed Sect. 4 to him a power of giving children? Am I in Gods stead saith Gen. 30. 1. 2. Iacob? And how much more reason have we to say, that the Ce­remonies are Idols, and are set up in Gods stead, since an opera­tive [Page 51] vertue is placed in them, for giving stay and strength against sinne and tentation, and for working of other spirituall and super­naturall effects? Thus is the Signe of the Crosse an Idoll, to those who conforme to Papists in the use of it. de Rep. Eccl. lib. 7. cap. 12. num. 88. M. Ant. de Dominis hol­deth, Crucis signum, contra Daemones esse praesidium. And Ib. num. 89. that even ex opere operato, effectus mirabiles signi Crucis, etiam apud Infideles, ali­quando enituerint. Shall I say, saith Eccl Pol. lib. 5. sect. 65. Mr. Hooker, that the Signe of the Crosse (as we use it) is a meane in some sort to worke our preservation from reproach? Surely the minde which as yet hath not hardened it selfe in sinne, is seldome provoked thereunto in any grosse and grievous manner, but na­tures secret suggestion, objecteth against it ignominy, as a barre. Which conceipt being entered into that palace of mans fancie (the Forehead) the Gates whereof have imprinted in them that Holy Signe (the Crosse) which bringeth forthwith to minde whatsoever Christ hath wrought, and we vowed against sinne; it commeth hereby to passe, that Christian men never want a most effectuall, though a silent Teacher, to avoid whatsoever may deservedly procure shame. What more doe Papists ascribe to the Signe of the Crosse, when they say, Cornel. a Lapide com. in Hag. 2. 24. that by it Christ keeps his owne faith­full ones contra omnes tentationes & hostes? Now if Eph. [...]. 5. the covetous man be called a Idolater, because, though he think not his mo­ney to be God, yet he trusteth to live and prosper by it, (which con­fidence and hope Ier. 17. 7. we should repose in God onely) as confer with Hart. chap. 8. div. 5. p. 509. Rainoldes marketh, then doe they make the Signe of the Crosse an Idoll, who trust by it to be preserved from Sinne, Shame, and Reproach, and to have their mindes staied in the instant of Tentation. For, who hath given such a vertue to that dumbe and idle Signe, as to work that which God onely can worke? and how have these goodfel­lowes imagined, that not by knocking at their braines, as Iupiter, but by onely signing their Foreheads, they can procreate some me­nacing Minerva, or armed Pallas, to put to flight the Divell him­selfe.

The same kinde of operative vertue is ascribed to the Ceremo­ny Sect. 5 of Confirmation or Bishopping. For the English Service Booke teacheth, that by it Children receive strength against Sinne, and against Tentation. And Eccl. Pol. lib. 5 sect. 66 Hooker hath told us, that albeit the Suc­cessors of the Apostles, had but onely for a time such power as by Prayer and imposition of hands to bestow the Holy Ghost, yet Confirmation hath continued hitherto for very speciall benefites; and that the Fathers impute every where unto it, that Gift or Grace of the Holy Ghost, not which maketh us first Christian men, but when we are made such, assisteth us in all vertue, armeth us against Tentation and Sinne. Moreover, whiles he is a shewing why this Ceremony of Confir­mation was separated from Baptisme, having been long joyned with it, one of his reasons which he giveth for the Separation, is, that sometimes the parties who received Baptisme were Infants, [Page 52] at which age they might well be admitted to live in the family, but to fight in the armie of God, to bring forth the fruits, and to doe the workes of the Holy Ghost, their time of hability was not yet come, which implie [...]h, that by Confirmation men receive this habi­lity, else there is no sence in that which he saith. What is Idolatry, if this be not, to ascribe to Rites of mans devising, the power and vertue of doing that which none but he to whom all power in hea­ven and earth belonges, can doe? And howbeit Hooker would strike us dead at once, with the high-sounding name of the Fathers, yet it is not unknowne, that the first Fathers from whom this Idolatry hath descended, were those auncient Heretikes, the Montanists. for as Exam. part. 2. de rit in admin. sacr pag. 32. Sect 6. Chemnitius marketh out of Tertullian & Cyprian, the Montanists were the first, who beganne to ascribe any spirituall efficacy or operation to Rites and Ceremonies devised by men.

Fourthly, that whereunto more respect and account is given, then God alloweth to be given to it, and wherein more excellency is pla­ced, then God hath put into it, or will at all communicat to it, is an Idoll exalted against God: which maketh lib. 1. de viti. ext. cult. oppos. Col. 505. Zanchius to say, Si Luthero vel Calvino tribuas, quod non potuerant errare, Idola tibi fingis. Now when Eccl. Pol. lib. 5. sect. 69. Hooker accounte [...]h festivall dayes, for Gods extraordinary workes wrought upon them, to be holyer then other dayes, What man of sound Iudgement, will not perceive that these dayes are Idolized, since such an eminency and excellency is put in them, whereas God hath made no difference betwixt them, and any other dayes? supra part. 1. cap. 1 We have seene also, that the Ceremonies are urged as necessary, but did ever God allow, that things Indifferent should be so highly advanced, at the pleasure of men? And moreover, supra cap. 1. I have shewed, that wor­ship is placed in them; in which respect, needs they must be Idolls, being thus exalted against Gods Word, at which we are commanded to hold us, in the matter of worship. Last of all, they are Idolatrously advanced and dignified, in so much as holy misticall significations are given them, which are a great dea [...]e more then Gods word allo­weth in any Ri [...]es of humane institution, as shall be shewed Infra. cap. 5. after­wards. And so it appeareth, how the Ceremonies, as now urged and used, are Idolls. Now, to kneeling in the act of receiving the Lords Supper, which I will prove to be direct and formall Idolatry, and from Idolatry shall it never be purged, while the world standeth, though our Opposi [...]es strive for it, tanquam pro aris & focis.

The question about the Idolatry of kneeling, be [...]wixt them and us, Sect. 7 standeth in this. Whether kneeling at the instant of receiving the Sacrament, before the consecrated Bread & Wine, purposely placed in our sight, in the act of kneeling, as Signes standing in Christs stead before which we the receivers are to exhibite outwardly religious adoration; be formally idolatry, or not? No man can pick a quarrell at the stating of the question thus. For, 1. We dispute only about kneeling at the instant of receiving he [Page 53] Sacramentall Elements, as all know. 2. No man denies inward adoration, in the act of receiving, for in our minds we then adore, by the inward graces of Faith, Love, Thankfulnesse, &c. by the holy and Heavenly exercise whereof we glorify God; so that the contro­versy is about outward adoration. 3. No man will denie h [...]t the consecrated Elements are purposely placed in our sight, when we kneel, except he say, that they are in that action only accidentally present before us, no otherwise then the Tabble-cloth, or the walls of the Church are. 4. That the Sacramentall Elements, are in our sight (when we knee [...]l) as Signes standing in Christs stead; it is most unde­nyable. For if these Signes stand not in Christs stead to us, the Bread bearing vicem corporis Christi, and the Wine vicem sanguinis; it follo­weth, that when we eat the bread, and drink the wine, we are no more eating the flesh, and drinking the blood of Christ, spiritual [...]y and sacramentally, then if we were receiving any other Bread and Wine not consecrated. I stay not now upon this head, because our Opposites aknowledge it, for Of the lawf. of kneel. pag. 115, 116. Dr. Burgesse calls the Sacraments the Lords images and deputies. And the De Rep. Eccl. lib. 5. cap. 6. num. 126. Archbishop of Spalato saith, that when we take the Sacrament of Christs body, we adore Christum sub hac figura figuratum. 5. That kneelers at the instant of receiving, have the consecrated Bread an Wine in the eyes both of their bodies and minds, as things so stated in that action, that before them, they are to exhibite outward religious adoration, as well as inward; it is also most plaine. For otherwise they should fall downe and kneel, onely out of incogitancy, having no such purpose in their minds, nor choice in their wills, as to kneel before these Sacramentall Signes.

The question thus stated, Formalists deny, we affirme. Their ne­gative Sect. 8 is destroied, and our affirmative confirmed by these reasons.

First, the kneelers worship Christ in or by the Elements, as their owne confessions declare. When we take the Eucharist, we adore the body of Christ, per suum signum saith De rep. eccl. lib. 5. cap. 6. num. 138. the Archbishop of Spalato. We kneel by the Sacrament to the thing signified, saith the Pr [...] in Perth. assem. part. 2. pag. 22. Bishop of Edinbrugh. Serm. at Perth. as­semb. The Archbishop of Sanct-Andrewes, and Of the lawfull. of kneel. cap. 10. p. 17. Dr. Burgesse, professe the adoring of Christ in the Sacrament. Dr. Mortoune mantaineth such an adoration in the Sacrament, as he calleth relative from the Signe to Christ. And Apol. part. 3. cap. 3. sect. 16. Paybody defendeth him herein. But Cap. 1. sect. 35. the replier to Dr. Mortoune particular defence, inferreth well, that if the adoration be relative from the Signe, it must first be carried to the Signe as a meanes of convoyance vnto Christ. Of the lawf. of kneel. cap. 22. pag. 85. Dr. Bourgesse alloweth adora­tion, or Divine worship, (as he calleth it,) to be given to the Sacra­ment respectively: and ibid. cap. 23. he alledgeth a place of Theodoret, to prove [Page 54] that such an adoration as he there taketh for Divine worship, is done to the Sacrament in relation to Christ, and that this adoration performed to the mysteries as types, is to be passed over to the Ar­chitype, which is the body and blood of Christ. Since then, that kneeling, about which our question is, by the confession of kneelers themselves, is Divine worship given by the signe to the thing signi­fied, and done to the Sacrament respectively or in relation to Christ; he that will say, that it is not Idolatry, must acquit the Pa­pists of Idolatry also, in worshipping before their Images: for they doe in like manner professe, that they adore prototypon per imaginem, ad imaginem, or in imagine, and that they give no more to the image, but relative or respective worship. Annot. on Hebr. 11. 21. The Rhemists tell us, that they doe no more but kneel before the creatures, at or by them adoring God. It availeth not here to excogitate some differences betwixt the Sacramentall Elements and the Popish Images, for what difference soever be betwixt them, when they are considered in their owne na­turall beeing, yet as objects of adoration they differ not, because when they are considered in esse adorabili, we see the same kinde of adoration is exhibited by Formalists before the Elements, which is by Papists before their Images. To come nearer the point, Papists professe, that they give to the outward Signes in the Sacrament, no other adoration, then the same which Formalists give to them. Expos. artio. con­fess. Angl. Art. 28. Fran­ciscus à Sancta Clara saith, that Divine worship doeth not agree to the Signes per se, but onely per accidens, and he alledgeth for himself, that the Councell of Trent Can. 6. de Euch. saith not that the Sacrament, but that Christ in the Sacrament, is to be adored with latria. To the same purpose I observe, that De sacr. Euchar. lib. 4. cap. 29. Bellarmine will not take upon him to mantaine any adoration of the Sacrament with latria, holding onely that Christ in the Eucharist is to be thus adored, and that symbola ex­terna per se & proprie non sunt adoranda. Whereupon he determineth, status questionis non est, nisi an Christus in Eucharistia sit adorandus cultu l [...] ­triae. Now, albeit Papists understand by the outward signe of Christs body in the Eucharist, nothing else but the species or accidents of the Bread; yet Zanch. lib. 1. de viti. ext. cult. oppos. col. 504. since they a [...]tribute to the same, quod sub illis acciden­tibus ut vocant sit substantialiter corpus Christi vivum, cum sua Deitate con­junctum, and since Bell. ubi supra. they give adoration or latria to the species, though not per se, yet as quid unum with the body of Christ which they containe; hereby it is evident, that they worship Idolatrously those very accidents. And I would understand, if any of our Oppo­sites dare say, that Papists commit no such Idolatry, as here I impute to them? Or, if they aknowledge this Idolatry of Papists, how make they hemselvs cleane? for we see, that the worship which Pa­pists give to the species of the Bread, is onely relative to Christ, and of the same kynd with that which Formalists give to the Bread and Wine.

[Page 53] Secondly, religious kneeling before the Bread which is set before Sect. 9 us for a signe to stand in Christs stead, and before which we adore whilles it is to us actually an Cart­wr. on 1 Cor. 11. Sect. 18. Image representing Christ; is the verie bowing downe and worshipping forbidden in the secound commandement. The Eucharist is called by the Fathers, Imago, Si­gnum, Figura, Similitudo, as De orig. imag. pag. 245. Hospinian instanceth out of Origen, Na­zianzen, Augustine, Hilarius, Tertullian, Ambrose. Ans. to the Ies. chall. of the reall pres. p. 74. The Archbishop of Armagh hath also observed, that the Fathers expressely call the Sacra­ment, an Image of Christs body: and well might they call it so, since the Sacramentall Elements doe not onely represent Christ to us, but also stand in Christs stead, in such sort, that by the worthy re­ceiving of them, we are assured that we receive Christ himself, and in eating of this Bread and drinking of this Wine, we eate the flesh and drink the blood of Christ spiritually and by faith. Neither could the consecrated Elements make a Sacrament, if they were not such Images, standing in Christs stead. But what needeth any more? of the lauf: of kneeling, pag. 116. Dr. Burgesse himself calleth the Sacraments the Lords Images. Now that a man who adoreth before the painted or graven Image of Christ, though he professe that he intendeth his wholle adoration to Christ, and that he placeth the Image before him onely to represent Christ, and to stirre up his mind to worship Christ, doth neverthe­lesse commit Idolatry, I trust, none of our Opposites will deny. Nay, Proc. i [...] Perth. as­semb. part. 2 pag. 92. B. Lindsey teacheth plainly, that it is Idolatry to set before the eyes of our mindes, or bodies, any Image as a meane or motive of adoration, even though the worship should be abstracted from the Image and not given unto it. Well then: will it please him to let us see, that kneeling before the actuall Images of Christs body and bloud in the Sacrament, even though these Images should bee no otherwise considered in the act of adoration, but as active objects, motives, and occasions which stirre up the mind of the kneeler to worship Christ, (for this is the best face which himself puts upon kneeling, thoug falsely, as we shall se afterward,) is not so great Idolatry as the other. All the difference which ubi su­pra. he maketh, is, that no true worship can be properly occasioned by an Image, which is a Doctor of lyes teaching nothing of God, but falshood and vanities: but the blessed Sacra­ment being instituted by Christ, to call to our remembrance his death, &c. gives us, so oft as we receive it, a most powerfull and pregnant occasion of thanksgi­ving and praise. ubi su­pra. Dr. Burgesse intermedling with the same difference­making, will not have the Sacraments, which are Images of Gods making and institution, to be compared with Images made by the lust of men. Two differences then are given us. 1. That the Sacra­mentall Elements have their institution from God, Images not so. 2. That the Sacrament is an occasion of worship, an Image not so. The first difference makes them no help; for though the ordi­nance and institution of God, makes the use of Sacramentall Ima­ges [Page 56] to be no will-worship, yet doeth it noth any whit availe to shew, that adoration before them is no Idolatry. May I not commit Ido­latry with Images of Gods institution, no lesse then with those in­vented by men, when (Caeteris paribus) there is no other difference be­twixt them, considered as objects of adoration, but that of the or­dinance and institution which they have? What if I fall downe at the hearing of a Sermon, and religiously adore before the Pastor, as the Vicarius signe of Christ himself, who stands there 2 Cor. 5. 20. in Christs stead, referring my adoration to Christ onely, yet in or by that Am­bassad out who stands in Christs stead? If this my adoration should be called so great Idolatry, as if I should fall downe before a graven Image, to worship God in or by it, (for it is indeed as great every way,) our kneelers I perceive would permit me to answere for my self, that my worshipping of God by the minister, can not be called Idolatrous, by this reason, (because the worshipping of God by a graven Image, is such, therefore also the worshipping of him by a living Image, is no other,) since Images of Gods institution must not bee paralelled with those of mens invention. As to the secound difference, I answere, 1. Though the B. muttereth here, that no true worship can bee occasioned by an Image, yet belike he and his fel­lowes will not stand to it, for many of them allow the historicall use of Images, and the B. hath not denied this though his Antagonist, objecteth it. g [...]er. def. cap. 3. sect. 3. Dr. Mortoune plainly alloweth of Images for histori­call commemoration. And herein he is followed by Rejoind. pag. 296. Dr. Burgesse. 2. Whereas he saith, that the blessed Sacrament is instituted by Christ to call to our rememberance his death, this inferreth not that it is an occasion of thanksgiving and praise in the verie act of receiving, as we shall see afterward. Our question is onely about kneeling in the act of receiving. 3. We confesse, that the Sacrament is an occasion of Inward worship, in the receiving of it. For Cornel. à lapide com. in Mal. c, 11. in Eucharistia exerce­tur summa Fides, Spes, Charitas, Religio, caeteraeque virtutes, quibus Deum co­limus & glorificamus. but the outward adoration of kneelling downe upon our knees, can be no more occasioned by the blessed Sacra­ment, in the act of receiving it, then by a graven Image in the act of beholding it. The point which the B. had to prove, is, that whereas an Image can not be the occasion of outward adoration and knee­ling to God before it, in the act of looking upon it; the Sacrament may be, and is an occasion of kneeling, when it is set before us in the act of receiving. This neither he, nor any for him, shall ever make good.

Thirdly, kneeling in the act of receiving the Sacrament, before Sect. 10 the vicatious signes which stand in Christes stead, and are purpo­sely set before us in the act of adoration, that before them we may adore; wanteth nothing to make up Idolatrous coadoration or rela­tive worship. Our Opposites here tell us of two things necessary to [Page 57] the making up of Idolatry, neither of which is found in their knee­ling. First, they say, except there be an intention in the worshipper, to adore the creature which is before his eyes, his kneeling before it is no Idolatry. What shall I say, saith part. 3. cap. 3. sect. 29. Paybody? What need I say in this place, but to professe and likewise avouch, that we intend onely to worship the Lord our God, when we kneele in the act of receiving? we worship not the Bread and Wine, we intend not our adoring and kneeling unto them. Give us leave to avouch our sincerity in this matter, and it will take away the respect of Idolatry in Gods worship. Answ. I shewed before, that Paybody defendeth Dr Mor­tone his adoration, which he calleth relative from the Signe to Christ: yet let it be so, as here he pretendeth, that no adoration is intended to the Signe; will this save their kneeling from Idolatry? Nay then, the three Children should not have beene Idolaters, if they had kneeled before Nebuchadnezars image, intending their worship to God only, and not to the Image. Our Opposites here, take the Nicodemites by the hand. But what saith De f [...] ­giend. idolo­lat. homil. 1. Calvine? Si isti boni sapientesque Sophistae, ibi tum fuissent, simplicitatem illorum trium servorum Dei irrisissent. Nam hujusmodi credo cos verbis objurgassent: miseri homines istud quidem Homines qui ex corpo­re & Spiritis sunt cōstitu­ti, corpore co­lunt mate­rialiter: Spi­ritu forma­liter, as Iu­nius saith vpon Deut. 12. non est adorare, quum vos in rebus nullam fidem adhibetis: nulla est Idololatria nisi ubi est devotio, hoc est quaedam animi ad idola colenda venerandasque adjunctio atque applicatio, &c. If Paybody had beene in Calvines place, he could not have called the Nicodemites Idolaters, forasmuch as they have no intention to worship the Popish Images, when they kneel and worship before them. Nay, the grossest Idolaters that ever were, shall by this doctrine be no Idolaters, and 1 Cor. 10. 20. Paul shall be censured for teaching that the Gentiles did worship Divells, since they did not intend to worship Divells. Idololatrae nec olim in Paganismo inten­debant, nec hodie in Papatu intendunt, Daemonibus offerre. Quid tum? Aposto­lus contrarium pronuntiat, quicquid illi intendant, saith Com. in illum locum. Sect. 11. Pareus.

The other thing which our kneelers require to the making up of Idolatry, is, that the creature before which we adore, be a passive object of the adoration; whereas Lindsey ubi supra pag. 81. say they, the Sacramentall Ele­ments are no manner of way the passive object of our adoration, but the active onely of that adoration, which at the Sacrament is given to Christ, that is, such an Object and Signe as moves us upon the sight, or by the signification thereof, to lift up our hearts, and adore the onely Object of our faith, the Lord Iesus: such as the holy Word of God, his workes, and benefites are, by meditation and consideration whereof, we are moved and stirred up to adore him. Answ. 1. That which he affirmeth is false, and out of one page of his owne booke I draw an Argument, which destroyeth it, thus: If the Sacra­mentall Elements, were onely the active object of their adoration who kneele before them in the receiving, then their reall presence should be but accidentall to the kneelers. But the reall presence of the Elements, in the act of receiving, is not accidentall to the knee­lers. Ergo. The proposition I drawe from his owne words: We can [Page 58] neither (saith Ibid. pag. 92. he) pray to God, nor thanke him nor praise him, but ever there must be, before the eyes of our minds at least, something of his Workes, Word, or Sacraments, if not before our externall sences. He confesseth it will be enough, that these active objects of worship, be before the eyes of our mindes, and that their reall presence before our external sences is not necessary, but accidentall to us whose minds are by their mea­nes stirred up to worship. And so it is indeed. For esse scibile or reme­morativum of an active object of adoration, is that which stirreth up the minde to worship, so that the reall presence of such an object is but accidentall to the worshipper. The assumption I likewise draw out of the Bishops owne words. For Ibid. he saith, that we kneel before the Elements, having them in our sight, or object to our sences, as ordinary Signes, meanes, and memorialls, to stirre us up, to worship, &c. Now if we have them in our sight, and before our sences, for this purpose, that they may be meanes, signes, & memorialls to stirre us up to worship, then (sure) their beeing really before our sences, is not accidentall to us when we kneele. Since Of the lawf. of kneell. cap. 32. pag. 115. Dr. Burgesse hath beene so dull and sottish, as to write that the Signes are but accidentally before the Communi­cants, when they receive, he is to be ignominiously exsibilat; for making the Sacred Sacramentall Signes to bee no otherwise present, then the walls of the Church, the nailes and timber of the materiall Table whereupon the Elements are set, or any thing else accidentally before the Communicants. But, 2. put the case they did make the Elements onely active objects of worship, when they kneel in the act of recei­ving them: What doe some Papists make more of their Images, when they worship before them? they hold, as De rep. Eccl. lib. 7. cap. 12. num. 42. the Archbishop of Spalato noteth, that Imago est medium duntaxat seu instrumentum quo ex­emplar occurrit suo honoratori, cultori, adoratori: imago excitat tantummodo memoriam, ut in exemplar feratur. Will we have them to speake for themselves? Com. 1. disp. 54. sect. 3. Suarez will have Imagines esse occasiones vel Signa excitan­tia hominem ad adorandum prototypa. (c) Friar Pedro de Cabrera a Span­jard, taketh the opinion of Durand and his followers, to be this, That Images are adored onely improperly, because they put men in mind See Dr Vsher. [...]ans. to the Iesu. chall of Images pag. 499. of the persons represented by them: and he reasoneth against them, thus: If Images were onely to be worshipped by way of rememoration and re­cordation, because they make us remember the samplares, which we doe so worship, as if they had beene then present, It would follow that all creatures should be adored with the same adoration, wherewith we worship God: seeing all of them doe leade us unto the knowledge and remembrance of God. Where­by it is evident Aliud est picturam a dorare: aliud per picturae historiam, quid sit adorandum addiscere, saith Durand Ration lib. 1. tit. de pictur. that in the opinion of Durand; and those who are of his minde. Images are b [...]t active objects of adoration. Lastly, what saith manual. lib. 3. cap. 2. quast: 5: Becane the Iesuite? Imago autem Christi non est occasio Idolo­latriae [Page 59] apud nos Catholicos, quia non alium ob finem eam retinemus, quam ut nobis Christum Salvatorem, & beneficia ejus representet. More particu­larly, he will have the Image of Christ to be honoured for two rea­sons. 1. Quia honor qui exhibetur Imagini redundat in eum cujus est Imago. 2. Quia illud in pretio haberi potest, quod per se revocat nobis in memoriam beneficia Dei, & est occasio ut pro e [...] acceptis grati existamus. At Imago Christi per serevocat nobis in memoriam beneficium nostrae Redemptionis, &c. That for this respect the Image of Christ is honoured, he confir­med by this simile. Quia ob eandem causam apud nos in pretio ac honore sunt Sacra Biblia, itemque Festa Paschatis, Pentecostes, Nativitatis, & Passio­nis Christi. What higher accoumpt is here made of Images then to be active Objects of Worship? for even whiles it is said, that the Honour done to the Image, resulteth to him whose Image it is, there is no Honour ascribed to the Image, as a Passive Object: but they who honour an Image for this respect, and with this meaning, have it onely for an Active Object which represents and calls to their minde the first samplar, as the ubi su­pra. Archbishop of Spalato also observeth. Neither the Papists onely, but some also of the very Heathen Idolaters, Zanch. lib. 1. de vi­ti ext. cult. Oppos. Col. 510. Norunt in Imaginibus nihil Deitatis inesse, meras autem esse rerum absentium repraesentationes, &c. And what if neither Heathens, nor Papists had been of this Opinion, that Images are but Active Objects of worship? yet I have before observed, that the B. himselfe aknowledgeth, it were Idolatry to set before us an Image, as the Active Object of our Adoration: though the wor­ship should be abstracted from the Image.

Finally, to shut up this point, it is to be noted, that the using of Sect. 12 the Sacramentall Elements as active objects of Worship onely, can not make kneeling before them in the receiving, to be no Ido­latry? for then might we lawfully, & without Idolatry, kneel before every active object, which stirreth up our mindes to worship God. All the workes of God are such active objects, as the B. also resol­veth in the words before cited. Yet may we not at the sight of eve­ry one of Gods workes, kneele downe and adore, whiles the eyes both of body and minde are fixed upon it, as the meanes and oc­casion which stirreth us up to worship God. The B. indeed holdeth we may: onely ubi su­pra pag. 88. he saith, this is not necessary, because when by the sight of the Creatures of God, we are moved privately to wor­ship, our externall Gesture of Adoration is Arbitrary, and some­times no Gesture at all is required. But in the ordinary Ministery, when the workes of God, or his benefits are propounded, or ap­plied publikely, to stirre us up to worship in the Assemblies of the Church, then our Gesture ceaseth to be Arbitrary: for it must be such as is prescribed and received in the Church where we worship. Ans. 1. He shuffeleth the point deceitfully, for when he speaks of being moved to worship at the sight of any Creature, he means of [Page 60] inward worship, as is evident by these words, sometime no Gesture at all is required; but when he speakes of being moved to worship in the Assemblies of the Church, by the benefites of God propounded publikely, (for example, by the blessed Sacrament,) then he means of outward worship, as is evident by his requiring necessarily a Ge­sture. He should have spoken of one kinde of worship in both cases, namely, of that which is outward, for of no other doe we dispute. When we are moved by the Sacrament to adore God in the act of receiving, this can be no other but that which is inward, and thus we adore God by Faith, Hope, and Love, though neither the heart be praying, nor the body kneeling. That which we deny (where­of himselfe could not be ignorant,) is, that the Sacramentall Ele­ments may be to us, in the receiving, active objects of outward a­doration? or because they move us to worship inwardly, that there­fore we should adore outwardly. 2. Whereas he teacheth, that knee­ling before any Creature, when thereby we are moved to worship privately, is lawfull, but kneeling before the Sacramentall Elements, when thereby we are moved to worship in the Assemblies of the Church, is necessary; that we may kneel there, but we must kneel here: he knew; or else he made himselfe ignorant, that both these should be denied by us. Why then did he not make them good? kneeling before those active objects, which stirre up our hearts to worship, if it be necessary in the Church, it must first be proven lawfull, both in the Church, and out of it. Now, if a man meeting his L. riding up the street upon his blake Horse, have his heart stir­red up to worship God, by something which he seeth either in him­selfe or his Horse, should fall downe and kneele before him, or his Horse, as the active object of his worship: I marvell, whether the B. would give the man leave to kneele, and stand still as the active ob­ject, before the mans sences? As for us, wee holde, that we may not kneele before every Creature, which stirreth up our hearts to worship God, kneele I say, whiles the eyes both of body and minde are fastened upon it as the active object of our Adoration.

The fourth Reason, whereby I prove the kneeling in question, to be Idolatry, proceedeth thus. Kneeling in the act of receiving, Sect. 13 for reverence to the Sacrament, is Idolatry. But the kneeling in question is such. Ergo. The Proposition is necessary. For if they ex­hibite Divine Adoration (such as their kneeling is confessed to be,) for reverence of the Sacrament, they doe not onely give, but also intend to give Divine Adoration to the same. This is so undenia­ble, that it dasheth ubi su­pra pag 69. B. Lindsey, and makes him give a broad Con­fession, that it is Idolatry to kneele at the Sacrament, for reverence to the Elements. The Assumption I prove from the Confession of Formalists. King Edwards Booke of common Prayer teacheth, that kneeling at the Communion is injoyned for this purpose, that [Page 61] the Sacrament might not be prophaned, but held in a reverent and holy estimation. So doth partic. def. cap 3. sect. 20. Dr. Mortone tell us, that the reason wherefore the Church of England hath institute kneeling in the act of receiving the Sacrament, is, that thereby we might testify our due estimation of such holy Rites. part 3. cap. 3. sect. 45. Paybody makes one of the re­spects of kneeling, to be the reverent handling and using of the Sa­crament. The Serm. on Luke 1. 74 p. 991. B. of Winchester exclaimeth against such as doe not kneel, for not regarding the Table of the Lord, which hath ever been thought of all holies the most holy, and for denying reverence to the holy Symboles, and pretious memorials of our greatest de­livery, even that reverence which is given to Prayer. Where, by the way I observe, that, when we kneel at Prayer, it is not to give reve­rence to Prayer, but to God whom then most immediately we adore, so that kneeling for reverence of the Sacrament, receiveth no com­mendatiō from kneeling at Prayer. The act of Perth about kneeling, when B. Lindsey had pollished and refined it as well as he could, or­dained us to kneele at the Sacrament, in due regard of so Divine a Mistery. And what think we is understood by this Mistery, for reverence whereof we are commanded to kneele? The ubi su­pra pag. 72. 73. B. ex­poundeth this Mistery, to be the receiving of the body and blood of Christ. But here, he either meanes the spirituall receiving of the body and blood of Christ, or the Sacramentall. If the spirituall: why did not the Synod ordaine us to kneele in hearing the Gospell? for therein we receive spiritually the body and blood of Christ, and that as truly and really as in the Sacrament. Whereupon the Ans. to the chall. of the reall pres. pag. 50. 51 Archbishop of Armagh sheweth, that the spirituall & inward fee­ding upon the body and blood of Christ, is to be found out of the Sacrament, and that diverse of the Fathers doe applie the sixth of Iohn, to the hearing of the Word also; as Clemens Alexandrinus, Ori­gen, Eusebius Caesariensis, & others. Epist. 141. ad Cae­sarian. Basilius Magnus likewise teacheth plainly, that we eate the flesh of Christ in his Word and Doctrine. This I am sure no man dare deny. The B [...] then must mean by this mistery, the Sacramentall receiving of the body and blood of Christ. Now, the Sacramentall receiving of the body and blood of Christ, is the receiving of the Sacramentall Signes of his body and blood. And as the ubi su­pra pag. 55. Archbishop of Armagh also observeth, the substance which is outwardly delivered in the Sacrament, is not really the bo­dy and blood of Christ. Againe ibid pag. 61. he saith, that the Bread and Wine are not really the body and bloud of Christ, but Figuratively and Sacramentally: thus he opposeth the Sacramentall presence of the body and blood of Christ, not onely to bodily, but also to Reall presence: and by just Analogy Sacramentall receiving of the body and blood of Christ, is not onely to be opposed to a receiving of his body and blood, into the hands and mouthes of our bodyes, but likewise to the reall receiving of the same spiritually into our [Page 62] soules. It remaineth therefore, that kneeling in due regard of the Sacramentall receiving of the body and blood of Christ, must be expounded to be kneeling in reverence of the Sacramentall Signes of Christs body and blood. And so Perths Canon, and the Bishops Commentary upon it, fall in with the rest of those Formalists ci­ted before, avouching and defending kneeling for reverence to the Sacrament.

Those who speake out more plainely then Bishop Lindsey, doe here Sect. 14 object to us, that reverence is due to the Sacrament, and that wee our selves doe reverence it, when we sit uncovered at the receiving of it. But alt. dam. pag. 809. Didoclavius doth well distinguish betwixt Veneration and Adoration, because in civility we use to be uncovered, even to inferiors and equals for the regard which we beare to them, yet doe we not worship them, as we worship the King on our knees. Ea (vene­ratio) potest esse etiam si­ne cultu saith Scaliger de subtil. ad Card. exerc. 317. dist 3. As then, in civility there is a respect and reverence different from A­doration, so it is in Religion also. Yea de sa­cram. con­firm. cap. 13 Bellarmine himselfe di­stinguisheth the reverence which is due to holy things from Ado­ration. (t) Paybody, and Of the lawfull. of kneel. cap. 8. Dr. Burgesse will by no meanes admit this distinction betwixt Veneration and Adoration. But since neither of them hath alledged any reason against it, I hope they will be weighed downe, by the Auctority of the de rep. Eccl. lib. 5. cap. 6. num. 137. & lib. 7. cap. 12. num. 48. Archbishop of Spalato, and ubi su­pra pag. 70. the Bishop of Edimbrugh, both of which agree to this distin­ction. ( [...]) part. 3. cap. 3. sect. 50. So then, we give no Adoration at all to the Sacrament, because neither by any outward nor inward action, doe we per­forme any worship for the honour of the same. ubi su­pra cap. 21. p. 73. Burgesse himself hath noted to us, that the first Nicene Councell exhorteth, that men should not be humiliter intenti to the things before them. We neither submit our mindes, nor humble our bodies to the Sacrament, yet (a) doe we render to it Veneration, for as much as we esteeme high­ly of it, as a most holy thing, and medle reverently with it, with­out all contempt or unworthy usage. Res profecto inanimatae saith the de rep. Eccl lib. 7. cap. 12. n. 50. Archb. of Spalato, sint sacrae quantum placet, alium honorem à nobis non merentur, nisi in sensu negativo, as that they be not contemned, nor unworthily handled. If it be said, that we ought not to con­temne the Word, yet hath it not that respect given to it, which the Sacrament hath, at which we are uncovered, so that this veneration given to the Sacrament, must be somewhat more then non Prophanatio: I answer, as honour in the Positive sence, so also in the Negative, hath various degrees: and according to the more or lesse imme­diate manifestation of Divine Ordinances to us, so ought the de­grees (1) Cartwr. on 1 Cor. 11. sect. 18. of our Veneration to be intended or remitted; which is not so to be understood, as if one part of Gods sacred worship, were to be lesse contemned then another, (for none of Gods most Holy Ordinances, may be in any sorte contemned,) but that for the grea­ter regarde of those things which are more immediately Divine, we [Page 63] are not in the usage of them, to take to our selves so much Scope and Liberty, as otherwise we may lawfully allow to our selves, in medling with such things, as are not merely, but mixedly Divine, and which are not from God so immediately as the other, but more by the intervention of means. And thus a higher degree of Venera­tion is due to the Sacrament, then to the Word preached, not by ta­king ought from the Word, but by adding more respect to the Sa­crament then the Word hath. The reason hereof is Dido­clav. ubt su­pra pag. 808. given to be this, because when we come to the Sacrament, nihil hic humanum, sed Divina omnia, for Christs owne Words are, or at least should be spoken to us, when we receive the Sacrament, and the Elements also are by Christs owne Institution, holy Symboles of his blessed body and blood. Whereas the Word preached to us, is but mixedly and mediately Divine, and because of this intervention of the Mi­nistery of men, and mixture of their conceptions with the holy Scri­ptures of God, we are bidden try the Spirits, and are required af­ter the Example of the Baereans to search the Scriptures daily, whe­ther these things which we heare preached, be so or not. Now wee are not in like sorte to try the Elements, and the Words of the In­stitution, whether they be of God or not, because this is sure to all, who know out of Scripture the first Principles of the Oracles of God. The consideration hereof warneth us, that the Sacrament gi­ven according to Christs Institution, is more merely and imme­diately Divine then is the Word preached. But others (I heare) object, that if a man should uncover his Head at the sight of a Graven Image, we would account this to be an adoring of the Image; and why then shall not we call our uncovering at the Sacra­ment Adoration also? Ans. Though Veneration and Adoration be distinguished in holy things, to shew that Adoration given to them is Idolatry, but Veneration given to them is not Idolatry, yet in prophane things, such as Images are, Veneration given to them is Idolatry, as well as Adoration: and we are Idolaters for doing so much, as to respect and reverence them, as things sacred or holy. For as I touched before, and as Lib. 1. de viti. ext. cult. oppos. Col. 504. 505. Zanchius evidenceth by sundry instances, Idolatry is committed, when more estimation is had of any thing, more dignity and excellency placed in it, and more regard had to it, then God alloweth, or then can stand with Gods revealed will. For a thing thus regarded, though it be not ex­alted, ut Deus simpliciter, yet it is set up, tanquam Deus ex parte.

Now fiftly, if the kneeling in question be not Idolatrously refer­red to the Sacrament, I demand, whereunto is it specially intended? Sect. 15 we have heard the confession of some of our Opposites, (and those not of the smallest note,) avouching kneeling for reverence of the Sacrament. Neither can the Mistery spoken of in the Act of Perth (in due regard whereof, we are ordained to kneel,) be any other nor [Page 64] the Sacrament. Yet because B. Lindsey, and some of his kynd, who desire to hide the foule shape of their Idolatry, with the trimmest fairding they can; will not take with kneeling in reverence of the Sacrament: let them shew us, which is the object, which they doe specially adore, when they kneele in the receiving of the same, for this their kneeling at this time, ariseth from another respect, then that which they cōsider in other parts of Gods worship, let two of our Prelats tell it out? The Serm. at Perth As­semb. Archbishop of Sainctandrewes would teach us out of Mouline, that we ought to adore the flesh of Iesus Christ in the Eucharist. The ubi supra pag. 142. B. of Edinbrugh also, will have us to worship the flesh and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament, because the huma­nity of Christ is there present, beeing ever and every where joyned with the Divinity. But a twofold Idolatry may be here deprehen­ded. 1. In that they worship the flesh and bloud of Christ. 2. In that they worship the same in the Sacrament. As touching the first, albeit we may and should adore the man Christ with Divine worship, yet we may not adore his manhood, or his flesh and bloud. 1. Be­cause though the man Christ be God, yet his manhood is not God, and by consequence can not be honoured with Divine worship. 2. If adorability agree to the humanity of Christ, then may his hu­manity help and save us: Idolaters are mocket by the spirit of God, for worshipping things which can not helpe nor save them. But the humanity of Christ, can not save us nor helpe us, because omnis actio est suppositi: whereas the humane nature of Christ is not suppositum. 3. None of those who defend the adoring of the humanity of Christ with Divine worship, doe well and warrantably expresse their opi­nion. First, some of the Aquin. 3. q. 25. art. 2. Schoolmen have found no other respect, wherefore the manhood of Christ can be said to be adored, except this, that the flesh of Christ is adored by him who adores the word incarnate, even as the Kings cloaths are adored by him who adores the King. And thus they make the flesh of Christ to be adored onely per accidens. Ego vero, saith the De rep. Eccl. lib. 7. c. 12. [...]. 43. Archbishop of Spalato, non puto à quo­quam regis vestimenta quibus est indutus, adorari. And I pray, why doth he that worshippes the King, worship his clothes, more then any other thing which is about him, or beside him, perhaps a Hauke upon his hand, or a litle dogge upon his knee? There is no more but the Kings owne person, set by the worshipper to have any state in the worship, and therefore no more worshipped by him. Franc. à S. Clara ex­pos. artic. confess. Angl. art. 28. Others devise another respect wherefore the manhood of Christ may be said to be worshipped, namely, that as Divine worship agrees onely to the Godhead, and not personis Divinis praecise sumptis. i. e. sub ratione formali constitutiva personarum, quae est relatio: but onely as these relations iden­tificantur with the essence of the Godhead: so the manhood of Christ is to be adored non per se praecise, sed pro ut suppositatur à Deo. I Answere, if by suppositatur they meane, (as they must meane) that the manhood [Page 65] is assumed into the unity of the person of the Sonne of God. (for otherwise if they meane, that the manhood is made a person, they are Nestorians,) that which they say, can not warrant the worship­ping of the manhood with Divine worship: because the manhood even after this assumption and hypostaticall union, & being con­sidered by us as now assumed into this personall union, is still for all that, a creature & a distinct nature from the Godhead. (except we will be Eutychians;) so that it cannot yet be said to be worship­ped with Divine worship. Of the Church lib. 5. cap. 15. Dr. Field layeth out a third way. For whiles he admitteh the phrase of the Lutherans, who say not only concretively, that the man Christ is omnipresent but the humanity also; he forgeth a strange distinction. When we speake, saith he, of the humanity of Christ, sometimes we understand only that humane created essence of a man that was in him; sometimes all that, that is implied in the beeing of a man, as well subsistence as essence. By the same distinction would Field defend the attributing of the other Divine properties (and adorability among the rest) to the humane nature. But this distinction is no better, then if a man should say: by blacknesse sometimes we understand blacknesse, and sometimes whytenesse. Who ever confounded abstractum and Concretum, before that in Fields field they were made to stand for one? It is the Tenet of the Schoole, that though in God Concretum and abstractum differ not, because Deus and Deit as are the same, yet in creatures (where­of the manhood of Christ, is one,) they are realy differenced. For Aquin. 1. q 13. art. 1. Concretum signifieth aliquid completum subsistens, and abstra­ctum (such as humanity,) signifieth something, non ut subsistens, sed ut quo aliquid est, as whitenesse doth not signify that thing which is white, but that whereby it is white. How comes it then, that Field makes humanity in the abstract to have a subsistence. Cent. Flosc. Tur. disput. Flosc. 26. Antonius Sadeel censures Turrianus, for saying that albedo cum pariete, idem est atque paries albus: his reason is, because albedo dicitur esse, non cum pa­riete, sed in pariete. An abstract is no more an abstract, if it have a subsistence.

There is yet a fourth sence remaining, which is Augustines, and theirs who speake with him. His sentence which our Opposites cite for them, is, that it is sinne not to adore the flesh of Christ: how­beit very erroneously he groundeth that which he saith upon those words of the Psalme, worship at his footstoole, taking this footstoole to be the flesh of Christ: Yet that his meaning was better then his expression & that he meant not that adoration should be given to the flesh of Christ, but to the Godhead, whose footstoole the flesh is; it is plaine from those words which Burgesse Of the lawf. of kneel. cap. 23 p. 88. himself citeth out of him. To whatsoever earth i. e. flesh of Christ, thou bowest and pro­stratest thy self: looke not on it as earth, i. e as flesh, but looke at that holy one whose footstoole it is that thou doest adore, i. e. looke to the God­head [Page 66] of Christ, whose flesh thou doest adore in the misteries. Wherefore if we would give any sound sence to their words, who say that the flesh of Christ is to be adored, we must note with Synt. l. 6. c. 16. col. 125. A. Polanus, that cum dicitur carnem Christi adorari: non est propria, sed figurata enuncia­tio; quia non adoratur proprie caro secundum se, quia creatura est, sed Deus in carne manifestatus, seu Deus carne vestitus. But two things I will here advertise my Reader of.

1. That though this forme of speaking, which saith that the flesh of Christ is to be adored, being thus expoūded, receiveth a sound sence, yet the expression is very bad, and violence is done to the phrase, when such a meaning is drawne out of it. For how can we by the flesh of Christ understand his Godhead? the communion of properties, admitteth us to put the man Christ for God, but not his manhood. And Eccl. pol. lib. 5. s. 55. Hooker teacheth rightly, that by force of union, the properties of both natures (and by consequence, adorability, which is a propertie of the Divine nature,) are imputed to the person only, in whom they are, and not what belongeth to the one nature, really conveyed or translated into the other.

2. Yet our Kneelers who say they adore the flesh of Christ in the Sacrament, have no such Orthodox (though forced) meaning, whereby to expound themselves. For Vbi su­pra. B. Lindsey will have us in receiving the Sacrament, to bow our knees & adore the humanity of Christ, by reason of the personall union that it hath with the Godhead. Ergo, he meanes that we should, & may adore with Di­vine worship, that which is personally united with the Godhead. And what is that? not the Godhead sure: but the created nature of the manhood: (which not being God, but a creature only, can not without I dolatry be worshipped with Divine worship.) I con­clude therefore, that by the flesh of Christ, which he will have to be adored in the Sacrament, he understands not the Godhead, as Augustine doth, but that created nature which is united with the Godhead.

But 2. as we have seene what is to be thought of worshipping the flesh of Christ, so let us next consider, what may be thought Sect. XVI of worshipping his flesh in the Sacrament; for this was the other head which I proposed. Now, they who worship the flesh of Christ in the Sacrament, must either consider it, as present in the Sacrament, & in that respect to be there adored, because of the per­sonall union of it with the Word, or else because of the Sacramen­tall union of it with the outward Signe, which is a respect super­venient to that of the ubiquity of it in the person of the Word. First then, touching the former of those respects, the personal union of the flesh with the word, can neither inferre the presence of the [Page 67] flesh in the Sacrament, to those who worthily receive; nor yet can it make any thing for the adoration of the flesh. Not the former; for in respect of the ubiquity of the flesh in the person of the word, it is ever and alike present with the Communicants, whether they re­ceive worthily, or not, & with the Bread & Wine, whether they be consecrated to be signes of his body and bloud or not. There­fore Divines rightly hold Zanch. tom. 8. col. 521. presentiam corporis Christi in coena, non ab ubiquitate, sed a verbis Christi pendere. Not the latter neither; for (as I have shewed already) notwithstanding of the personall union, yet the flesh of Christ remaineth a creature, and is not God, and so can not at all bee worshipped with Divine worship. And if his flesh could be at all so worshipped, We adore Christ as well in the prea­ching of the Gospell and Sacra­ment of Baptisme, as in the Sacrament of the Sup­per, saith Cart­wright on 1. Cor. 11. sect. 18. yet were there no reason for wor­shipping it in the Sacrament, (in respect of its personall union with the Word,) more then in all other actions, and at all other times. For ever and alwayes, is the flesh of Christ personally united with the Word, & in that respect present to us. There remaineth there­fore nothing but that other respect of the Sacramētall union of the flesh of Christ with the Sacramentall Signe, which they can have for worshipping his flesh in the Sacrament. Whereas Vbi su­pra. B. Lindsey saith, that it is no errour, to beleeve the spirituall powerfull & personall pre­sence of Christs body at the Sacrament, and in that respect to worship his flesh & bloud there. He meanes (sure) some speciall respect, for which it may be said, that Christs body is present at the Sacrament, (so as it is not present out of the Sacrament,) and in that respect to be there adored. Now Christs body is spiritually and powerfully pre­sent to us in the Word (as I shewed before,) yea as often as looking by faith upon his body broken, and bloud shed for us, we receive the sence & assurance of the remission of our sinnes through his merites: and as for this personall presence of Christs body, which he speaketh of, I have shewed also, that the adoring of the flesh of Christ in the Sacramēt, can not be inferred upon it; Wherefore he can tell us nothing, which may be thought to inferre the presence of Christs flesh in the Sacrament, and the adoration of it in that re­spect, save onely the Sacramentall union of it with the outwarde Signe. Now adoration in this respect & for this reason, must sup­pose the bodily presence of Christs flesh in the Sacrament. Whereu­pon De rep. Eccl. lib. 7. cap. 11. num. 7. the Archb. of Spalato saith, that the Papists adore the body of Christ in the Sacrament, only because of the supposition of the bodily presence of it; and if they knew, that the true body of Christ is not under the species of the Bread and Wine, they would exhibite no adoration. And Ostens. error. Fr. Suarez. cap. 2. [...]. 13. elsewhere hee sheweth, that the mistery of the Eucharist can not make the manhood of Christ to be adored, quia in pane corporalis Christi presentia non est: implying, that if the flesh of Christ be adored in respect of the mistery of the [Page 68] Eucharist, then must it be bodily present in the Signe, which is false; and hereupon hee gathereth truly, that it can not bee ado­red in respect of the mistery of the Eucharist.

Further, it is to be remembered (which I have also before Supra Sect. 13. noted out of Dr. Vsher) that the Sacramentall presence of the bo­dy of Christ, or that presence of it which is inferred upon the Sa­cramentall union which is betwixt it and the outward Signe, is not the reall or spirituall presence of it, (for in this maner, it is present to us out of the Sacrament, even as oft as by faith we apprehend it and the vertue thereof,) but it is figuratively only so called, the sence beeing this, that the body of Christ is present and given to us in the Sacramēt, meaning by his body the Signe of his body. These things being so, whosoever worshippeth Christs body in the Eu­charist, & that in respect of the Sacramentall presence of it in the same, can not choose but hold that Christs body is bodily and re­ally under the species of the bread, and so fall into the Idolatry of bread-worship; or else Zanch. lib. 1. de viti. ext. cult. oppos. col. 504. our Divines have not rightly convinced the Papists, as Idolatrous worishppers of the bread in the Eucha­rist, for as much as they attribute to it, that which it is not, nor hath not, to wit, that under the accidents thereof is contained substan­tially the true & living body of Christ, joyned and united to his Godhead. What can B. Lindsey now answer for himselfe, except he say with Marc Ant. de Dom. ostēs. error Fr. Suarez, c. 2. n. 13. one of his bretheren, that we should adore the flesh of Christ in the Sacrament, because Corporalis praesentia Christi, sed non modo corporali, comitatur Sacramentum Eucharistiae: And Christ is there present corporaliter, modo spirituali? But this man contradicts himself miserably; For we had him a little before, ackowledging that in pa­ne, corporalis Christi presentia non est. How shall we then reconcile him with himself? he would say that Christ is not bodily present in the Sacrament after a bodily manner; but he is bodily present after a spirituall manner. Why should I blot paper with such a vanity, which implyeth a contradiction, bodily and not bodily, spiritually and not spiritually?

The sixt and last Argument, whereby I prove the kneeling in que­stion to be Idolatry, is takē from the nature & kind of the worship Sect. 17 wherein it is used. For the receiving of the Sacrament being a me­diate worship of God, wherein the Elements come between God & us, in such sort, that they belong to the substance of the worship, (for without the Elements, the Sacrament is not a Sacrament,) and withall are susceptive of coadoration, for as much as in the act of receiving, both our mindes, and our externall sences, are and should be fastened upon them: hereby we evince the Idolatry of kneeling in the receiving. For in every mediate worship, wherein some crea­ture is purposely set betweene God & us to have state in the same, it [Page 69] is Idolatry to kneel before such a creature, whiles both our minds & sences are fastened upō it. Our Opposites have raked many things together, to infringe this Argument. First Burg. of the lawf. of kneel. cap. 32. p. 113. Pay­body part. 3. cap. 3. Sect. 4. they alledge the bow­ing of Gods people before the ark, the Temple, the holy Mountain, the Altar, the Bush, the Cloud, the Fire which came from heaven. Answ. 1. Where they have read that the people bowed before the Altar of God, I knowe not. Vbi su­pra. p. 94. B. Lindsey indeed would prove from 2. Chron. 6. 12, 13, and Mic. 6, 6. that the people bowed before the Altar and the Offering. But the first of those places, speakes no­thing of kneeling before the Altar, but only of kneeling before the Congregation, that is, in sight of the Congregation. And if Solomon had then kneeled before the Altar, yet the Altar had beene but occasionally and accidentally before him in his adoration, for to what end & use could he have purposely set the Altar before him, whiles he was kneeling and praying? The place of Micah can not prove, that Gods people did kneel before the offerings at all, (for it speakes only of bowing before God,) farre lesse, that they kneeled before them in the very act of offering, and that with their minds and sences fixed upon them, as we kneel in the very act of receiving the Sacrament, and at that instant when our minds and sences are fastened upon the signes, that we may discerne the things signi­fied by them, for the exercising of our hearts in a thankfull medita­tion upon the Lords death. 2. As for the other examples here alled­ged, God was immediatly present, in and-with the Arke, the Tem­ple, the holy Mountaine, the Bush, the Cloud, and the Fire which came from Heaven, speaking and manifesting himself to his peo­ple by his owne immediate voice, and miraculous extraordinary presence: So that worshipping before these things had the same rea­son which makes Apoc. 4. 10. the 24 Elders in Heaven worship before the Throne. For in these things, God did immediatly manifest his pre­sence, as well as in heaven. Though there be a difference in the de­grees of the immediate manifestation of his presence in Earth, and in Heaven, yet magn & minus non variant speciem. Now God is pre­sent in the Sacrament, not extraordinarily, but in the way of an ordinary dispensation, not immediatly but mediatly. They must therefore alledge some commendable examples of such a kneeling as we dispute about, in a mediate and ordinary worship, else they say nothing to the point.

Yet to no better purpose B. Linds. ubi supra, pag. 76. they tell us, that when God spake, Sect. 18 Abraham fell on his face. And when the fire came downe at Elijas prayen, the people fell on their faces. What is this to the purpose? And how shall kneeling in a mediat and ordinary worship, be war­ranted by kneeling in the hearing of Gods owne immediate voice, or in seeing the miraculous signes of his extraordinary presence? [Page 70] Howbeit it can not be proved, neither, that the people fell on their faces in the very act of seeing the fire fall, (when their eyes and their mindes were fastened upon it,) but that after they had seene the mi­racle wrought, they so considered of it, as to fall downe and wor­ship God.

But further, it is objected, Ibid. pag. 91. that a poenitentiary kneels to God pur­posely before the Congregation, and with a respect to the Congregation, &c. When we come to our common Tables before we eate, tither fitting with our heads discovered, or standing, or kneeling, we give thanks and blesse, with a respect to the meate, which is purposely set on Table, &c. The Pastor when he begins the holy action, hath the bread and the cup set be­fore him, purposely, upon the Table, and with respect to them, hee gives thankes, &c.

Answ. Though a poenitentiary kneele to God purposely in the presence and sight of the congregation, that he may make knowne to them his repentance for the sinne whereby he hath scandalized them; yet is the confessing of his sinne to God kneeling there upon his knees, a immediate worship, neither doth the Congregation come betwixt him and God, as belonging to the substance of this worship, for he kneeleth to God, as well, and maketh confession of his sinne, when the Congregation is not before him. But I suppose our kneelers themselves will confesse, that the Elements come so betwixt God and them, when they kneele, that they belong to the essence of the worship in hand, and that they would not, nor could not worship the flesh and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament, if the Elements were not before them.

To be short, the case of a poenitentiary standeth thus, that not in his kneeling simpliciter, but in his kneeling publikely and in sight of the Congregation, he setteth them before him, purposely, and with a respect to them: Whereas our kneelers doe kneele in such sort, that their kneeling simpliciter, and without an adjection or ad­junct, hath a respect to the Elements purposely set before them, nei­ther would they at all kneele, for that end and purpose for which they doe kneele, namely, Vbi su­pra, sect. 15. for worshipping the flesh and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament, except the Elements were before the eyes both of their mindes and bodies; as the poenitentiary doth kneele, for making confession of his sinne to God, when the Con­gregation is not before him.

And if one would say, that in kneeling at the Sacrament he wor­shippeth not the flesh and bloud of Christ, but the Lord his God only, yet is the same difference to be put betwixt his kneeling be­fore the Elements, & the kneeling of a poenitentiary before the Cō ­gregation: For the very kneeling it self (simply considered) before the Elements, respecteth them as then purposely set in our sight, that we may kneele before thē: whereas in the case of the poenitentiary, [Page 71] it is not his kneeling to confesse his sinne to God, which hath a re­spect to the Congregation as set in his sight for that purpose; But some cirumstances of his kneeling only, to wit, When? At that time when the Congregation is assembled; And where? Publikely in sight of the Congregation. In regard of these circumstances, he hath the Congregation purposely in his sight, & so respecteth them; But in regard of the kneeling it self simply, the presence of the Congrega­tion is but accidentall to him who kneeleth, & confesseth his sinne before God. As touching giving thankes before the meate set on our common Tables, though a man should doe it kneeling, yet this speaketh not home to the point now in controversy, except a man so kneele before his meat, that he have a religious respect to it, as a thing separated from a common use and made holy, and likewise have both his minde & his externall sences of seeing, touching, & tasting fastened upon it in the act of his kneeling. And if a man should thus kneele before his meate, he were an Idolater.

Lastly, giving thankes before the Elements of Bread & Wine, in the beginning of the holy action, is as farre from the purpose: For this giving of thanks, is an immediate worship of God, wherein we have our minds & sences not upon the Bread & Wine, as upon things which have a state in that worshippe of the Lords Supper, & belong to the substance of the same, (for the very consecration of them to this use, is but then in fieri,) but we worship God imme­diately by prayer and giving of thankes: Which is all otherwise in the act of receiving.

Moreover Paybody part. 3. cap. 3. Sect. 4. it is objected out of Levit. 9. 24. 2. Chron. 7. 3. Sect. XIX Mie. 6. 6. 2 Chron. 29. 28. 29. 30. that all the people fell on their fa­ces, before the legall Sacrifices, when the fire consumed the burnt-offering.

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

But if we will particularly consider all these places, we finde in the first two, that beside the fire, the glory of the Lord did also ap­peare in a more miraculous & extraordinary maner, Levit. 9. 23. The glory of the Lord appeared to all the people. 2 Chron. 7. 1. 12. The glory of the Lord filled the house. They are therefore running at ran­dome, who take hold of those places, to drawout of them the law­fulnesse of kneeling in a mediate and ordinary worship.

The place of Micah I have answered before: And here I adde, that though it could be proved from that place, (as it cannot,) that the people both bowed before the offerings, & that in the very act of offering, yet how shall it be proved, that in the act of their kneeling, [Page] they had the offerings purposely before them, and their minds & sences fixed upon them, in the very instant of their worshipping.

This I make clearer by the last place, 2. Chron. 29. out of which no more can be drawne, but that the people worshipped, whiles the Priests were yet offering the burnt-offering. Now the burnt-offering was but accidentally before the people in their worship­ping, and only because it was offered at the same time when the song of the Lord was soung. Vers. 27. Such was the foreward­nesse of zeale in restoring Religion, & in purging the Temple, that it admitted no stay, but eagerly prosecuted the worke, till it was perfected, therefore the thing was done suddenly, Vers. 36. Since then the Song and the Sacrifice were performed at the same time, we must note that the people worshipped at that time, not because of the Sacrifice which was a mediate worship, but because of the Song of the Lord, which was an immediat worship. Now we all commend kneeling in an immediat worship. But this can not con­tent our Opposites, they will needs have it lawfull to kneel in the hearing of the Word, purposely and with a respect to the Word preached, (though this be a mediat worship only. Paybo­dy ibid. Sect. 5. Their warrants are taken out of Exod. 4. 30. 31. Exod. 12. 27. 2 Chron. 20. 18. Matth. 17. 6. From the first three places no more can be inferred, but that these hearers bowed their heads & worshipped, after that they had heard the Word of the Lord; Neither shall they ever warrant bowing and worshipping in the act of hearing.

In the fourth place we reade, that the Disciples fell on their faces when they heard Gods owne immediate voice out of the Cloud: What maketh this for falling downe to worship at the hearing of the Word preached by men? How long shall our Opposites not distinguish betwixt mediate and immediate worship?

Lastly, Id pa [...]t. 2 cap. 1. Sect. 7. it is alledged, that God in his Word allowes not only kneeling at Prayer, but also at Circumcision, Passeover, & Bap­tisme. The reason of this assertion▪ is given to be this, that a bodily gesture being necessary, God not determining man upon any one, leaves him at plaine liberty. Ans Whether we be left at plaine liberty in all things which being in the generall necessary, & are not parti­cularly determined in Gods Word; it shall betreated of else-where in this Dispute. In the meane time, whatsoever liberty God leaves man in bodily gestures, he leaves him no liberty of an unlawfull and Idolatrous gesture, such as kneeling in the instant of receiving a Sacrament, when not only we have the outward Signe purposely before us, & our mindes and sences fastened upon it, for discerning the signification thereof, & the Analogie betwixt it and the thing signified; but also looke upon it as an Image of Christ, or as a vica­tious signe standing there in Christs stead. The Indifferency of such a gesture, in such a mediate worship, should have beene proved, [Page 73] before such a rule (as this here given us for a reason,) had been applied to it.

But the kneelers would yet make more adoe to us, and be still Sect. 20 stirring if they can doe no more. Wherefore Dr. [...] Iren. lib. 1. cap. 1. one of our Doc­tours objecteth, that we lift up our eyes and our hands to heaven, and worship God, yet doe not worship the heaven: that a man going to bed, prayeth before his bed: that David, offered the Sacrifices of thanksgiving, in the presence of all the people, Psal. 116. that Paul having taken bread gave thankes, before all them who were in the ship Act. 27. 35. that the Israelits worshipped before Moses and Aaron, Exod. 4, 31. Hereupon Ios. Hall. Apol. a­gainst Brown Sect. 36. another Dr. harping on the same string, tells us, that when we kneel in the act of receiving the Sacrament, We kneel no more to bread, then to the pulpit, when we joyne our prayers with the ministers. Oh, unworthy instances, and reproachfull to Doctours! All these things were and are acciden­tally present to the worshippers, and not purposely before them, not respected as hauing a religious state in the worship. What? doe we worship before the bread in the Sacrament, even as before a Pulpit, a bed, &c? Nay, graduate men should understand better what they speake off.

Another objection is, D. Forb. ubi supra. what a man who is admitted to the office of a Pastor, and receiveth in position of hands, kneeleth still on his knees, till the ordination be ended the rest about him being standing or sitting.

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

It is further told us, that D. Forb. ibid. he who is baptised, or he who offers him that is to be baptised, humbleth himself and prayeth that the bap­tisme may be saving unto life eternall, yet worshippeth not the ba­sen, nor the water. But how long shall simple ones love simplici­ty, or rather, scorners hate knowledge? Why is kneeling in the im­mediate worship of prayer, wherein our minds doe purposely res­pect no Earthly thing, (but the Psal. 25. 1. soule, Lament. 3. 41. Psal. [...]23. 1. the heart, the hands, [q] the eyes, Psal. 5. 3 the voice all directed immediatly to Heauen,) pa­ralelled with kneeling in the mediate worship of receiving the Sa­crament, wherein we respect purposely the outward signe, which is then in our sight, that both our mindes and our externall sences may be fastened upon it: Our mindes by meditation, and attentive [Page 74] consideration of that which is signified, and of the representation thereof by the signe: Our sences by seeing, handling, breaking, ta­sting, eating, drinking?

Thus we see that in all these examples alledged by our Oppo­sites, there is nothing to prove the lawfullnesse of kneeling, in such Sect. 21 a mediate worship, wherein something belonging to the substance of the worship comes between God and us, and is not accidentally but purposely before us, upon which also our minds and sences in the action of worship are fast fixed. Howbeit there is another respect, wherefore none of these examples can make ought for kneeling in the act of receiving the Sacrament, (which I haue shewed before,) namely, that in the instant of receiving the Sacrament, the Elements are actually Images and vicarious Signes standing in Christs stead. But belike our kneelers have not satisfied themselves with the rouing table of these impertinent allegations, which they have produced to prove the lawfullnesse of kneeling in a mediate worship, they have prepared another refuge for themselves, which had been needlesse, if they had not feared, that the former ground should faile them.

What then will they say next to us? Forsooth, that when they kneel in the act of receiving they are praying and praising, and so worshipping God immediately. And if we would know, what a man doth then pray for, it is told us, Dr. Forb. ubi supra. that he is praying and earnestly crying to God vt eum faciat dignum convivam. To us it seemes very strange how a man when he is actually a banqueter, and at the instant of his communicating, can be made in any other sort a ban­queter, then he is, for quicquid est, dum est non potest non esse. Where­fore if a man in the instant of his receiving, be an vnworthy ban­queter, he can not at that instant, be made any other then he is.

The truth is, we can not lawfully be either praying or praising in the very act of receiving, because our hearts and mindes should Sect. 22 then be exercised in meditating vpon Christs death, and the inaestima­ble benefites which comes to us thereby. 1. Cor. 11. 24. Doe this in remembrance of me.

This remembrance is described vers. 26. Ye doe shew the Lords death. Now one of the speciall wayes, whereby we remember Christ and so doe shew forth his death, is by private meditation vpon his death, as Com. in 1 Cor. 1 [...]. 26. Pareus resolveth.

This meditation is a speech of the soule to it self: and though it may stand with short ejaculations, which may and should have place in all our actions, yet can it not stand with an ordinary & continued prayer purposely conceived, as Vbi su­pra. [...]. 104. B. Lindsey would maintaine. For how can we orderly both speake to God by prayer, and to our selves by meditation at one instant of time? If therefore prayer be purposely and orderly conceived, it banisheth away meditation, which should be the souls exercise, in the receiving of the Sacra­ment. [Page 75] And by the contrary, if meditation be entertained, as it should be, it admitteth not prayer to have place at that time. For it is wel Didect. Alt. Dam. pag. 803. said, that Dum auribus, oculis, manibus, dentibus exterius; auribus, oculis, manibus, dentibus fidei interius occupamur, orationem ceontinuam & durabilem, absque mentis diragatione ab opere praecepto & imperato, instruere non possumus.

But let us heare, how the B. proveth that we should be praying & praising, in the act of receiving the Sacrament. Whatsoever spiri­tuall Sect. 23 benefit Vbi su­pra, p. 112 saith he, we should receive with a spirituall hunger & thirst, and with a spirituall appetite and desire after the grace and ver­tue that is therein to salvation: The same we should receive with prayer, which is nothing else, but such an appetite and desire. But the body and bloud of Christ is such a benefit, &c.

Answ. 1. Why did he not prove his proposition? Thought he his bare assertion should suffice? Gods Word is a spirituall benefit, which we should receive with spirituall hunger and thirst, yet the B. will not say, that we should be praying all the while we are hearing and receiving it, for then could not our minds be attentive. His proposition therefore is false. For though prayer should goe before the receiving of such a spirituall benefit as the Word or the Sacra­ment, yet we should not pray in the act of receiving. For how can the heart attend by serious consideration, what we heare in the Word, or what is signified and given to us in the Sacrament, if in the actions of hearing the Word, and receiving the Sacrament, it should be elevated out of the world by prayer?

2. Why saith he, that prayer is nothing else but a Spirituall appe­tite or desire? He thought hereby to strengthen his proposition, but we deny all. Ibid. p. 101. He said before, that every prayer is a meditation and here he saith, that prayer is nothing else but a spirituall desire. These are vncouth descriptions of Prayer. Prayer is not meditation, because meditation is a communing with our owne soules, Prayer a communing with God: Nor yet can it be said, that Prayer is nothing else; but a spirituall desire; for Prayer is the sending up of our desires to God, being put in order.

He speeds no better in proving that we should receive the Sacra­ment Sect. 24 with thanksgiving. Whatsoever benefit; saith he, we should receive by extolling and preaching, and magnifying and praising the inaestimable worth and excellency thereof, the same we ought to receive with thanksgiving. But in the Sacrament we should receive the bloud of Christ with extolling and preaching, &c. The assumption he confirmes by the words of our Saviour: Doe this in remembrance of me. And by the words of S. Paul: So oft as ye shall eate this Bread and drinke this Cup, ye shall declare, that is extell, magnify, and praise the Lords death, till he come againe. [Page 76] Answ. His assumption is false, neither can his proofs make it true.

First, we remember Christ in the act of receiving, by meditation, and not by praise.

2. We shew forth the Lords death in the act of receiving, by using the Signes and Symboles of his body broken and his bloud shed for us, and by meditating vpon his death thereby repre­sented.

3. We deny not that by praise we shew forth the Lords death also, but this is not in the act of receiving. It is to be mar­ked with Vbi su­p [...]. Pareus, that the shewing forth of the Lords death, must not be restricted to the act of receiving the Sacrament, because we doe also shew forth his death, by the preaching of the Gospell, and by private and publike celebration of it, yea by a perpe­tuall study of sanctification and thankfullnesse. So that the shewing forth of the Lords death, by extolling, preaching, magnifying and praising the same, according to the 23. Sect. Of the Confession of faith, to which his Argument hath reference, may not be expounded of the very act of receiving the Sacrament. Neither doe the words of the Institution refuse, but easily admit another shewing forth of the Lords death, then that which is in the very act of receiving. For the word is not quando, but quoties. It is only sayd, as often as ye eat this breed and drinke this cup ye doe shewe &c. Which words can not be taken, only of the instant of eating and drinking.

Now having so strongly proved the vnlawfulnesse and Idolatry of kneeling in the act of receiving the holy Communion, let me adde, Sect. 25 corolarij loco, that the reader needs not to be moved with that which B. Lindsey in the taile of his dispute about the head of kneeling, offers at a dead lift, namely, the testimonies of some moderne Doctours. For 1. What can humane testimony availe against such cleare truth? 2. We have moe testimonies of Dwines against kneeling, then he hath for it. And here, I perceiye Partic. def. cap. 3. Sect. 38. Dr. Morton fearing we should come to good speed this way would hold in our travel. We are not ig­norant, saith he, that many Protestant Authours are most frequent in condemning the gesture of Kneeling, at the receiving of the holy Com­munion.

3. Testimonies against kneeling are gathered out of those very same Divines whom the B. alleadgeth for it. Alt. Dā. pag. 756. 782. 794. Sect. 26. For Didoclavius hath cleare testimonies against it, out of Calvine, Beza, and Martyr, whom yet the B. taketh to be for it.

Neither yet need we here, to be moved with Of the lauf. of kneel. cap. 22. D. Burgesse his adventurous undertaking to prove, that in the most auncient times, before corruption of the Doctrine of the Sacrament beganne, the Sacrament was received with an adoring gesture.

He shoots short of his proofs, and hits not the marke. One place in Tertullian de oratione, he hammers upon: Similiter de Stationum. [Page 77] Diebus non putant plerique sacraficiorum orationibus interveniendum quod statio solvenda sit accepto corpore Domini. Ergo devotum Deo obsequium Eucharistiae resolvit, an magis Deo obligat? Nonne solennior erit statio [...]ua, si & ad aram dei steteris? Accepto corpore Domini & reservato, vtrumque salvum est, & participatio Sacrificij, & exec­utio officij.

To these words the D. gives this sence; That many withdrew themselves, whē they came to the celebration of the Supper, because the body of our Lord, that is, the Sacramentall Bread, beeing taken of the Ministers hand, the station. i. e. standing must be dissolved and [...]elf: and because standing on those dayes might not be left (as they thought,) therefore they rather left the Sacrament on these dayes, thē they would breake the rule of standing on those dayes: therefore they forbore:

Which can have no reason but this, that taking the holy things at the Table standing, yet they used not to partake them. i. e. eate the Bread or drinke the Wine, in any other gesture, then what was on the Station dayes then forbidden, kneeling: And that Tertullian wishes them to come, though they might not then kneele, and to take the Bread in publike, standing at the Table, and reserve it, and carry it away with them, and receive it at their owne howses, as they desired, kneeling.

Answ. The D. by this glosse puts a weapon in our hands against himself, for if when they had taken the Bread of the Ministers hand, their standing was to be left and dissolved, and Tertullian, by com­mending to them another gesture in eating of the Bread, not stan­ding, then whether vrgeth he that other gesture to be used in the publicke eating of the bread, or in the private? Not in the private: for his advice of reserving and eating it in private, commeth after, and is only put for a remedy or next best, in case they would not condeseend to this course in publicke, quod statio Solvenda sit accepto corpore Domini. Needs then, it must be understood of the pu­blicke. Now, if in the publicke eating of the bread, Standing was to be left; Which gesture was to come in place of it? Not Kneeling.

For 1. Tertullian saith De coro­na militis. elsewhere: Diebus dominicis Iejunare nefas ducimus, vel de geniculis adorare: eadem immunitate a die Paschae ad Pentecosten usque gaudemus.

2. The Dr. himselfe saith, that upon these Station-dayes, Knee­ling was restrained, not only in prayer, but in all Divine ser­vice.

Wherefore if according to the Doctours glosse, the gesture of stan­ding was left or dissolved, that gesture which had come in place of it, to be used in the partaking of the Sacrament, can hardly be ima­gined to have been any other nor sitting. [Page 78] well, the D. hath unhappily raised this spirit, to disquiet himself: let him bethinke how to lay him againe. If he can not, J wil assay to make some help, and to lay him in this fashion. The station dayes were not the Lords dayes, together with those 50 betwixt Easter and Pentecost, (on which both fasting and kneeling were forbidden,) as the D. thinketh, but they were certaine set dayes of fasting. For they appointed the fourth and fixt day of the weeke, (that is wednesday and fryday) for their Stations, as de Iejun. cap. 2. & 14. Tertulian saith: whose words we may understand, by another place of Haeres. 75. Epiphanius, who writeth that the Fast of the fourth, and the sixt day, was kept throughout all the Churches, and held to be an Apostolicall constitution. Howbeit herein they did erre: for to ap­point a certaine time of fasting to be kept by the wholle Church, agreeth not with Christian liberty, and wanteth the example of Christ and his Apostles, as hist. eccl. cent. 4. lib. 2 cap. 22. p. 150. Osiander noteth. Alwayes we see, what was meant by Station dayes, to wit, their set dayes of 150 fasting, which were called Station dayes, by a speech borrowed from a military custome, as Tertullian teacheth. For as Souldiers kept those times and places, which were appointed for their wat­ches, and fasted all the while they continued in these watches: so did Christians upon their station dayes, resort and meet in the place appointed, and there remained falting till their station dissolved. The Dr. taketh upon him to confute those, who understand by the Station dayes set dayes of fasting. But all which he alledgeth to the contrary, is that he findeth some where in Tertullian, Statio and Iejunia put for different things. Now this helpeth him not, except he could find that Statio, and Stata Iejunia are put for different things. For no man taketh the Stations to have beene occasionall, but only set fasts. Touching the meaning then of the words alled­ged by the D. (to give him his owne reading of them, howbeit some read otherwise,) thus we take it. There were many who came not to the Sacrament upon the Station dayes, because (in their opin [...]ō) the receiving thereof should break the Station i. e. the service of the day, and that because it should breake their Fast, a principall duty of the same. Tertullian sheweth, they were in an errour, because their partaking of the Sacrament should not breake their Station, but make it the more solemne and remarkable. But if they could not be drawne from that false persuasion of theirs, that the Sacra­ment should breake their Fast, yet he wisheth them at least to come, and stand at the Table, and receive the Sacrament into their hands, and take it away to eate it after, (for permitting whereof he had no warrant,) So should they both partake the Sacrament, and also (according to their mind, and to their full contentment,) keep their Stations; which were often prorogated Magd. cent. 3. cap. 6. col. 135. till even, but ever and at least Epiphan. vbi supra. till the ninth houre. Finally from this place, which the D. perverteth for kneeling, it appeareth that the gesture [Page 79] or posture in receiving the Sacrament, used in that place, where Tertullian lived, was standing because speaking of the re­ceiving of the Sacrament, he saith, si & ad aram Dei Ste­teris.

As for the rest of the testimonies, Vbi su­pra cap. 22 & 23. D. Burgesse produceth out of Sect. 27 the Fathers for kneeling, I need not insist upon them; For either they speake of the inward adoration of the heart, which we ought to direct unto Christ, when we receive the Sacrament, (and this none of us denieth,) or else they speake of adoring the Sacrament: where by the word Adoration, we may not understand any Divine worship, inward or outward, but a reverence of another nature, called Venera­tion. That this (which we denie not neither,) and no more is meant by the Fathers, when they speake of the adoration of the Sacrament. Rep. Eccl. lib. 5. cap. 6. Antonius de Dominis sheweth more copiously. And thus we have suffered the impetuous current of the Doctours audacious promises, backed with a verball discourse, to goe softly by us Quid dignum tanto tulit hic promissor hiatu.

Finally, if any be curious to know what gesture the auncient Church did use in the receiving of the Eucharist. To such I say, first Sect. 28 of all, that Alt. Dā. p. 784. Didoclavius maintaineth, that which none of our Op­posites are able to infringe, namely, that no testimony can be pro­duced which may evince, that ever kneeling was used before the time of Honorius the 3. neither is it lesse truely observed by the Au­thour of Lib. 1. cap. 1. the History of the Waldenses, that bowing of the knees before the Hoste, was then only enjoyned, when the opinion of tran­substantiation got place.

Next I say, the auncient gesture, where of we read most frequent­ly, was standing. In Eph. 1 Serm. 3. Chrysostome complaining of few communicants, saith: Frustra habetur quotidiana oblatio: Frustra stamus ad altare: nemo est qui simul participet. Cent. Magd. 3. cap. 6. col. 133. The Centurie-writers make out of Dionysius Alexandrinus his Epistle to Xi [...]us Bishop of Rome, that the custome of the Church of Alexandria in receiving the Sacra­ment, was, ut mensae assisterent. It is also noted by De Orig. Templ. lib. 2. cap. 28. Hospinian, that in the dayes of Tertullian, the Christians stantes Sacramenta percipiebant.

Thirdly, I say, since we all know, that the Primitive Christians did take the holy Communion, mixedly and together with their Love-Feasts, Paréus in 1 Cor. 11. 21. & Calb. ibid. in imitation of Christ, who whileas he did eate his other Supper, did also institute the Eucharist. And since (as Cartwr. in 1. Cor. 11. Sect. 6 it is observed from 1. Cor. 11. 21. 33.) there was a twofold abuse in the Church of Corinth: One in their Love-Feasts, whileas that which should have served for the knitting of the knot of love, was used to out the cords there of, in that every one (as him best liked) made choice of such as he would have to sit at Table with him (the other either not [Page 80] tarried for, or shut out when they came, especially the Poore,) The o­ther abuse (pulled in by the former,) was, for that those which were companions at one Table in the common Feast, communicated also in the sacred, with the same separation, and severally from the rest of the Church (and the poore especially,) which was in their former Ban­quets.

Since also we reade; that the same custome of joyning the Lords-Supper together with common Feasts continued long after. For Lib. 5. cap. 22. Socrates reporteth, that the Aegyptians adjoyning unto Alexandria, together with the inhabitants of Thebais, used to celebrate the Com­munion upon the Sunday Quia Paulus has epulas sa­cram C [...] ­nam voca­rit: Et quia scri­ptum est apud Lu­cam. Simi­liter & ca­licem post­quam Coe­navit. Quae etiā fuerunt ut arbitror causae, cur illi Aegyp­tij de qui­bus loqui­tur Socra­tes Lib. 5. priusquam ad miste­ria acce­derent laute coe­narent, faith Ca­saubone. Exerc. 16. 31., after this manner: When they have ban­queted, filled themselves with sundry delicate dishes in the evening af­ter Service, they use to communicate. How then can any man thinke that the gesture then used in the Lords Supper was any other, nor the same which was used in the Love-Feast or common Supper? And what was that, but the ordinary fashion of fitting at Table? Since, the Conc. Laod. can. 28. Laodicean Canon which did discharge the Love-Feasts, about the yeare 368, importeth no lesse, then that the gesture used in them, was sitting. Non opportet in Ba [...]ilicis seu Ecclesijs Agapen fa­cere, & intus manducare, vel accubitus sternere. Now, if not only Divines of our side, but Papists also put it out of doubt, that Christ gave the Eucharist to his Apostles sitting, because being set downe to the preceeding Supper, it is said, whileas they did eate, he tooke bread, &c. (Of which things I am to speake afterward;) What doth hinder us to gather in like maner, that for as much as those Primi­tive Christians, did take the Lords Supper, whiles they did eate their owne Love-Feasts, therefore they sate at the one as well as at the other? And so I close with this collection. Whatsoever gesture in processe of time, crept into the Lords Supper, otherwise thē sitting, of it we may truely say, from the beginning it was not so.

CHAP. V.

The fift Argument against the Lavvfulnesse of the Ceremonies, taken from the mysticall and signi­ficant nature of them.

THat mysticall significations are placed in the controverted Cere­monies, Sect. 1 and that they are ordained to be sacred Signes of Spiri­tuall misteries, to teach Christians their duties, and to expresse such holy and heavenly affections, dispositions, motions and desire, as are [Page 81] and should be in them; it is confessed and avouched by our Oppo­sites. N [...]fratri & amico art. 17. Saravia holdeth that by the signe of the Crosse we pro­fesse our selves to be Christians. Partic. def. cap. 1. sect. 6. B. Morton calleth the Crosse, a signe of constant profession of Christianity. Eccl. pol. lib. 5. s. 65. Hooker cal­leth it Christ his marke, applied unto that part, where bashfullnesse appeareth, in token that they which are Christians should be at no time ashamed of his ignominie. Of the lawf. of kneel. cap. 17. p. 52. Dr. Burgesse mantaineth the using of the Surplice, to signify the purenesse that ought to be in the Minister of God. Paybody will have Kneeling at the Lords Supper to be a signi­fication of the humble and gratefull acknowledging of the benefites of Christ. The prayer which the English Service Booke appointeth Bishops to use, after the confirming of Children by the imposition of hands, avoucheth that Ceremony of confirmation for a signe whereby those children are certificed of Gods favour and goodwill towards, them. In the generall, Sarav. de divers. grad. Mi­nist. Evan. cap. 24. sect. 25. Dr. Field of the Church lib 4. cap. 31. p. 396. Ant. de­d [...]m Rep. Eccl. lib. 5. cap. num. 48. Our Opposites defend that c Apol. for kneel. part. 3. cap. 2. sect. 15. the Church hath pover to ordaine such Ceremonies, as by admo­nishing men of their duty, and by expressing such spirituall and heavenly affections, dispositions, motions, or desires, as should be in men, doe thereby stirre them up to greater fervor & devotion.

But against the lawfullnesse of such misticall and significant Cere­monies, thus we dispute, first, a cheif part of the nature of Sacra­ments is given unto those Ceremonies, when they are in this ma­ner appointed to teach by their signification. This reason being alledged by the abridgment of the Lincolne Ministers, 4 pol. part 3. cap. 2. Paybody answereth, that it is not a bare signification that makes a thing par­ticipate of the Sacraments nature, but such a signification as is Sa­cramentall, both in what is signified and how. Ans. 1. This is but to begge the question, for what other thing is alledged by us, but that a Sacramentall signification is placed in those Ceremo­nies we speake of? 2. What calls he a Sacramentall signification, if a misticall resemblance and representation of some spirituall grace which God hath promised in his Word, be not it. And that such a signification as this is placed in the Ceremonies, I have allready made it plaine; from the testimonies of our Opposites. This (sure) makes those Ceremonies, so to encroach upon the confines and Sect. 2 praecincts of the nature and quality of Sacraments, that they usurpe something more then any Rites which are not appointed by God himself can rightly doe. And if they be not Sacraments, yet saith Eccl pol. lib. 4. sect. 1. Hooker, they are as Sacraments. But in Augustines Dialect, they are not only as Sacraments, but they themselves are Sacra­ments. Signa (saith the Father) cum ad res divinas pertinent Sa­menta appellantur. Which Testimony so masters Dr. Burgesse that he breaketh out into this witlesse answer, Ames. fresh. sute p. 223. that the meaning of Augustine was to shew, that the name of Sacraments, belongeth properly to Divine things, and not to all Signes of holy things. J [Page 82] take, he would have said, belongeth properly to the Signes of Divin [...] things.

And here, beside that which Ames hath said against him, J adde that these two things, 1. That this distinction can not be conceived, which the Dr. maketh betwixt the Signes of Divine things, and the Signes of Holy things.

2. That his other distinction can as little be conceived, which impor­teth that the name of Sacraments, belongeth to Divine things pro­perly, and to all Signes of Holy things unproperly.

Lastly, if we call to mind that which hath been evinced before, namely, that the Ceremonies are not only thought, to be mistically significant, for setting forth and expressing certaine spirituall gra­ces, but also operative and availeable to the begetting of those gra­ces in us, if not by the worke wrought, at least by the worke of the worker; for example that the Signe of the Crosse, is not only thought by our Opposites, to signify that at no time we should be ashamed of the ignominy of Christ, but is also esteemed Supra cap. 4. Sect. 4. to be a meane to worke our preservation from shame, and a most effectual teacher, to avoid that which may deservedly procure shame: And that Bi­shopping is not only thought, to be a Signe for certifying young children of Gods favour, and good will towards them; but also an exhibitive Signe, whereby Ibid. Sect. 5. they receive strength against sinne and tentation, and are assisted in all vertue.

If these things, I say, we call to mind, it will be more manifest, that the Ceremonies are given out for sacred Signes of the verie same nature that Sacraments are off. For the Sacraments are called by Divines, commemorative, representative, and exhibitive Signes; and such Signes are also the Ceremonies we have spoken of in the opinion of Formalites.

Misticall and significant Ceremonies, (to proceed to a second reason) ordained by men, can be no other but meere delusions, and Sect. 3 serve only to feed mens minds with vaine conceits. For to what other purpose doe Signa instituta serve, if it be not in the power of him who gives them institution, to give, or to worke that which is signified by them?

Now, it is not in the power of Prelats, nor of any man living, to give us these graces, or to worke them in us, which they will have to be signified by their Misticall and Symbolicall Ceremonies. Where­fore Antith. Papat. & Christian. art. 11. Beza saith well of such humane rites as are thought to be significant; Quum nulla res signis illis subsit, proptereà quòd vnius Dei est promittere, & suis promissionibus sigillum suum opponere: consequi­tur omnia illa commenta; inanes esse larvas, & vana opinione miseros homines, illis propositis signis deludi. On Luk. 24. 50. D. Fulk thinkes he hath al­leadged enough against the significative and commemorative vse of the Signe of the Crosse, when he hath said, that it is not ordained [Page 83] of Christ nor taught by his Apostles: from which sort of reasoning it followeth, that all siginficant Signes which are not ordained of Christ, nor taught by his Apostles, must be vaine, false, and supersti­tious.

Thirdly, to introduce significant sacred Ceremonies into the Sect. 4 New testament, other then the holy Sacraments of Gods owne in­stitution, were to reduce Iudaisme, and to impose vpon us againe the yoke of a Ceremoniall Law, which Christ hath taken off.

Upon this ground doth Synt. Theol. lib. 9. cap. 38. Amandus Polanus reprehend the Popish Cleargy, for that they would be distinguished from Laicks by their Preistly apparell, in their holy actions, especially in the Masse. Illa ve­stium sacerdotalium distinctio & varietas, erat in veteri Testamento typica: Veritate autem exhibita, quid amplius typos requirunt.

Upon this ground also doth Com. on Gal. 3. 24. Perkines condemne all humane sig­nificant Ceremonies. Ceremonies, saith he, are either of figure and signification, or of order. The first are abrogated at the comming of Christ, &c.

Upon the same ground doth Exam. part. 2. de rit. in ad­min. sa­cram. p. 32 Chemnitius condemne them, Quod vero praetenditur, &c. But whereas, saith he, it is pretended that by those Rites of mens addition, many things are profitably signified, ad­monished, and taught: Hereto it may be answered, that figures doe properly belong to the Old Testament: but those things which Christ would have to be taught in the New Testament, he would have them de­livered and propounded, not by shadowes, but by the light of the Word. And we have a promise of the efficacy of the Word, but not of figures in­vented by men.

Vpon the same ground Aminad. in Bell. de cult. sanct. cap. 5. Iunius findeth fault with Ceremonies u­sed for signification. Istis elementis mundi (& vocantur Col. 2.) Do­minus & Servator noluit nec docuit, Ecclesiam suam infermari.

Lastly, we will consider the purpose of Christ, whiles he said to the Pharises, Luc. 16. 16. The Law and the Prophets were vntill Iohn: from that time the Kingdome of God is preached. He had in the Parable of the unjust Steward, and in the application of the same, spoken somewhat contemptibly of riches: Which when the Pharises heard, they de­rided him, and that for this pretended reason (as is evident from the answer which is returned unto them,) because the Law promises the worlds goods, as rewards and blessings to the people of God, that by the temporall things, which are set forth for types and shaddowes of aeternall things, they might be instructed, helped and ledde as it were by the hand, to the contemplation, desire and exspectation of those heavenly and aeternall things, which are not seene. Now, Christ did not only rip up the hypocrisy of their hearts, Vers. 15. but also gave a formall answer to their praetended reason, by shewing them how the Law is by him perfected, Vers. 16. yet not destroyed, Vers. 17. Then, will we observe how he teacheth, that the Law and the [Page 84] Prophets are perfected, and so our point shall be plaine. The Law and the Prophets were untill John. i. e. they did typifie and prophesie concerning the things of the Kingdome of God until John, for before that time the faithfull only saw those things afarre off, and by types, shaddowes, and figures, and the rudiments of the world were taught to know them; But from that time the Kingdome of God is preached. i. e. the people of God are no lōger to be instructed cōcerning the things of the Kingdome of God, by outward Signes, or visible shaddowes and figure, but only by the plaine Word of the Gospell, for now the Kingdome of God [...], is not typified as before, but plainly preached, as a thing exhibited to us, and present with us. Thus we see, that to us, in the dayes of the Gospell, the word only is appointed, to teach the things belonging to the Kingdome of God.

If any man reply, that though after the comming of Christ, we Sect. 5 are liberate from the Iewish and typicall significant Ceremonies, yet ought we to embrace those Ceremonies, wherein the Church of the New Testament placeth some Spirituall signification.

I answer. 1. That which hath been said in this Argument, hol­deth good against significant Ceremonies in generall. Otherwise when we reade of the abrogation of the Ceremoniall Law, we should only understand the abrogation of those particular ordinan­ces, which Moses delivered to the Iewes, concerning the Ceremo­nies that were to endure to the comming of Christ; and so not­withstanding all this, the Church should still have power to set up new Ceremoniall Lawes in stead of the old, even which & how many she listeth.

2. What can be answered to Ames fresh suite Pag. 266. that which the Abridgement pro­poundeth touching this matter? It is much lesse Lawfull, (say those Ministers,) for man to bring significant Ceremonies into Gods worship, now, then it was under the Law. For God hath abrogateth his owne (not only such as prefigured Christ, but such also as served by their signi­fication, to teach morall duties,) so as now (without great sinne) none of them can be continued in the Church, no not for signification. Whereupon they inferre: If those Ceremonies which God him­selfe ordained, to teach his Church by their signification, may not now be used, much lesse may those which man hath devi­sed.

Fourthly, sacred significant Ceremonies devised by man, are to Sect. 6 be reckoned among those Images forbidden in the second com­mandement. Synt. Theol. lib. 6. cap. 10. pag. 58. 59 Polanus saith, that omnis figura illicita is forbidden in the second Commandement. Synop. pur. Theol. disp. 19. thes. 4. The Professours of Leyden call call it Imaginem quamlibet, sive mente conceptam, sive manu effictam.

I have shewed Supra cap. 4. Sect. 9. else-where, that both in the writings of the Fa­thers, [Page 85] and of Formalists themselves, Sacraments get the name of Images; and why then are not all significant and holy Ceromonies to be accounted Images? Now, the 2. Commandement forbiddeth Images made by the Lust of man (that I may use Of the lawf. of kneel. pag. 116. Dr. Burgesse his phrase,) therefore it forbiddeth also, all religious similitudes, which are homogeneal unto them. This is the inference of the Abridgement; whereat Apol. Part. 3. cap. 2. Sect. 4. Paybody starteth, & replieth that the gestures which the people of God used in circumcision and Baptisme, the renting of the garment used in humiliation and prayer Ezra. 9. 5. 2 Kings 22. 19. Ier. 36. 24. lifting up the hands, kneeling with the knees, uncovering the head in the Sacrament, standing and sitting at the Sacrament; were and are significant in worshipping, yet are not forbidden by the 2. Commandement.

Answ. There are three sorts of Signes here to be distinguished. 1. Naturall Signes: so smoake is a signe of fire, and the dawning of the day a signe of the rising of the Sunne. 2. Customable signes, and so the uncovering of the head, which of old was a signe of preemi­nence, hath through custome become a signe of subjection. 3. Vo­luntary signes, which are called Signa instituta; these are either Sa­cred or Civill. To appoint Sacred Signes of heavenly misteries or spirituall graces, is Gods owne peculiar, and of this kynd are the ho­ly Sacraments. Civill Signes for civill and morall uses, may be and are commendably appointed by men, both in Church and Com­mon-wealth, and thus the colling of a Bell, is a signe given for as­sembling, and hath the same signification both in Ecclesiasticall and Secular assemblings. Now, besides the Sacred Signes of Gods owne institution, we know that naturall Signes have also place in Divine worship; thus kneeling in time of Prayer signifieth the submission of our hearts & mindes, the lifting up of our eyes and hands, signifieth the elevation of our affections, the renting of the garments signified the renting of the heart by sorrow, standing with a religious respect to that which is before us, signifieth veneration or reverence, sitting at table signifieth familiarity & fellowship. For which of you, Luc. 17. 7. saith our Master, having a servant plowing or feeding cattell, will say unto him by and by, when he is come from the field, goe and sit downe to meate. All these signes have their significations from nature. And if it be said that howbeit sitting at our common-tables be a signe naturall, to sig­nify familiarity amongst us, yet nature hath not given such a signifi­cation to sitting at the Lords-Table; I answer, that fitting is a natu­rall signe of familiarity, at what Table soever it be used. At the Heavenly Table in the Kingdome of Glory, familiarly is ex­pressed and signifyed by sitting Math 8. 11. Many shall come from the East and West, and shall sit downe with Abraham, &c. Much more then at the Spirituall Table in the Kingdome of Grace.

[Page 86] The difference betwixt other common tables, & the Lords Table, cā inferre no more, but that with great humility we ought to addresse our selves unto it: yet still we are to make vse of our familiarity with Christ ut tanquam in eodem toro accumbentes, as saith Homil. 27. in 1. Cor. Chrysostome. Wherefore we doe not there so looke to Christ, in his Princely Throne and glorious Majesty, exalted farre above all principalities and powers, as to forget that he is our loving and kinde Banqueter, who hath admitted us to that familiar fellowship with him which is signifyed by our sitting at his table.

Secondly, customable Signes have likewise place in Divine Ser­vice, for so a man comming into one of our Churches, in time of publike Worship, if he see the hearers covered, he knowes by this customeable signe, that Sermon is begunne.

Thirdly, civill or morall Signes instituted by men, for that common order and decency, which is, respect both in civill and sacred actions, have also place in the acts of Gods worship. Thus a Basen and a Lauer set before a Pulpit, are signes of Baptisme to be ministred: but common decencie teacheth us to make the same use of Basen and a Lauer in civility, which a minister maketh of them in the action of Baptising. All our Question is about Sacred Mysticall Signes. Every Signe of this kinde, which is not ordained of God, we referre to the Imagerie forbidden in the 2. Commaundement. So that in the tossing of this Argument Paybody is twise nought: neither hath he said ought, for evincing the lawfullnesse of sac [...]ed significant Cere­monies ordained of men, which we impugne.

Fiftly, the significancy and teaching office of mysticall Ceremo­nies invented by men, must be drawne under those Doctrines of men Sect. 7 condemned in the Gospell. Wherefore was it that the diverse wash­ings of the Pharises were rejected by Christ, as a vaine worship? Was it not, because they were appointed for Doctrines? In vaine, Mark. 7. 7. saith he, doe they worship me teaching for Doctrines, the Commaunde­ments of men.

The diverse washings commaunded in the Law were foresigni­fying to the people, and for teaching them, what true and inward holinesse God required of them. Now, the Pharises when they multiplied their washings of Hands, of Cups and Pots, Brasen Ves­sells and Tables, had the same respect of significancy before their eyes. Neque enim alio spectabant (that I may use the words Camer. praelect. Tom. 3. p. 37. of a For­malist) quam ut se sanctitatis studios [...]s hoc externo ritu probarent. Neither have we any warrant to thinke that they had another res­pect then this. But the errour was in their addition to the Law, and in that they made their owne Ceremoniall washings, which were only the commaundements of men, to serve for Doctrines, Instruc­tions and Significations. For those washings, as they were signifi­cant and taught what holinesse or cleannesse should be among the [Page 87] people of God, they are called by the name of worship: and as they were such significant Ceremonies as were only commanded by men, they are reckoned for vaine worship.

And further I demand, why are the Colossians Col. 2. 20. 21. 22. rebuked, for subjecting themselves to those ordinances, Touch not, Taste not, Handle not? We see that those ordinances were not bare cōmande­ments, but commandements vnder the coulour of Doctrines; To wit, as the law commanded a difference of meats, for signifying that holinesse which God would have his people formed vnto: so these false teachers would have the same to be signified and taught by that difference of meats & abstinence, which they of themselves & with­out the commandement of God, had ordanied.

Moreover, if we consider how that the Word of God is given vnto us, 2. Tim. 3 16. 17. for doctrine, for reproofe, for correction, for instruction in righ­teousnesse, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works: It can not but be evident, how superfluously, how superstitiously, the office of sacred teaching and misticall signifi­cation, is given to dumbe and lifelesse Ceremonies, ordained of men, and consequently how justly they are taxed as vaine worship. We hold therefore with the worthiest I. Calv. in Matth. 21. 25. Sect. 8. of our Divines, nullam Doctri­nam, nullum saorum signum debere inter pios admitti, nisi a Deo pro­fecta esse constet.

To these reasons, which I haue put in order against mens signifi­cant Ceremonies, I will adde a pretty History before I goe further.

Hist. of the Church of Scotl. l. 1. p. 157. 158. 159. When the Superior of the Abbey of Saint Andrewes was disputing with John Knox, about the lawfullnesse of Ceremonies devised by the Church, to decore the Sacraments and other service of God: Knox answered, The Church ought to doe nothing but in faith, and ought not to goe before, but is bound to follow the voice of the true Pastour. The Superior replied, that every one of the Ceremo­nies hath a Godly signification, and therefore they both proceed from faith, and are done in faith. Knox replyeth, it is not enough, that man invent a Ceremony, and then give it a signification according to his pleasure; for so might the Ceremonies of the Gentiles and this day the Ceremonies of Mahomet be maintained. But if that any thing pro­ceed from faith, it must have the Word of God for the assurance, &c. The Superior answereth, will ye bind us so strait, that we may doe nothing without the expresse Word of God. What and I aske drinke? thinke ye that I sinne? and yet I have not Gods Word for me.

Knox here telleth him, first, that if he should either eate or drinke without the assurance of Gods Word, he sinned, for saith not the Apostle, speaking even of meate and drinke, that the creatures are sanc­tified vnto men by the Word and Prayer? The Word is this: all things are cleane to the cleane: Now let me heare thus much of your Ceremo­nies, and I shall give you the argument?

[Page 88] But secondly, he tells him that he compared indiscreetly toge­ther Prophane things with Holy, and that the Question was not of meate and drinke, wherein the Kingdome of God consisteth not, but of matters of religion, and that we may not take the same free­dome in the vsing of Christs Sacraments, that we may doe in eating and drinking, because Moses commanded, all that the Lord thy God commandeth thee to doe, that doe thou to the Lord thy God; adde nothing to it, diminish nothing from it. The Supprior now saith, that he was dry, and thereupon desireth the gray friar Arbugkill to follow the Argument. But he was so pressed with the same, that he was con­founded in himself, and the Supprior ashamed of him.

Dicite Io Paean, & Io bis dicite paean.

As for the examples alledged by our Opposites out of Scripture, Sect. 9 for Iustifying their significant Ceremonies; they have been by our Propugners of Evangelicall simplicity, so often & so fully answered, that here I need doe no more but point at thē. Of the days of Purim, and Feast of Dedication I am to speake afterward. In the meane while, our Opposites can not by these examples, strengthen thēselves in this present Argument, except they could prove that the feast of Dedication was lawfully instituted, & that the dayes of Purim were appointed for a religious festivity, and that vpon no such extraordi­nary warrant as the Church hath not ever and allwayes. The rite which Abraham commanded his servant to vse, when he sware to him namely the putting of his hand vnder his thigh, Gen. 24. 2. maketh them as litle help: for it was but a morall signe of that civill subiecti­on, reverence, and fidelity, which Inferiors owe unto Superiors, ac­cording to the judgment of Calvine, Iunius, Pareus, and Tremellius, all vpon that place. That Altar which was built by the Reubenites Gadites, & halfe Tribe of Manassch, Ios. 22. had (as some thinke) not a religious, but a morall vse, and was not a sacred, but a civill signe to witnesse that those two Tribes and the halfe, were of the stocke and linage of Israell: which if it were once called in question, then, their feare (deducing the connexion of causes and consequents,) led them in end to forecast this issue, Jn time to come, your chil­dren might speake vnto our children, saying, what have you to doe with the Lord God of Jsraell, for the Lord hath made Jordan a border betwixt vs and you, &c. Therefore to prevent all apparent occa­sions of such doolfull events, they erected the patterne of the Lords Altar, Calv. in Ios. 22. vt vinculum sit fraternae conjunctionis.

And besides all this, there is nothing which can vrge vs to say, that the two Tribes and the halfe, did commendably, in the erecting of this Altar Ibid. Calvine finds 2 faults in their proceeding. 1. In that they attempted such a notable & important innovation, without advising with their brethren of the other Tribes, & especially without enqui­ring the will of God by the high Priest. 2. Where as the Law of God [Page 89] commaunded only to make one Altar, forasmuchas God would be worshipped only in one place; they did inordinatly, scan­dalously, and with appearance of evill, erect another Altar, for every one who should looke upon it, could not but presently thinke, that they had forsaken the Law, and were setting up a strange and degenerate Rite. Whether also, that Altar which they set up for a patterne of the Lords Altar, was one of the Ima­ges forbidden in the. 2. Commandement, I leave it to the Iudici­ous reader, to ruminate upon. But if one would gather from vers. 33. that the Priest, and the Princes, and the children of Israel, did allowe of that which the two Tribes and the halfe had done, because it is said, the thing pleased the children of Israel, and the children of Israel blessed God, and did not intend to goe up against them in battell.

I answere, the Hebrew text hath it thus. And the word was good in the eyes of the children of Israell &c. That is, the children of Israel blessed God, for the word which Phinehas and the ten Prin­ces brought to them, because thereby they understood that the two Tribes and the halfe, had not turned away from following the Lord, nor made them an Altar for burnt offerings or Sacrifice; which was enough to make them (the nine Trybes and a halfe) desist from their purpose, of going up to warre against their bretheren, to shedde their bloud. Againe when Phinehas and the ten Princes say to the Reubenites, Gadites, and the halfe Tribe of Manasseh; this day we perceive that the Lord is among us, because ye have not com­mitted this trespasse against the Lord, vers. 31. they doe not exempt thē from all preuarication; only they say signanter, this trespasse, to wit of turning away from the Lord, and building an Altar for Sacrifice, whereof they were accused. Thus we see, that no approbation of that which the two Tribes and the halfe did, in erecting the Altar, can be drawne from the text.

But to proceed our Opposites alleadge for another example a­gainst Sect. 10 us, a new Altar built by Solomon 1. Kings. 8. 64. In which place there is no such thing to be found, as a new Altar built by Solomon: but only that he sanctified the pavement of the inner Court, that the wholle Court might be as an Altar, necessity so requiring, because the Brazen Altar of the Lord was notable to containe so many Sacrifices, as then were offered. The building of Synagougs can make as litle against us.

For. 1. After the Tribes were setled in the land of promise, Sy­nagougs were built, in the case of an urgent necessity, because all Israel could not come every Sabbath day, to the reading and expounding of the Law, in the place which God had chosen, that his Name might dwell there. what hath that case to doe with the addition of our unnecessary Ceremonies?

[Page 90] 2. Jf Formalists will make any advantage of the building of Syna­gogus they must prove that they were founded, not upon the ex­traordinary warrant of Prophets, but upon that ordinary power which the Church retaineth still. As for the Love-feasts used in the primitive Church. 1. They had no religious state in Divine worship, but were used only as morall signes of mutuall Charity. On. 1. Cor. 11. sect. 6. The Rhemists will have them called C [...]nas dominicas. But what-saith Cartwright against them? We grant that there were such feasts used in times past, but they were called by the name of [...] or Love-feasts, not by the name of the Lords Supper: nei­ther could one without Sacriledge give so holy a name to a common Feast, which never had ground out of the Word, and which after for just cause was thrust out by the word of God. 2. If it be thought, that they were used as Sacred Signes of Christian Charity, because they were eaten in the Church. I answere, the eating of them in the Church is forbidden by 1. Cor. 11. 22. the Apostle. what? saith he, have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the Church of God? Aperte vetat saith com. in illum lo­cum. Pareus, commessationes in Ecclesia, quo­cunque fueo pingantur. Vocabant [...] charitates: sed nihil minus erant. Erant schismatum fomenta. Singulae enim sectae suas instituebant. And alitle after. Aliquae Ecclesiae obtemperasse vi­dentur. Nam Iustini temporibus Romana Ecclesia [...] non ha­buit. Concerning the kisse of charity used in those times, 2. Cor 13, 22. we say in like maner, that it was but a morall signe of that reconciliation, friendship, and amity, which shew it self as well at holy assemblies, as other meetings, in that kynd and courtisie, but with all chaste salutation, which was then in use.

As for the vails wherewith the Apostle would have women covered Sect. 11 whileas they were praying (that is in their hearts following the publike and common prayer) or prophecying (that is singing. 1. Sam. 10. 10. 1. Chron. 25. 1.) they are worthy to be covered with shame as with a garment, who alleadge this example for sacred significant Ceremonies of humane Institution. This covering was a morall signe, for that comely and orderly distinction of men and women, which civill decency required in all their meetings: where­fore, that distinction of habits, which they used for decency and comlinesse in their common behaviour and conversation, the Apostle will have them, for the same decencie and comelinesse, still to retaine, in their holy Assemblies. And further the Apostle sheweth, that it is also a naturall signe, and that nature it self tea­chet it: therefore he urgeth it both by the inferiority or subjection of the woman vers. 3. 8. 9. (For covering was then a signe of sub­jection,) and by the long haire which nature gives to a woman vers. 15. Where he would have the artificiall covering, to be fas­hioned in imitation of the naturall. What need we any more? [Page 91] Let vs see natures institution, or the Apostles recommendation for the controverted Ceremonies, (as we have seen them for vvomens vails) and we yeeld the Argument.

Last of all, the signe of imposition of hands, helpeth not the cause of our Opposites, because it the example of Christ, and the Apostles, and their disciples, which our Ceremonies have not: yet we thinke not imposition of hands to be any sacred or misticall signe, but only a morall, for designation of a person: let them who thinke more highly or honorably of it, looke to their Warrants.

Thus have I thought it enough to take a passing view of these ob­jected instances, without marking narrowly all the impertinencies and falshoods, which here we find in the reasoning of our Opposites. One word more, and so an end, (n) D. Burgesse would comprehend the significancy of sacred Ecclesiasticall Ceremonies, for stirring men up to the rememberance of some mysterie of piety or duty to God, under that edification which is required in things that concerne order and decency by all Divines.

Alas! what a sorie conceit is this? Divines indeed doe rightly re­quire, that those alterable Circumstances of Divine worship, which are left to the determination of the Church, be so ordered and dis­posed, as they may be profitable to this edification. But this edifica­tion they speake of, is no other then that which is common to all our actions and speaches: are we not required to doe all things unto e­difying, yea so to speak as that our speach may be profitable unto edifying? Now, such significations, as we have shewed to be given to the Ceremonies in Question, as namely, to certify a child of Gods favour and good will towards him; To betoken that at no time Chri­stians should be ashamed of the ignominy of Christ; to signify the purenesse that ought to be in the Minister of God: To expresse the the humble and gratefull acknowledgement of the benefites of Christ, &c. belong not to that edification; Which Diuines require in things prescribed by the Church concerning order and decency; ex­cept of every private and ordinary action, i [...] the whole course of our conversation, we either deny that it should be done unto edifying, or else affirmethat it is a sacred significant Ceremony.

CHAP. VI.

That the lavvfulnesse of the Ceremonies is falsely grounded vpon the holy Scripture: vvhere such places as are alleadged by our Opposites, either for all the Ceremonies in generall, or for any one of them in particular, are vindicated from them.

IT remaineth now, to examine the warrants which our Opposites pretend for the lawfullnesse of the Ceremonies. But I perceive Sect. 1 they know not well what ground to take hold on. For Instance whereof; Eccl. Pol. lib. 5. S. 69. Hooker defendeth the lawfulnesse of Festivall dayes, by the law of nature. On praec. 4. D. Douname groundeth the lawfulnesse of them on the law of God, making the observation of the Sabbaths of rest appointed by the Church, such as the Feasts of Christs Nativity, Passion, &c. to be a duty commanded in the Law of God, and the not observing of them, to be a thing forbidden by the same Law. But Epist. to the past. of the Church of Scotl. B. Lindsey proveth the lawfulnes of those Holy dayes, frō the power of the Church to make lawes in such matters. As for the Lords day saith he, which hath succeeded to the Iewish Sabbath, albeit God hath cōmanded to sanctify it, yet neither is the whole publike worship nor any part of it appropriated to that time, but lawfully the same may be performed vpon any other convenient day of the weeke, of the moneth, or of the yeare, as the Church shall think expedient. Vpon this ground Zanchius affirmed: Ecclesiae Christi liberum esse quos velit preter domi­nicos dies sibi sanctificandos deligere. And by this warrant did the Primitive Church sanctify these five anniversary dayes of Christs Na­tivity, &c.

Nay, let us observe, how one of them wavereth from him­selfe, in seeking here some ground to rest upon. Paybody groundeth the lawfulnesse of kneeling at the Sacrament, on nature, part. 2. cap. 4, Sect. 1. On the act of Parliament, part. 3. cap. 1. Sect. 31. On an Ecclesiasticall Canon, part. 3. cap. 1. Sect. 33. On the Kings soveraigne authority, part. 3. cap. 1. Sect. 36. Yet againe he saith, that this knee­ling is grounded upon the commandement of God, part. 3. cap. 3. Sect. 11.

Well. I see our Opposites sometimes warrant the lawfulnesse of the Ceremonies from the Law of God, sometimes from the Law of Man, and sometimes from the Law of Nature. But I will prove that [Page 93] the lawfullnesse of those Ceremonies we speake of, can neither be grounded upon the Law of God, nor the Law of Man, nor the Law of Nature, and by consequence that they are not lawfull at all: So that besides the answering of what our Opposites alleadge for the lawful­nesse of them, we shall have a new Argument to prove them unlaw­full.

I beginne with the Law of God. And first, let us see what is allead­ged Sect. 2 from Scripture for the Ceremonies in generall: Then-after, let us looke over particulars. There is one place which they will have in mythologie to stand for the head of Medusa, and it they still object to us for all their Ceremonies: even that 1. Cor. 14. 40. the Apostle, Let all things be done decently and in order: What they have drawne out of this place, Of the law [...]. of kneel. pag. 3. D. Burgesse hath refined in this maner. He distin­guisheth betwixt praeceptum & probatum; and will have the contro­verted Ceremonies to be allowed of God, though not cōmanded. And if wee would learne how these Ceremonies are allowed of God, Ibid. pag. 11. he gives us to understand, that it is by commanding the generall kynd to which these particulars doe belong. If we aske, what is this ge­nerall kynd commanded of God to which these Ceremonies doe be­long? Ibid. pag. 4. He resolves us, that it is order and decency: And if fur­ther we demaund, how such Ceremonies as are instituted and used to stirre up men in respect of their signification unto the devoute re­membrance of their duties to God, are in such an institution and use matters of meere order? As a Magisteriall Dictatour of Quodlibets; Ibid. pag. 14. he tells us that they are matters of meere order sensu largo, in a large sence. But lastly, if we doubt where he readeth of any wor­ship commaunded in the generall, and not commaunded but only allowed in the particular Ibid. pag. 6. 7. he informeth us, that in the free-will-offrings, when a man was left at liberty to offer a Bullock, Goate, or Sheep at his pleasure, if he chose a Bullock to offer, that Sacrifice in that particular, was not commaunded, but only allowed. What should I doe, but he surd [...] contra absurdum? Neverthelesse least this Iolly fellow thinke himself more Iolly then he is, I answer 1. How ab­surd a tenet is this which holdeth that there is some particular wor­ship of God allowed and not commanded? What new Light is this which maketh all our divines to have been in the mist, who have ac­knowledged no worship of God, but that which God hath comman­ded? Who ever heard of commanded and allowed worship? As for the instances of the free-will-offerings, Fresh suite, pag. 153. Ames hath answered suffi­ciently, that though the particulars were not nor could not be deter­mined, by a distinct rule in generall, yet they were determined by the cir­cumstances, as our Divines are wont to answer the Papists, about their Vowes, Counsels, Supererogations: NOT BY A GENERALL LAW, BVT BY CONCVRRENCE OF CIRCVM­STANCES. [Page 84] So Deut. 16. 10. Moses sheweth that the freist offrings were to be ac­cording as God had blessed them; From whence it followeth, it had been sinne for any Israelite, whom God had plentifully blessed, to offer a paire of Pigeons in stead of a Bullock or two, upon his owne meere pleasure. Where that proportion was observed, the choice of a Goate before a Sheep, or a Sheep before a Goate was no formall wor­ship.

2. How will D. Burgesse make it appeare, that the English Cere­monies Sect. 3 doe belong to that order and decency, which is comanded. De effect. Sacr. lib. 2 cap. 31. Bellarmine would have all the Ceremonies of the Church of Rome comprehended vnder order and decency, and therefore warranteth them by that Praecept of the Apostle. Let all things be done decent­ly and in order. The one shall as soone prove his poynt as the o­ther, and that shall be never.

For 1. The Apostle only commands that each action and Ceremo­ny of Gods worship be decently and orderly performed, but gives us no leave to excogitate or devise new Ceremonies, which have not been instituted before. He hath spoken in that Chapter of assem­bling in the Church, Prophecying and Preaching, Praying & Praising there.

Now let all these things, and every other action of Gods worship Ceremonies and all be done decently and in order. Licet ergo, Paulus, &c, Albeit therefore saith In prae­fat. elench. relig. Pa­pistic. Ioh. Bastwick, Paul hath committed to the Church, the judging both of decency and order, yet hat he not graunted any liberty of such misticall Ceremonies, as by their more inward signification doe teach the duty of piety: For since the whole liberty of the Church in the matter of Divine worship, is exer­cised only in order and decency; it followeth that they doe impudently scorne both God and the Scriptures, who doe extend this liberty to greater things, and such as are placed above us. Most certaine it is, that Christ the Doctour of the Church hath by his owne written and sealed Word, aboundantly expounded unto us the will of God; nei­ther is there further need of any Ceremonies, which by a secret vertue may instruct us: neither is it lesse evident, that order consisteth not its the institution or use of new things, but only in the right placing of things which have been instituted before. Decency, saith De cas. consc. lib. 4. cap. 11. Baldwine, is opposed to levitie, and order to confusion. Spectat autem hic ordo po­tissimum ad Ritus Ecclesia in officijs Sacris in quibus nullum debet esse scand [...]um, nulla confusio.

[Page 95] Then, in his Iudgment, order is not to the Rites of the Church a generall kynd, but only a concomitant circumstance; neither are the Rites of the Church comprehended under order, as parti­culars under the generall kynd to which they belong, but order belongeth to the Rites of the Church, as an adjunct to the Sub­ject. And I pray, must not the Rites of the Church be managed with decency and order? If so; then must our Opposites either say, that order is managed with order, which is to speake nonsence, or else that the Rites of the Church are not comprehended under order. But if not; then it followeth that the Rites of the Church are to be managed with levity; confusion, and scandall, for every action that is not done indecently and in order, must needs be done scanda­lously and confusedly. 2. Order and decency, whether taken largo, or stricto sensu, allwayes signify such a thing as ought to be in all humane actions, as well civill as sacred; for will any man say that the civill actions of men are not to be done decently and in or­der? Ames. Bell. enerv iom. 1. lib. 3. crp. 7. The directions of order and decency, are not (we see) propria religionis. But as Vbi su­pra. Balduine sheweth out Gregory Na­zianzen, order is in all other things, as well as is in the Church. Whe­refore sacred significant Ceremonies shallnever be warranted, by the precept of order and decency, which have place no lesse in civi­lity then in religion.

Now to the particulars. And first, that which Christ did Matth. Sect. 4 19. 13. 15. can not commend unto us the Bishopping, or confirma­tion of children by prayer and imposition of hands. For as Com. in illum lo­cum. Maldonat saith rightly, Haebre orum consuetudinem fuisse, ut qui ma­jores erant & aliqua pollebant divina gratia, manuum impositione inferioribus benedicerent, constat ex Gen. 48. 14. 15. hac ergo ratione adducti parentes, Infantes ad Christum afferebant, ut impossit is manibus illis benediceret. And as touching this blessing of children and imposition of hands upon them, saith on Mat 19. sect. 9. Cartwright, it is pecu­liar unto our Saviour Christ: used neither by his disciples, nor his Apostles, either before or after his Ascension. Whereunto ma­keth that the Children being brought, that he should pray over them, he did not pray for them, but blessed them, that is to say commen­ded them to be blessed, thereby to shew his Divine power. These be­ing also yet Infants, and in their suatheling cloutes, as by the Word which the Evangelist useth, and as by our Saviour Christs taking them into his armes, doth appeare; beeing also in all likelihood un­baptised. Last of all, their confirmation is a notable derogation unto the holy Sacrament of Baptisme, not alone in that it presumeth [Page 96] the sealing of that which was sealed sufficiently by it: but also in that both by asseueration of words; and by specialty of the Minister that giveth it, it is even preferred unto it.

The act of Perth about kneeling, would draw some commenda­tion Sect. 5 to this Ceremony, from those words of the Psal. 95. 6. Psalme, O come let us worship and bow downe. let us kneele before the Lord our maker. Which is as if one should argue thus. We may wor­ship before the lord. Ergo before a creature. We may kneele in an immediate worship of God, Ergo in a mediate. For who seeth not, that the kneeling there spoken of, is a kneeling in the action of solemne praise, and Ioyfull noise of singing unto the Lord? I wish you, my Masters, more sober spirits, that ye may feare to take Gods name in vaine, even his word which he hath magni­fied above all his name. Iren. lib. 1. cap. 7, 6. 7. Dr. Forbesse goeth about to warrant private Baptisme, by Philips baptising the Eunuch, there being no greater company present, so farre as we can gather from the nar­ration of Luke, Act. 8. As lykwise by Paul and Silas their baptising the Goaler and all his, in his owne private house, Act. 16. Touching the first of those places, we answere. 1. How thinks he that a man of so great auctority and charge, was alone in his Iourny? we sup­pose a great man travelling in a charret, must have some number of attendants, especially having come to a solemne worship at Ieru­salem. 2. What Philip then did, the extraordinary direction of the Spirit guided him unto it, Vers. 29. 39. As to the other place, there was in that time of persecution no liberty for Christians to meet to­gether in Temples and publike places as now there is. Wherefore the example of Paul and Silas doth prove the lawfulnesse of the like deed in the like case.

Eccles. Pol. lib. 5. S. 65. Hooker muttereth some such matter, as a commendation of the Sect. 6 Signe of the Crosse, from these two places, Ezech. 9 4 Revel. 7. 3. al­leadging that because in the forehead nothing is more plaine to be seene then the feare of contumely and disgrace: therefore the Scripture describeth them marked of God in the forehead, whom his mercy hath undertaken to keep from finall confusion and shame. De l­mag. sanct. cap. 29. Bellarmine alledgeth for the Crosse the same two places. But for answer to the first, we say that neither the signe whereof we read in that place, nor yet the use of it can make ought for them. As for the signe itselfe. Albeit the Ancients did interprete this signe of the letter Tau, to have been the signe of the Crosse, yet saith Com. in illum lo­cum. Junius, Bona illorum venia; T quidem Graecorum, latinorumque majuscu­lum, crucis qoudammodo signum videtur effingere, verum hoc ad lite­ram Haebreorum Tau non potest pertinere. Deinde ne ipsum quidem Graecorum latinorumque T, formam Crucis quae apud veteres in usu erat quum sumebantur supplicia, representat.

[Page 97] Whereupon dissenting from the Auncients, he delivers his owne Iudgement, that Tau in this place is taken Technikos, for that signe or marke of the le [...]ter wherewith the Lord commanded to marke the elect for their safety and preservation. And so there was no mistery to be sought in that letter more then in any other. As for the use of that marke, wherewith the elect in Ierusalem were at hat time sealed, it was only for distinction and separation. It had the same use which that sprinkling of the posts of the doores had, Exod. 12. 7. only the foreheads of men and women, and not the posts of doores were here marked, because only the remnant according to election, and not whole families promiscously were at this time to be spared, as Iunius noteth.

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

Shortly, the signe wherewith they in Jerusalem were marked, was for preservation from Iudgement, but the signe of the Crosse is u­sed for preservation from sinne. Thus we see, that neither the signe nor the use of it, had any affinity with the Crosse. Now, the surest interpreation of that place Ezech. 9 4. is to take Tau for an apella­tive noune, signifying generally and indefinitly a Marke or a Signe, so that there is no make determined by this word: only there was a commandemēt given te set a certaine marke, some signe or other, upon the foreheads of the elect. So have our English Translatours taken the place.

This exposition is confessed by Com. in Ezech. 9. 4 Gasper Sanctius, to be fol­lowed almost by al the Hebrew masters, and by the most Auncient Interpreters, to wit, the Septuagints, Aquila, and Symachus. The word beareth this glosse, euen according to the confession of those, who expound it otherwise in this place, to wit, for an Image or representation of the Crosse. Tau saith Ibid. Sanctius commune no­men est, quod signum indefinite significat. Tau is expounded by Gram. Hebr. part. 1. cap. 1. Bel­larmine, to signify Signum or Terminus. Well then: our Adversaries themselves can say nothing against our interpretation of the word Tau. We have also Buxtorf for us, who in his Hebrew Lexicon, tur­neth Tau to be Signum, and for this signification he citeth both this place Ezech. 9. 4, and Iob. 31. 35. Taui signum meum.

Lastly, if Tau be not put for a common appellative noune signify­ing a marke or signe, but for the figure or character of the letter Tau as an Image of the Crosse, by all likelyhood this character only should have been put in the Hebrew text, and not the noune fully written; Vehithvitha tau, and marke a marke. As to the other place, Revel. 7. 3. Comm. i [...] illum locum. Pareus observeth, that there is no figure or forme of any signe there expressed, and he thinks that seale was not outward and visible, but the same whereof we read 2. Tim. 2. 19. and Revel. 14. 1. [Page 98] Which can no be interpreted de signo transeunte: nam Christianum semper nomen filij & patris in fronte opportet gerere, saith Animad. ad Bell. de imag. sanct cap. 29. Iu­nius.

D. Fulk on Revel. 7, 3. saith, that the signe here spoken of is proper to Gods elect, therefore not the signe of the Crosse, which many repro­bates have received.

Serm. on that place. B. Andrewes will have the feast of Easter drawne from that Sect. 7 place 1. Cor. 5. 8. Where he saith; there is not only a warrant, but an order for the keeping of it, and he will have it out of doubt, that this feast is of Apostolicall institution, because after the times of the Apostles, when there was a contention about the maner of keeping Easter, it was agreed vpon by all, that it should be kept, and when the oneside alleadged for them St. Iohn, and the other S. Peter, it was acknowledged by both, that the feast was Apostolicall.

J answer, the Testimony of Socrates deserveth more creditthen the Bishops naked conclusion.

I am of opinion saith Lib. 5. cap. 22. Socrates, that as many other things crept in of custome in sundry places, so the Feast of Easter to have pre­vailed among all people, of a certaine private custome & observation.

But whereas B. Lindsy in defence of B. Andrewes, replyeth that Socrates propoundeth this for his owne opinion only.

I answer, that Socrates in that Chapter proveth his opinion from the verie same ground, which B. Andrewes wresteth, to prove that this Feast is Apostolicall. For while as in that hot controversy about the keeping of Easter, they of the East alleadged Iohn the Apostle for their Author, and they o▪ the vvest alleadged Peter & Paul for them­selves; Yet (saith Socrates, there is none that can shew in writing any testimony of theirs, for confirmation and proofe of their custome. And hereby I doe gather, that the celebration of the Feast of Easter, came up more of custome then by any Law or Canon.

Douname (as I touched before) alleadgeth the fourth commande­ment Sect. 7 for holy dayes of the Churches institution. But In Epist. ad quenda qui a re­form. re­lig. ad Pa­pism. defe­cerat. D. Bastwick alleadgeth more truly the fourth commandemēt against them, Six dayes shalt thou labour. This Argument I have made good else­where, so that now I need not insist vpon it. There are further two examples alleadged against us, for holy dayes, out of Esther 9. 17. 18. 17. 28. and Jo. 10. 22.

VVhereunto we answer. 1. That both those feasts were appointed to be kept with the consent of the whole Congregation of Jsrael, and body of the people, as is plaine from Esther. 9. 31. & 1. Maccab. 4. 59. therefore they have no shew of making ought for such feasts as ours, which are tyrannically urged upon such as in their con­sciences doe condemne them.

[Page 99] 2. Jt appeares, that the dayes of Purim were only appointed to be dayes of civill mirth and gladnesse, such as are in use with us, when we set out bone-fires, and other tokens of civill joy for some memorable benefite which the Kingdome or Common-wealth hath received, For they are not called the holy dayes of Purim, but simply the dayes of Purim, a day of feasting and of sending portions one to another, Esther. 9. 19. 22. no word of any worship of God on those dayes. And whereas it seemeth to Proc. in Perth. as­semb. part, 3. p. 30. B. Lindsey, that those dayes were ho­ly, because of that rest which was observed upon them: He must know that the text interpreteth itself, and it is evident from Vers. 16. and 22. that this rest was not a rest from labour, for vvaiting upon the vvorshipping of God, but only a rest from their ene­mies.

But B. Andrewes goeth about to prove by six reasons, that the dayes of Purim were holy dayes, and not dayes of civill joy and So­lemnity Sect. 9 only. p Serm. on Esther. 9. 31.

First, saith he, it is plaine by Vers. 31. they tooke it in animas, upon their soules, a soule-matter they made of it: there needs no soule for feria or festum, play or feasting. They bound themselves super ani­mas suas, which is more then upon themselves, & would not have been put in the margent, but stood in the text: thus he reprehendeth the English Translatours, as you may perceive.

Answ. The B. could not be ignorant that nephesch signifyeth cor­pus animatum, as well as anima, and that the Hebrevves doe not all­wayes put this word for our soules, but verie often for ourselves. So Psal. 7. 2, and Psal. 59. 3. vve read naphschi: my soule: for me; and Psal. 44. 25. naphschenu: our soule: for we; and Gen. 46, 26. col-ne­phesch: omnes animae: for omnes homines.

VVhat have we any further need of Testimonies. Six hundreth such are in the holy te [...]t. And in this place Esth. 9, 31. vvhat can be more plaine, then that nghal-naphscham: vpon their soule: is put for nghalehem: upon themselves, especially since nghalehem is found to the same purpose both in Vers. 27. and 31.

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

Answ. there is no word in the text of religion. our English tran­slation reads it, all such as joyned them selves unto them. Montanus, omnes adjunctos. Tremellius, omnes qui essent se adjuncturi eis. The old latine version reads it indeed as the Bishop doeth.

But no such thing can be drawen out of the word hannilvim, which is taken from the radix lava, signifying simply and without any [Page 100] any adjection, adhaesit, or adjunxit se. But let it be so, that the text meaneth only such as were to adjoyne themselves to the religion of the Iewes; yet why might not the Iewes have taken upon them a matter of civility, not only for themselves, but for such also as were to be joyned with them in religion? Could there be nothing pro­mised for Proselytes but only a matter of religion?

Alas! Is this our Antagonists great Achilles, who is thus falling downe and succumbing to me a silly Stripling. Yet let us see, if there be any more force in the remnant of his reasons.

For a third, he tells us, that it is expressely tearmed a Rite and a Ceremony, at the 23. and 28. Verses, as the Fathers read them.

Answ. If some of the Fathers through ignorance of the Hebrew tongue, have put into their versiones more then the originall beareth, shall we therefore erre with them.

In the 23. Vers. we have no more but Susceperunt, as Pagnime, or Re [...]eperunt, as Tremellius reads it: But to read, Susceperunt in solem­nem ritum, is to make an addition to the text.

The 28. Vers. calls not this Feast a Rite, but only dies memorati, or celebres. And what if we graunt that this Feast was a rite? might it not, for all that, be meerely civill? No, saith the Bishop, Rites, I trust, and Ceremonies, pertaine to the Church, and to the service of God.

Answ. The version which the Bishop followed, hath a Rite, not a Ceremony. Now, of Rites is certaine, that they belong to the com­mon-wealth, as well as to the Church. For injure Politico, sui sunt, imperati & solemnes ritus, saith De Pol. Mosis cap. 7. Iunius.

Fourthly, saith the B. they fast and pray here in this Verse; (mea­ning the 31.) fast the eve, the fourteenth, and so then, the day follow­ing, to be holy day of course.

Answ. The latine version, which the B. followeth, and whereupon he buildeth this reason, readeth the 31. Verse very corruptly, and no wayes according to the originall, as will easily appeare to any who can compare them together. Wherefore the best interpreters take the fasting and prayer spoken of Vers. 31. to be meant of the time before their delivery. Now, after they were delivered, they decreed that the matters of their fasting and crying, should be remembered upon the dayes of Purim; which were to solemnize that preservation, quam Iejunio & precibus fuerant a Deo consequuti, as saith Tre­mellius.

But fiftly, sai [...]h he, with fasting and prayer (here) almes also is en­joyned, (at the 22. Verse) these three will make it past a day of re­vels or m [...]r [...]h.

I have answered already, that their fasting and praying are not to be referred to the dayes of Purim, which were memorialls of [Page 101] their delivery, but to the time past, when by the meanes of fasting and prayer they did impetrate their delivery, before ever the dayes of Purim were heard of: and as touching almes, it can make no holy day; because much almes may be, and hath been given upon dayes of civill joy and solemnity.

If the B. help not himselfe with his sixt reason [...], he is like to come off with no great credit. May we then know what that is?

Lastly, saith he, as a holy day the Iewes ever kept it, have a pecu­liar set service for it in their Seders; set Psalmes to sing, set lesson, to read, set prayers to say, good and godly all: None, but as they have used from all antiquity.

Answ. 1. The B. could not have made this word good, that the Iewes did ever & from all antiquity keep the dayes of Purim, in this fashion.

2. This maner of holding that Feast, whensoever it beganne, had no warrant from the first institution, but was (as many other things) taken up by the Iewes in after ages: and so the B. proveth not the p [...]nt which he taketh in hand, namely, that the dayes spoken of in this text were enacted or appointed to be kept as holy dayes.

3. The service which the Iewes in latter times use upon the dayes of Purim, is not much to be regarded. For as Mos. and Aaron, lib. 3. cap. 11. Godwyn noteth out of Hospinian, they reade the history of Esther in their Synagogues, and so often as they here mention of Haman, they doe with their fists and hammers beat upon the benches and boords, as if they did knock upon Hamans head.

When thus they have behaued themselves, in the very time of their Lyturgie, like furious and drunken people, the rest of the day they passe over in outragious revelling. And here I take leave of the Bishop.

Thirdly, we say, whether the dayes of Purim were instituted to be Sect. 10 holy dayes, or not, yet there was some more thē ordinary warrāt for them, because Mordecai, by whose advice & direction they were ap­pointed to be kept, was a Prophet by the instinct and revelation of the Spirit, Esther. 4. 13. Non multum fortasse aberraverimus, saith De Orig­festor. cap. 2. ad. finem. Hospinian, si dicamut hoc a Mordochao & Hesthera, ex pe­culiari Spiritus Sancti instinctu factum.

Vbi su­pra pag. 31. B. Lindsey beleeveth, that they had only a generall warrant such as the Church hath still to put order to the circumstances be­longing to Gods worship, and all his reason is because if the Iewes had received any other particular warrant, the Sacred story should not have passed it over in silence.

Answ. Thus much we understand from the Sacred Storie, that the Iewes had the direction of a Prophet for the dayes of Purim; and that was a warrant more then ordinary, because Prophets were the extraordinary Ministers of God.

[Page 102] Fourthly, as touching the Feast of the dedication of the Altar by Sect. 11 Judas Machabeus. 1. Let us heare what Annot. on Io. 10. Sect. 4. Cartwright very gravely and judiciously propoundeth.

That this Feast was unduely instituted and ungroundedly, it may appeare by conference of the dedication of the first Temple vnder Solo­mon, and of the secund, after the captivity returned from Baby­lon. In which dedication seeing there was no yearly rememberance by solemnity of Feast, not so much as one day, it is evident that the yearly celebrtion of this Feast for eight dayes, was not compassed by that Spirit that Solomon and the captivity were directed by: Which Spirit when it dwelt more plentifully in Solomon, and in the Pro­phets that stood at the stearne of the captivities dedication, then it did in Iudas, it was in him so much the more presumptuous, as having a shorter legge then they, he du [...] in that matter overstride them. And his rashnesse is so much the more aggravated, as each of them for the building of the whole Temple, with all the implements and furniture thereof, made no Feast to renewe the annuall memory, where Iudas on­ly for renewment of the Altar, and of certaine other decayed places of the Temple, instituted this great solemnity.

2. The Feast of the dedication was not free of Pharisaicall inven­tion: For as Annot. in Jo. 1 [...]. 22. Tremellius observeth out of the Talmud, statuerunt Sapientes illius seculi, ut recurrentibus annis, [...]cto illi dies, &c. Yet al­beit the Pharises were called Sapientes Israelis. Vbi su­pra, p. 31. B. Lindsey will not graunt, that they were the wise-men of whom the Talmud spea­keth; for (saith he) it behoved these who appointed festivities, not only to be wise-men, but men of authority also.

But what doe we heare? were not the Pharises men of authori­ty? Why? Math. 23. 2. Saith not Christ they sate in Moses Chaire? Saith not Com. in illum locū. Calvine, In Ecclesia regimine & Scripturae interpretatione, haec sect [...] primatum tenebat? Saith not Praelect. in Math. 19. 3. de Pharis. Ca [...]ero, Cum Pharisaeorum pr [...]cipua esset authoritas (ut ubique docet Iesephus.) &c.

Doth not Iosephus speake so much of their authority, that in one Antiq. Iud. lib. 13 cap. 24. place he saith, Nomē igitur regni, erat penes reginam (Alexandram) pen [...] Phariseos vero administratio. And in Antiq. Iud. lib. 17 cap. 3. another place, Erat▪ enim quadam Iudaeorum Secta exactiorem Patri [...] legis cognitionem sibi vendicans, &c. Hi Pharisaei vocatur, genus hominum astutum, arrogans, & interdum regibus quoque infestum, ut eos etiam aperte impuguare non vereatur?

3. There is nothing alleadged which can prove the lawfulnesse of this Feast of the dedication.

[Page 103] It is but barely and boldy affirmed by Vbi su­pra pag. 32. B. Lindsey, that the Pharises were not rebuked by Christ for this feast, because we reade not so much in Scripture. For there were very many things which Iesus did and said, that Jo. 21. 25. are not written in Scripture. And whereas it seemeth to some, that Christ did countenance and ap­prove this feast, because Jo. 10. 22. 23. he gave his presence unto the same, we must remember, that the circumstances only, of time and place, are noted by the Euangelist, for euidence to the storie, and not for any mistery. Christ had come up to the feast of Taberna­cles, Io. 7. and tarried stil all that while, because then there was a great confluence of people in Ierusalem. Whereupon he tooke occasion to spread the [...]t of the Gospell for catching of many soules And whileas Iohn saith, It was at Ierusalem the feast of the Dedica­tion he gives a reason, only of the confluence of many people at Ierusalem, and sheweth how it came to passe that Christ had oc­casion to preach to such a great multitude. And whileas he ad­deth, And it was Winter, he giveth a reason of Christs walking in Solomons porch, whether the Iewes resort was; it was not thought beseeming to walk in the Temple it selfe, but in the porch men used to conveene either for talking or walking, because in summer the porch shaddowed them from the heat of the sunne, and in Winter it lay open to the sunne shine and to heat. Others thinke that while­as he saith, it was winter, importeth that therefore Christ was the more frequently in the Temple, knowing that his time was short which he had then for his preaching, for in the entry of the nex Spring he was to suffer. Howsoever, it is not certaine of what feast of dedication Iohn speaketh; In Io. 10. 22. B [...]llinger leaves it Doubtfull: and Maldonat saith, that this opinion which taketh the dedication, of the Altar by Iudas Machabeus to be meant by Iohn, hath sewest Comm, ibid. authors. But to let this passe, whereas the Annot. ibid. Rhemists alleadge that Christ approved this feast, because he was present at it: Cart­wright and Fulke answere them that Christs being present at it pro­veth not his approving of it. Non festum proprie honoravit Christus saith Ani­mad in Bell contr. 3. lib. 4. cap. 17. nota. 6. Iunius, sed caetum piorum convenientum festo: nam omnes ejusmodi occasiones seminandi Euangelii sui observabat & capiebat Christus.

Quasi vero (saith De orig. Temp lib. 4. cap. 2. Hospinian) Christus Encaeniorum causa Hiero­solymam abierit. Nay, but he saw he had a convenient occasion, ad instituendam hominum multitudinem, ad ill [...]d festum con­fluentium.

Even as Paul choosed to be preseut at certaine Iewish feasts, Calv. in act. 18. 21. not for any respect to the feasts themselves, nor for any honour which he meant to give them, but for the multitudes cause, who resorted to the same, among whom he had a more plentifull occa­sion [Page 104] to spread the Gospell at those festivities, them at other times in the yeare.

I had thought here to close this chapter; but finding that as the Parret which other while useth the forme of a mans voice, yet be­ing Sect. 11 beaten and chaffed, returneth to its owne naturall voice, so some of our Opposites, who haue beene but erst pr [...]ting some what of the language of Canaan against us, finding themselves pressed and perplexed in such a way of reasoning, have quickly changed their tune, and beginne to talk to us of warrants of another nature nor the word of God: I am therefore to digresse with them. And I per­ceive ere we know well where they are, they are passed from Scrip­ture to custome. For if we will listen, thus saith one of te grea­test note among hem, Serm. on. 1. Cor. 11. 16. B. Andrewes I trow they call him. We doe but make our selves to be pittied otherwhile, (well said) when we stand wringing the Scriptures, (well said) to straine that out of them which is not in them (well said) and so can never come Liquide from them, (well said:) when yet we have for the same point the Churches custome, cleare enough. And that is enough by vertue of this text; (meaning. 1. Cor. 11. 16.) And after he saith, that we are taught by the Apostles example in points of this nature, of Ceremony or Circumstance, ever to pitch upon habe­mus, or non habemus talem consuetudinem.

Answ. 1. The text gives him no ground for this doctrine, that in matters of Ceremony we are to pitch upon habemus or non habe­mus talem consuetudinem, so that he is wide away while as he spen­deth the greatest part of his Sermon, in the pressing of this point, that the custome of the Church should be enough to us in matters of Ceremony, and particularly in the keeping of Easter: for the cu­stome of the Church there spoken of, is not concerning a point of circumstance, but concerning a very substantiall and necessary point, namely, not to be contentious: neither doth the Apostle urge those orders of the mens praying uncovered, and the womens praying veiled, from this ground, because so was the Churches custome, (as the B. Would have it.) but only he is warning the Corinthians not to be contentious about those matters, because the Churches have no such custome as to be contentious. So is the place expoun­ded by Chrysostome, Ambrose, Calvine, Martyr, Bullinger. Mar­lorat, Beza, Fulcke, Cartwright, Pareus, and our owne Arch­bischop of Sainct Andrews in his sermon upon that text. And for this exposition it maketh, that the Apostle in the praeceding part of the Chapter hath given sufficient reasons for that order of covering or veiling the women: wherefore if any would contend about the matter, he tells them they must contend with themselves, for [Page 105] they not the Churches of God would not contend with them, they had no such custome. But if we admit B. Andrewes glosse, then why doth the Apostle, after he hath given good reasons for the veiling of Women, subjoyne, If any man seeme to be contentious, &c. The B. resolveth us, that the Apostle saw that a wrangling wit would elude these reasons which he had given, and he had no other rea­sons to give, therefore he resolves all into the Churches practice, enough of it self to suffice any that will be wise to fobriety.

Answ If any man seeme to be blasphemous, we have no such cu­stome, neither the Churches of God. What? shall a wrangling wit elude the reasons given by the Spirit of God, in such sort, that he must give some other more sufficient proofe for that which he rea­cheth? Then the whole Scriptures of God must yet be better pro­ved, because the unstable doe wrest them, as 2. Pet. 3. 16. Peter speakes.

2. The custome of the Church is not enough to pitch on, and Sect. XIII it is found oftentimes expedient to change a custome of the Church.

Epist. 80. ad Eu­slath. me­dle. Basilius Magnus doth flatly refuse to admit the authority of custome: Consuetudo sine veritate, saith Ad Pompeium contra Epist Ste­phani. Cyprian, vetustas erro­ris est. Frustra enim qui ratione vincuntur, saith De Bapt. contra Do­natist. l. 4. cap. 5. Augustine, consuetudinem nobis objiciunt, quasi consuetudo major sit veritate, &c. N [...] pudor est ad meliora transire, saith Ep. 31. Ambrose to the Emperour Valentinian: Quae­libet consuetudo, Decr. part. 1. dist. 8. c. 7. saith Gratia [...], veritati est postponenda.

And againe: Decr. part. 2. caus. 35. q. 9. c. 3. Corrigendum est quod illicite admi [...]itur, aut a praed [...] ­cessoribus admissum invenitur. I. Lips. lib. de una relig. ad­vers. Dialogistam A Politick Writer admonisheth reti­nere antiqua, only vvith this caution: Si proba.

Ioh. Calv. Epist. & resp. col. 484. 485. Calvine (speaking against human Ceremonies) faith: Si ob­jiciatur, &c. If. saith he, antiquity be objected (albeit they who are too much addicted to custome and to received fashions, de boldly use this buckler, to defend all their corruptions,) the refutation is easie: For the Auncienes also themselves with heavie complaints, have aboundantly testified, that they did not approve of any thing which was devised by the will of men. In the end of the Epistle he alleadgeth this testimony of Cyprian. If Christ alone be to be heard, then we ought not to give heed what any man before us hath thought fit to be done, but what Christ (who is before all) hath done, for we must not follow the custome of man, but the trueth of God.

What can be more plaine, then that antiquity cannot be a con­firmation to errour, nor custome a prejudice to trueth?

Wherefore Iren. lib. 1. c. 8. §. 3. D. Forbesse also despiseth such Arguments as are ta­ken from the custome of the Church.

3. There vvas a custome in the Churches of God, to give the Sect. XIV holy Communion to Infants, & another custome to minister Bap­tismeonly [Page 106] about Easter and Pentecost: Sundry such abuses got place in the Church.

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

S. Paul, (saith Annot. on 1 Cor. 11. 16. D. Fulke,) doth give reasons for that order of co­vering Womens heads: By whose example the Preachers are likewise to endeavour to satisfy by reason both men & women, that humbly desire their resolution for quiet of their conscience, & not to beate them dovvne vvith the club of custome only.

4. Whereas the custome of some Churches is alleadged for the Ceremonies, wee have objected the custome of other Churches against them: Neither shall ever our Opposites prove them to be the customes of the Church universall.

5. A great part of that Ecclesiasticall custome which is allead­ged for the Ceremonies, resolveth into that Idolatrous & supersti­tious use of them, which hath long continued in the kingdome of Antichrist: But that such a custome maketh against them, it hath been proved Supra cap. 2. before.

6. If it were so that we ought to pitch upon the Churches cu­stome, yet (that I may speake with Mr. Hooker) the Law of common indulgence permitteth us to think of our owne customes, as half a thought better then the customes of others.

But why was there such a change made in the Discipline Policie and Orders of the Church of Scotland, which were agreable to the Word of God, confirmed & ratified by generall Assemblies & Par­liaments, used and enjoyed with so great peace and purity? Oure, custome should have holden the Ceremonies out of Scotland, hold them in else-where as it may.

CHAP. VII.

That the Lawfulnesse of the Ceremonies can not be warranted by any Ecclesiasticall Law, nor by any power which the Church hath to put order to things belonging to Divine Worship.

WE have proved that the Ceremonies cannot be warranted by Sect. I the Law of God. It followeth to examine whether any Law of Man, or power upon Earth, can make them lawfull or warrantable unto us.

We will beginne with Lawes Ecclesiasticall: where first of all, it must be considered well, what power the Church hath to make lawes about things pertaining to Religion & the Worship of God, and how farre the same doth extend it self. D. Fields resolution, touching this Question, is as followeth. Thus, saith Of the Church, lib. 4. cap. 31. he, we see our Adversaries cannot prove that the Church hath power to annex unto such Ceremonies and observations as she deviseth, the remission of sinnes, and the working of other Spirituall and supernaturall effects, which is the only thing questioned between them and us about the power of the Church. So that all the power the Church hath, more then by her power to publish the Comman­dements of Christ the Sonne of God, and by her censures to punish the offenders against the same, is only in prescribing things that pertaine to come­linesse and order. Comelinesse requireth that not only that gravity and mo­desty doe appeare in the performance of the works of Gods service, that be­seemeth actions of that nature, but also that such Rites and Ceremonies bee used, as may cause a due respect unto and regard of the things performed, and thereby stirre men up to greater fervour and devotion.

And after: Order requireth that there be set houres for prayer, prea­ching, and ministring the Sacraments, that there be silence & attention when the things are performed, that Women be silent in the Church, that all things be administrate according to the rules of Discipline.

This his discourse is but a bundle of incongruities: For. 1. he saith, that the Churches power to annex unto the Ceremonies which she deviseth the working of Spirituall and supernaturall effects, is the onely thing questioned between our adversaries and us, about the power of Church. Now, our Adversaries contend with us also about the power of the Church to make new Articles of Faith; and her power to make Lawes binding the conscience: both which controversies are touched by lib. 4. cap. 6. & cap. 34. himselfe.

2. He isath, that comelinesse requireth the use of such Cere­monies, [Page 108] as may cause a due respect unto, and regard of the works of Gods service, and thereby stirre men up to greater fervour and devotion. But it hath been already shewed, that Supra cap. 6. sect. 3 the comeli­nesse which the Apostle requireth in the Church and service of God, cannot comprehend such Ceremonies under it, and that it is no other then that very common externall decency, which is beseeming for all the Assemblies of men, as well civill as sacred.

3. Whileas he is discoursing of the Churches power to prescribe things pertaining to order, contra-distinguished from her power which she hath to publish the Commandements of Christ, he rec­kons forth, among his other examples, Womens silence in the Church, as if the Church did prescribe this as a matter of order left to her determination, and not publish it as the Commande­ment of Christ in his Word.

4. Whereas he saith, that the Church hath power to prescribe such Rites & Ceremonies, as may cause a due respect unto, & re­gard of the workes of Gods service, and thereby stirre men up to greater fervour and devotion: by his owne words shall he be con­demned. For a little before, he reprehendeth the Romanists for maintaining that the Church hath power to annex unto the Ce­remonies which she deviseth, the working of Spirituall and super­naturall effects. And a litle after, he saith, that the Church hath no power to ordaine such Ceremonies as serve to signify, assure and convey unto men, such benefites of sauing grace, as God in Christ is pleased to bestow on them. Now, to cause a regard of, and a respect unto the works of Gods service, and thereby to stirre up men to [...]ervour and devotion, what is it but the working of a Spirituall & supernaturall effect, & the conveying unto men such a benefit of saving grace, as God in Christ is pleased to bestow on them? In like manner, whereas he holdeth, that the Church hath power to ordaine such Ceremonies, as serve to expresse those Spirituall and Heavenly affections, dispositions, motions or de­sires, which are or should be in men; In the very same place he confuteth himselfe, whileas he affirmeth that the Church hath no power to ordaine such Ceremonies as serve to signifie unto men those benefites of saving grace, which God in Christ is pleased to bestow on them. Now, to expresse such Heavenly & Spirituall af­fections, dispositions, motions, or desires, as should be in men; is (I suppose) to signify unto men such benefites of saving grace, as God in Christ is pleased to bestow on them. Who dare deny it?

Epist. to the Past. of the Church of Scotland. B. Lindsey's opinion touching this power of the Church, Sect. 2 whereof we dispute, is, that power is given unto her to determine the circumstances, which are in the generall necessary to be used in Divine wor­ship, but not defined particularly in the Word.

[Page 109] I know the Church can determine nothing, which is not of this kynd and quality. But the Prelats meaning (as may be seene in that same Epistle of his,) is, that whatsoever the Church determineth, if it be such a circumstance as is in the generall necessary, but not par­ticularly defined in the word, then we can not say, that the Church had no power to determine & enioyne the same, nor be led by the judgement of our owne consciences, Iudging it not expedient, but that in this case we must take the Churches Law to be the rule of our consciences. Now, by this ground which the Prelat holdeth, the Church may prescribe to the Ministers of the Gospell, the whole habit & apparel of the Leviticall high Priest, (which were to Iudaize.) For apparrell is a circumstance in the generall necessary, yet it is not particularly defined in the Word. By this ground, the Church may determine that I should ever pray with my face to the East, preach kneeling on my knees, sing the Psalmes lying on my backe, and heare Sermon standing only upon one foot. For in all these actions a gesture is necessary; but there is no gesture par­ticularly defined in the Word, to which wee are adstricted in any of these exercises.

And further, because uno absurdo dato, mille sequuntur: By this ground the Prelate must say, that the Church hath power to or­daine three or foure holy dayes every weeke, (which ordinance, as he himselfe hath told us, could not stand with charity, the inse­parable companion of piety) for time is a circumstance in the ge­nerall necessary in divine worship: yet in his Iudgement wee are not bound by the Word to any particular time, for the perfor­mance of the duties of Gods worship.

By this ground we were to say, that Pope Innocent the third held him within the bounds of Ecclesiasticall power, when in the great Lateran Councell, Anno 1215, he made a Decree, that all the faith­full of both sexes should once in the yeare atleast, to wit, upon Easter-day, receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist. From whence it hath come to passe, that the common people in the Church of Rome receive the Sacrament only upon Easter. Now, the time of receiving the Sacrament is a circumstance in the generall necssary, for a time it must have, but it is not particularly defined in the Word, It is left indefinite 1. Cor. 11. 26. yet the Church hath no power to determine Easter-day, either as the onely time, or as the fittest time, for all the faithfull of both sexes to receive the Eucha­rist. What if faithfull men and women cannot have time to pre­pare themselves (as becommeth,) being avocated & distracted by the no lesse necessary then honest adoes of their perticular callings?

What if they can not have the Sacrament upon that day ad­ministered according to our Lords institution? What if they see Papists confirming themselves in their Easter-superstition, by [Page 110] our unnecessary practice? Shall they swallow these and such like soule destroying Camels, and all for straining out the gnate of communicating precisely upon Easter day? But since time is a necessary circumstance, and no time is particularly defined, the B. must say more also, that the Church may determine Easter day, for the onely day whereupon wee may receive the Lords Supper.

Last of all, if the Church have power to determine all circum­stances in the generall necessary, but not particularly defined in the Word, what could bee said against that auncient order of so­lemne baptising onely at the holy dayes of Easter and Pentecost, (whereby it came to passe, that very many died unbaptised, as Lib. 5. cap. 22. So­crates writeth?) Or what shall be said against Lib. de Baptismo. Tertullian his opi­nion which alloweth laymen, yea women, to baptise. May the Churches determination make all this good, for asmuch as these circumstances of the time when, and the persons by whom bap­tisme should be ministred, are in the generall necessary, but not particularly defined in the Word? Ite leves nugae.

Prael. tom. 1. de potest. Eccl. contr. 2. Camero, as learned a Formalist as any of the former, expres­seth Sect. 3 his Iudgement copiously touching our present Question. He saith, that there are two sorts of things which the Church com­mandeth, to wit, either such as belong to Faith & manners; or such as doe conduce to Faith and manners: that both are in Gods Word prescribed exserte plainly, but not one way, because such things as pertaine unto Faith and manners, are in the Word of God particularly commanded, whereas those things which con­duce to Faith and manners are but generally commended unto us. Of things that pertaine to Faith and manners, he saith, that they are most constant and certaine, and such as can admit no change, but as for things conducing to Faith and manners, hee saith, that they depend upon the circumstances of persons, place and time, which beeing almost infinite, there could not be par­ticular precepts delivered unto us concerning such things. Onely this is from God commended unto the Church, that whatsoever is done publikely, bee done with order; and what privately, be decent.

These things he so applieth to his purpose, that he determineth, in neither of these kindes the Church hath power to make Lawes, because in things pertaining to Faith and manners, the Law of our Lord Iesus Christ is plainely expressed: and in those things, wherein neither Faith nor manners are placed, but which con­duce to Faith and manners, we have indeed a generall Law, not having further any particular Law, for that reason alleadged, namely, because this depends upon the circumstances.

[Page 111] Thereafter he addeth. Quid sit fides, quid sit pietas, quid sit charitas, verbo Dei demonstratur. Quid ad haec conducat, seu reputando rem in uni­versum, seu reputando rem quatenus singulis competit, pendet ex cognitione circumstantiarum. Iam id definire Deus voluit esse penes Ecclesiam, hac ta­men lege, ut quod definit Ecclesia conveniat generall definitioni Dei.

The matter he illustrates with this one Example: Gods Word doth define in the generall, that we are to fast, and that publikely, But in the particular wee could not have the definition of the Word, because there are infinite occasions of a publike Fast, as it is said in the Schooles individua esse infinita: so that it is the Churches part, to looke to the occasion, & this depends upon the considera­tion of the circumstances. This discourse of his cannot satisfy the attentive Reader, but deserveth certaine animadversions.

First then, it is to be observed, how he is drawne into a manifest Sect. IV contradiction: for whereas he saith, that Gods Word doth exserte & diserte commend unto us generatim, such things as conduce to Faith and maners, & that concerning things of this nature we have a ge­nerall Law in Scripture, how can this stand with that which he ad­deth, namely, that it is in the Churches power to define what things doe conduce to faith, piety, & charity, even reputando rem in uni­versum?

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

3. What meanes he by his application of order to publike, & decency to private actions? As if the Apostle did not require both these in the publike workes of Gods service, performed in the Church.

4. Whereas he saith, that such things as conduce to Faith and maners, doe depend upon the circumstances, and so could not be particularly defined in the Word, either he speakes of those things, as they are defined in the generall, or as they are defined in the par­ticular. Not the first, for as they are defined in the generall, they cannot depend upon changeable circumstances, and that because according to his owne tenet, the Word defines them in the general, & this definition of the Word is most certaine & constant, neither can any change happen unto it. Wherefore (without doubt) he must pronounce this, of the definition of such things in the particular. Now to say, that things conducing to faith & maners, as they are particularly defined, doe depend upon circumstan [...], is as much as to say that circumstances depend upon circumstances. For things conducing to Faith and manners, which the Church hath [Page] power to determine particularly, what are they other then circum­stances? Surely, he who taketh not Cameroes Iudgement to be, that the Church hath power to determine somewhat more then the cir­cumstances (and by consequence a part of the substance) of Gods worship, shall give no sence to his words. Yet if one would take his meaning so, I see not how he can be saved from contradicting himself; for as much as he holdeth, that such things as pertaine to Faith & manners are particularly defined in the Word. To say no more, I smell such a thing in Cameroes opinion as can neither stand with reason nor with himselfe.

5. Gods Word doth not onely define things pertaining to Faith and manners, but also things conducing to the same, and that not onely generally but in some respects, and sometimes particularly. And we take for example his owne Instance of fasting. For the Scripture defineth very many occasions of fasting, Ezra 8. 21. 2 Chron. 20. Iona 3. Ioel 2. Act. 13. 3. Ios. 7. 6. Iud. 20. 16. Esther 4. 16. Ezra 9. & 10. Zach. 7. From which places we gather, that the Scrip­ture defineth fasting to be used.

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

2. For Deprecation, when we feare some evill.

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

Thus having sailed by those rockes of offence: I direct my Sect. V course straight, to the descrying of the true limits, within which the Churches power of enacting Lawes about things pertaining to the worship of Cod, is bounded and confined, and which it may not overleape nor transgresse.

Three conditions I finde necessarily requisite, in such a thing as the Church hath power to prescribe by her Lawes.

1. It must be onely a circumstance of Divine Worship, no sub­stantiall part of it, no sacred significant and efficacious Ceremonie. For the order and decency left to the definition of the Church, as concerning the particulars of it, comprehendeth no more, but mere circumstances. Epist. to the Past. of the Church of Scotland. B. Lindsey, doth but unskilfully confound things different, when he talketh of the Ceremonies and Circumstances left to the determination of the Church. Now by his leave, though Cir­cumstances be left to the determination of the Church, yet Ce­remonies (if we speake properly) are not.

[Page 113] Serm. on E [...]her. 9. 31. B Andreues avoucheth, that Ceremonies pertaine to the Church only and to the service of God, not to civill solemnities. But so much (I trust) he would not have said of circumstances, which have place in all morall actions, and that to the same end and purpose, for which they serve in religious actions, namely, for beautifying them with that decent demeanour which the very light and law of natural reason requireth, as a thing beseeming all humane actions. For the Church of Christ being a society of men and women, must either ob­serve order & decency in all the circumstances of their holy actions, time, place, person, forme, &c. or else be deformed with that mis­order and and confusion, which common reason and civility abhor­reth. Ceremonies therefore, which are sacred observances, and serve only to a religious & holy use, and which may not without Sacriledge be applied to another use, must be sorted with things of another na­ture then circumstances. Ceremoniae, Ceremonies (saith Of the Church, lib. 4. cap. 31. D. Field) are so named as Livie thinketh from a towne called Caere, in the which the Romās did hide their sacred things when the Gaules invaded Rome. Other thinke that Ceremonies are so named a carendo, of abstaining from certaine things, as the Iewes abstained from Swines flesh, and sun­dry other things forbidden by God as uncleane. Ceremonies are outward acts of Religion, &c. Qua propter etiam, saith De polit. Mos. cap. 7. Iunius Ritus & Ce­remonias inter se distinximus, quia in Iure politico sui sunt imperati & [...] ritus: Ceremonia vero non nisi sacra observationes in cultis di­rin [...] appellant [...]. Ceremonia, saith De Sa­ram. lib. 2. cap. 29. Bellarmine, proprie & simpliciter sic vocata, est externa actio qua non aliunde est bona & landabilis, nisi quia fit ad Deum colendum. From which words Bell. enerv. tō. 3 lib. 1. cap. 8. Amesius concludeth against him, that he & others with him doe absurdly confound order, decency & the like, which haue the same use & praise in civill things, which they have in the worship of God, with religious & sacred Ce­monies. Yet Man [...] ­duct. pag. 33. D. Burgesse rejecteth this distinction betwixt circum­stances and Ceremonies, as a meere nicitie or fiction. And would ye know his reason? For that, saith he, all circumstances (I meane extrin­secall) which incurre not the substance of the action, when they are once designed or observed purposely, in reference to such a matter, of whose substance they are not, they are then Ceremonies. If this be not a nicitie or fiction, I know not what is. For what meanes he here by a matter? An action, sure, or else a nicitie. Well then: we shall have now a world of Ceremonies. Whē I appoint to meet with another man at Barwick upon the tenth day of May, because the place and the day are pur­posely designed in referēce to such a matter, of whose substance they are not, namely, to my meeting with the other mā, for talking of our businesse, therefore the towne of Barwick, and the tenth day of May, must be accounted Ceremonies. To me its nice, that the D. made it not nice, to let such a nicitie fall from his penne.

[Page 114] When I put on my shooes in reference to walking or wash my hands in reference to eating, am I using Ceremonies all the while? The Doctour could not choose but say so, for asmuch as these cir­cumstances are purposely designed and observed in reference to such matters, of whose substance they are not.

2. That which the Church may lawfully prescribe by her Lawes Sect. 6 and ordinances, as a thing left to her determination, must be one of such things as were not determinable by Scripture, for that rea [...]on which Camero hath given us, namely, because Individua are Infini­ta. We meane not in any wise to circumcribe the infinite power & wisdome of God: only we speake upon upposition o [...] the bounds & limits which God did set to his written word, within which he would have it contained, and over which he thought fi [...]t that it should not exceed. The case being thus put, as it is, we say truely of those seve­rall and changeable circumstances, which are left to the determina­tion of the Church, that being almost infinite, they were no [...] particu­larly determinable in Scripture; for the partic lar definition o [...] those occurring circumstances, which were to be rightly ordered in the workes of Gods service, to the end of the World, and that ever ac­cording to the exigency o [...] every present occasion and different case, should have filled the whole world w [...]h b [...]okes. But as for other things pertaining to Gods worship, which are not to be reckoned a­mong the circumstances of it, they being neither in number many, nor in change various, were most easily and conveniently determi­nable in Scripture. Now, since God would have his word, (which is our rule in the workes o [...] his service) not to be delivered by tradi­tion, but to be written and sealed un o us, that by this meanes, for obviating Satanicall subtilty, and [...]uccouring humane imbecillity, we might have a more certaine way for conservation of true religion, and for the instauration of it when it faileth among men: how cab we but assure our selves, that every such acceptable thing pertaining a [...]y way to religion, which was particularly and conveniently de­terminable in Scripture, is indeed determined in it, and consequent­ly hat no such thing as is not a meere alterable circumstance, is left to the determination of the Church?

3. If the Church prescribe any thing lawfully, so that she prescribe Sect. 7 no more then she hath power given her to prescribe, her ordinance must be accompanied with some good reason and warrant, given for he satisfaction of tender consciences. This condition is (alas) too seldome looked unto by Law-makers, o [...] whom one fi [...]ly com­plaineth thus:

Lex quam vis ratio Ciceroni summa [...]ocetur,
Et bene laudetur lex quae ratione [...]
Invenies inter logistas raro logistas:
Mor [...] & exempli leges sunt [...]raque Templi.

[Page 115] But this fa [...]hien we leave to them who will have all their Anoma­lies taken for Analogies. It [...] meth not the [...]pouse of Christ endued with the Spirit of meeknesse, to command any thing impe­ [...]iously, and without a reason given.

Ecclesiae enim est docere primùm, tum praescribere, saith Israele [...] Tom. 1. pag. 367. Camer [...]. And againe: Non enim domina [...]uy cleris, nec agit cum ijs quos Christus redemit, ac si non possent capere qu d sit religiosum, quid minus.

In apo­loget. Tertullians Testimony is knowne. Nulla lex, &c. No Law, saith he, owes to itselfe alone the conscience of its equitie, but to these from whom it expects obedience. Moreover, it is a suspected Law which will not have itself to be proved, but a wicked Law, which not being proved yet beareth rule.

It is well said by our Diuines, Chem­nit. exam. part. 2. p. 121. that in Rites and Ceremonies the Church hath no power to destruction but to edification. And Calv. instit. lib. 4. cap. 10. f. 32. that the observations of our Ecclesiasticall Canons, must carry before them a manifest utility. Joh. Calv. E­pist. & resp. col. 478. Pijs vero [...]ratribus durum est, subjicere se rebus illis quas nec rectas esse nec utiles animadvertunt. [...] here it [...]e objected, that some things are convenient to be done, therefore because they are prescribed by the Church, and for no other reason. For example, in two things which are alike lawfull and convenient in themselves, I am bound to doe the one and not the other, because of the Churches prescription. So that in such cases it seemeth there can be no other reason given for the ordinance of the Church, but only her owne power and authority, to put order to things of th [...]s nature.

I answer, that even in such a case as this the conveniency of the thing itself is anterior to the Churches determination, anterior I say de congruo, though not de facto, that is to say, before ever the Church pre scribe it, it is such a thing as (when it falleth out to be done at all) may be done conveniently; though it be not (before the Churches prescribing of it,) such a thing as should and ought to be done as con­venient. Which being so, we doe still hold, that the conveniency of a thing must alwayes goe before the Churches prescribing of it, goe before I meane, at least de congruo. Neither can the Church pre­scribe any thing lawfully, which she sheweth not to have been con­venient, even before her determination.

These things being permitted, I come to extract my projection, & to make it evident, that the lawfulnes of the controverted Ceremo­nies, can not be warranted by any Ecclesiasticall Law. And this I prove by three Arguments.

First, those conditions which I have shewed to be required in that thing which the Church may lawfully prescribe by a Law, are not [Page] quadrant nor competent to the Crosse, Kneeling, Surplice, Holy-dayes, &c.

For 1. they are not meere circumstances, such as have place in all morall actions, but sacred, misticall, significant, efficacious Ce­remonies, as hath been aboundantly shewed in this dispute already. For example: Manu­duct, pag. 37. D. Burgesse calleth the Surplice a religious or sa­cred Ceremony. And againe, Of the kawf. of 5 neel. pag. 2. he placeth in it a misticall signifi­cation of the purenesse of the minister of God. Wherefore Cap. 1. the replier to D. Mortons particular defence saith well, that there is great difference betwixt a grave civill habite and a misticall garment.

2. It cannot be said, that thes [...] Ceremonies are of that kynd of things, which were not determinab [...] by Scripture: neither will our Opposites, for very shame, adventure to say, that things of this kynd to which Crosse, Kneeling, &c. doe belong, viz. sacred significant Ce­remonies left (in their Iudgement) to the definition of the Church, are almost infinite, and therefore could not be well and easily deter­mined in Scripture.

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

3. Our Ceremoniall Lawes are not backed with such grounds & reasons, as might be for the satisfying and quieting of tender con­sciences, but we are borne downe with will and authority: whereof I have said enough Supra part. 1. cap. 4. & 6 else-where.

2. If the Ceremonies be lawfull to us, because the Law and Or­dinance Sect. 9 of the Church prescribes them, then either the bare and na­ked prescription of the Church, having no other warrant then the Churches owne authority, makes them to be thus lawfull; or else the Law of the Church, as grounded upon and warranted by the Law of God and nature. Not the first; for Fr. Iun. de polit. Mos. cap. 1 Divines hold, legem huma­nam ferri ab hominibus, cum ratione procedunt ab illis alijs antegres­sis legibus. Nam legis humanae regula proxima est duplex. Una in­nata quam legem naturalem dicimus altera inspirat [...], quam divi­nam, &c. Ex his ergo fontibus lex humana procedit: haec incuna­bula illius, a quibus se aberr [...], lex degener est; indigna legis nomine. We have also the testimony of an Adversary. For saith not Apol. part. 3. cap. 1. Sect. 25. Paybody himselfe: I graunt it is unlawfull to doe in Gods worship any thing upon the meere pleasure of man.

If they take them, (as needs they must,) to the latter part, then let them either say, that the Ceremonies are lawfull unto us, because the Church judgeth them to be agreable to the Law of God & nature, or because the Church proveth unto us by evident reasons, that they are indeed agreeable to these Lawes. If they yeeld us the latter, then it is not the Churches Law, but the Churches reasons given for her [Page] Law, which can warrant the lawfulnesse of the [...] [...]to us: which doth elude and elide all that which they alleadge for the lawfulnesse of them from the power and authority of the Church.

And further, if any such reasons be to be given forth for the Cere­monies, why are they so long kept up from us? But if they hold them at the former, thereupon it will follow, that it shall be lawfull for us to doe every thing which the Church shall Iudge to be agree­able to the Law of God and nature, and consequently to use all the Iewish, Popish and Heathnish Ceremonies, yea to worship Ima­ges; If it happen that the Church judge these things to be agreeable to the Law of God and nature.

It will be answered (I know) that if the Church command any thing repugnant to Gods Word, we are not bound to doe it, nor to receive it as lawfull, though the Church judge so of it: But other­wise, if that which the Church judgeth to be agreeable to the Law of God and nature, (and in that respect prescribeth) be not repug­nant to the Word of God, but in itself indifferent, then are we to embrace it as convenient, and consonant to the Law of God and na­ture, neither ought we to call in Question the lawfulnesse of it.

But I reply, that either we must judge a thing to be repugnant or not repugnant to the Word, to be indifferent or not indiffere [...]t in itself, because the Church judgeth so of it, or else because the Church proveth unto us by an evident reason that it is so. If the latter; we have what we would. If the former; we are just where we were; The argument is still set a foot: then we must receive every thing (be it never so bad,) as indifferent, if only the Church happen so to judge of it. For quod competit alicui qua tali, &c. So that if we re­ceive any thing as indifferent, for this respect, because the Church judgeth it to be so, then shall we receive every thing for indiffe­rent; which the Church shall so judge of.

3. The Church is forbidden to adde any thing to the commande­ments Sect. 10 of God, which he hath given unto us, concerning his worship and service. Deut. 4. 2. and 12, 32. Prov. 30. 6. therefore she may not lawfully prescribe any thing in the workes of Divine wor­ship, if it be not a mere circumstance, belonging to that kynd of things which were not determinable by Scripture.

Our Opposites have no other distinctions, which they make any use of against this argument, but the very same which Papists use in defence of their unwritten dogmaticall traditions; namely, that ad­ditio corrumpens is forbidden, but not additio perficiens: that there is not alike reason of the Christian Church, and of the Iewish: that the Church may not adde to the essentiall parts of Gods worship, but to the accidentary she may adde.

[Page 118] To the first of those distinctions we Answer, 1. That the distinc­tion itself is an addition to the word, and so doth but begge the Que­stion.

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

3. Since our Opposites will speake in this dialect, let them re­solve us, whether the washings of the Pharises, condemned by Christ, were corrupting or perfecting additions. They cannot say, they were corrupting; for there was no commandement of God, which those washings did corrupt or destroy, except that cōmande­ment which forbiddeth mens additions. But for this respect, our Op­posites dare not call them corrupting additions, for so they should condemne all additions whatsoever. Except therefore, they can shew us that those washings were not added by the Pharises, for perfecting, but for corrupting the Law of God, let them consider how they ranke their owne Ceremoniall additions, with those of the Pha­rises. We reade of no other reason wherefore Christ cōdemned thē, but because they were Doctrines, which had no other warrant then the commandements of men. Math. 15. 9. For as the Law ordained diverse washings, for teaching and signifying that true holinesse and cleanesse, which ought to be among Gods people; so the Pharises would have per [...]ected the Law by adding other washings (and moe then God had commanded,) for the same end and pur­pose.

To the second distinction, we say that the Christian Church hath Sect. 11 no more liberty to adde to the commandements of God [...]hen the Iewish Church had. For the second commandement is morall and perpetuall, and forbiddeth to us as well as to them the additions and inventions of men in the worship of God. Nay, as Inst. lib. 4. cap. 10. f. 17. Calvine no­teth, much more are we forbidden to adde unto Gods Word, thē they were. Before the comming of his wel-beloved Sonne in the fl [...]sh, saith Letter to the Re­gent of Scotland. Iohn Knox, severely he punished all such as durst interprise to alter or change his Ceremonies and Statutes, as in 1. Reg. 13. and 15 Saul, 2. Pa­ral. 26. Uzi­ias, Levit. 10. Nadab, Absha, is to be read. And will he now, after that he hath opened his Counsell to the World by his only Sonne, whom Math. 17. he commaundeth to be heard, and after that Act. 1. (, and 3. 2. Cor. 11. 1 Col. 2. by his holy Spirit, spea­king by his Apostles, he hath established the religion in which he will his true worshippers abide to the end, will he now I say admitt (o) mens inventions in the matter of Religion, &c.? For this sentence he prouounceth: Deut. 4. 12. Not that which seemeth good in thy eyes, shalt thou doe to the Lord thy God, but that which the Lord thy God com­manded thee, that doe thou: Adde nothing unto it, diminish no­thing [Page 119] from it. Which sealing up his New Testament he rep [...]ateth in these words: Apoc. 2 That which ye have, hold till I come, &c.

Wherefore whileas Eccl. pol. lib. 2. Hooker saith, tha [...] Christ hath not by po­sitive lawes so farre descended into particularities with vs, as Moses with the lewes: Whileas Prael [...]ct. tom. 1. pag 369. Camero saith, non esse disputandum ita, [...]t quoniam in vetere Testament [...], de rebus alioqui adiaphoris certa fuit lex, & [...]id in novo Testamento habere locum: And whiles Epist. to the Past. of the Church of Scotland. B. Lindsey saith, that in the particular circumstances of persons [...]y whom, place where, time when, and o [...] the forme and order how the worship and worke of the ministery should be performed h [...] Church hath power to define whatsoeuer is most expedient, and that this is a preroga­tive wherein the Christian Church differeth [...]rom the Iewish Syna­gogue: They doe but speake their pleasure in vaine, and cannot make it appeare, that the Christian Church hath any more power to adde to the commandements of God, then the Synagogue had of old.

It is [...]ell said by Course of confor­formity, pag. 155. one: There were many points of service, as Sacrifices, washings, anniversary dayes & [...]. whi [...]h [...]e have not: but the determination of such as we have, is as particular as theirs, except vvherein the nationall circumstances make impediment. For one place not be appointed for the worship of God, nor one Tribe o [...] the worke of the ministery, among us, as among them, not because more power was left to the Christian Church, for determining things that pertaine to the worship of God, then was to the Iewish, but because the Christian Church was to spread it self over the, whole Earth, and not to be confined within the bo [...]ds of one nation as the Synagogue was.

Let us then here call to mynd the distinction which hath been shewed betwixt religious Ceremonies and morall circumstances: Sect. 12 for as touching morall circumstances which serve for common or­der and decency in the worship of God, they beeing so many and so alterable, that they could not be particularly determined in Scrip­ture, for all the different and almost infinite cases, which might occure the Iewish S [...]agogue had the same power for determining things of this na [...]e, which the church of Christ now hath. For the law did not define but left she be defined by the Sinagogue, the set houres for all pub [...]e divine service, whē it should begin, how long it should last, the order should be kept in the reading and expounding of the law [...]aying, singing, carechi [...]g, excommunicating censuring and [...]ving of Delinquents, &c. the circumstances of the celebration of mariage, of the education of youth in Schooles and Colledges, &c.

But as for Ceremonies which are proper to Gods holy worship, Hebr. 3. 2. shall we say, tat the fidelity of Christ the Sonne hath been lesse, then the fidelity of Moses the servant? which were to be said, if [Page 120] Christ had not by as plaine, plentifull, and particular directions and ordinances, provided for all the necessities of the Christian Church in the matter of religiō, as Moses for the Iewish. Or if the least pinne, and the meanest appurtenance of the Tabernacle, and all the ser­vice thereof, behooved to be ordered according to the expresse com­mandement of God by the hand of Moses, how shall we thinke, that in the rearing, framing, ordering, & beautifying of the church the house of the living God, he would have lesse honor & prerogative givē to his owne well-beloved Sonne, by whom he hath spoken to us in these last dayes, & whom he hath commāded vs to heare in all things; Or that he will accept at our hands any sacred Ceremony, which men have presumed to bring into his holy and pure worship, with­out the appointment of his owne word and will revealed vnto us? Albeit the worship of God and religion in the Church of the new Testament, be accompanied without Ceremonies numero paucissimis observatione facillimis, significatione praestantissimis, (as Epist. 118. Augustine speaketh of our Sacraments) yet we have in Scripture no lesse particular determination and distinct direction, for our fevve, easie and plaine Ceremonies, then the Iewes had for their many heavy, and obscure ones.

As for the third distinction, of adding to the accidentary parts of it, Sect. 13 [...]emēber, that J heard in the logicks, of pars essentialis or Phisica, & pars integralis or mathematica; of pars similaris, & pars dissimilaris; of pars c [...]ua & pars discreta. But of pars accidētaria heard I never till now. There is (I know) such a distinction of Pars integralis, that it is either pr [...]alis and necessaria, or minus principalis and non necessaria. But w [...] cannot vnderstand their pars cultus acciden­taria, to be pars integ [...]alis non necessaria, because then their distri­bution of worship into e [...]entiall & accidentary parts, could not ans­wer to the rul [...]s of a just dist [...]bution: of which one is, that distributio debet exhauri [...]e totum distributu [...]. Now, there are some parts of worship, which cannot be comp [...]hended in the foresaid distribu­tion, namely, partes integrales necessar [...] What then? Shall we let this vvilde Distinction passe, because it cannot [...] well nor formally inter­preted? Nay, but we will observe their mean [...] who make use of it, For unto all such parts of worship as are not ess [...]iall (and which they are pleased to call accidentarie) they hold, [...] Church may make addition. Whereunto I answer, 1. Let them m [...] us under­stand, what they meane by those essentiall parts, to which th [...] Church may adde nothing: and let them beware least they give us a [...] [...] ­ticall description of the same.

2. There are many parts of Gods worship, which are not essen­tiall, yet such as will not suffer any addition of the Church. For proof vvhereof, J demaund, vvere all the Ceremonies commanded to be [...]sed in the legall Sacraments and Sacrifices, essentiall parts o [...] those [Page 121] worships? No man will say so. Yet the Synagogue was tied to ob­serve those (and no other then those) Ceremonies, which the Word prescribed. When Israel was againe to keepe the Passeover, Num. 9 3. it was said; In the fourteenth day of this moneth at even, ye shall keep it in his appoin­ded season: according to all the Rites of it and according to all the Ceremonies of it, shall ye keep it. And ib. vers. 5. againe: According to all that the Lord com­manded Moses, so did the Children of Israel. Ritibus & Ceremonijs divinitus institutis, non licuit homini suo arbitrio aliquid adijcere aut detrahere, Com. in 1. Reg, 8. 65. saith P. Martyr.

3. If those accidentarie parts of worship, which are commanded Sect. 14 in the Word, be both necessary to be used necessitatè praecepti, and like­wise sufficient meanes fully adequate and proportioned to that end, for which God hath destinated such parts of his worship as are not essentiall, (which must be graunted by every one who will not ac­cuse the Scripture of some defect and imperfection:) then it followeth that other accidentarie parts of worship, which the Church addeth thereto, are but superfluous and superstitious.

4. I call to mind another Logicall maxime: Sublata una parte, tol­litur totum. An essentiall part being taken away, totum essentiale is ta­ken away also. In like maner, an integrant part being taken away, totum integrum cannot remaine behinde. When a man hath lost his hand or is foot, though he be still a man Phisically, totum essentialè, yet he is not a man mathematically, he is no longer totum integralè. Iust so, if we reckon any additions (as the Crosse, Kneeling, Ho­ly-dayes, &c.) among the parts of Gods worship, then put the case that those additions were taken away, it followeth that all the wor­ship which remaineth still, will not be the whole and entire worship of God, but only a part of it, or at the best, a defective, wanting, lame, and maimed worship.

5. I have made it evident, Supra Cap. 1. Sect. 6. that our Opposites make the con­troverted Ceremonies to be worship, in as proper and peculiar sence as any thing can be; and that they are equalled to the chiefe and principall parts of worship, not ranked among the secondary or lesse principall parts of it.

6. Doe not our Divines condemne the addition of Rites & Cere­monies, to that worship which the Word prescribeth, as well as the addition of other things, which are thought more essentiall? Wee have heard Martyrs words to this purpose.

In [...]. praec Col. 363. Zanchius will have us to learne from the second commande­ment, in externo cultu qui Deo debetur, seu in Ceremoniis nihil nobis esse ex nostro capite comminiscendum, wether in Sacraments or Sacrifices, or other sacred things, such as Temples, Altars, Clothes and Vessels, necessary for the externall worship; but that wee ought to be con­tented [Page 122] with those Ceremonies which God hath prescribed.

And in Ib. col. 502. another place, he condemneth the addition of any o­ther rite whatsoever, to those rites of every Sacrament which have been ordained of Christ. Si Ceremonijs cujusvis Sacramenti, alios addas ri­tus, &c.

Annot. on Phil. 2. 10. D. Fulke pronounceth even of signes and rites, that vve must doe in Religion and Gods service, not that which seemeth good to us, but that only which he commandeth. Deut. 4. 2. c. 12. 32.

And Epist ad protect. Angl. Calvine pronounceth generally, Caenam Domini rem adeo sacrosanctam esse, ut ullis hominum additamentis eam conspurcare sit nefas.

And thus have we made good our Argument, that the lawfulnsse of the Ceremonies cannot be warranted by any Ecclesiasticall Law. Sect. 15 If we had no more against them, this were enough, that they are but humane additions, and want the warrant of the Word. When Nadab and Abihu offered strange fire before the Lord, and when the Iewes burnt their Sonnes and their Daughters in the Valley of the Sonne of Hinnon; howsoever manifold wickednesse might have been chal­lenged in that which they did, yet if any would dispute with God upon the matter, he stoppeth their mouthes with this one Answer, Levit. 10. 1. ler. 7. 31. I commanded it not, neither came it into my heart. May we last of all heare what the Causa. 11. q. 3. v. 101. Canon Law it selfe decreeth? Is qui praeest, fi praeter voluntatem Dei, vel praeter quod in sanctis Scripturis eviden­ter praecipitur, vel dicit aliquid, vel imperat, tanquam falsus testis Dei, aut Sacrilegus habeatur.

CHAP. VIII.

That the lavvfulnesse of the Ceremonies can not be vvar­ranted by any Ordinance of the Civill Magistrate: vvhose povver in things Spirituall or Ec­clesiasticall, is explained.

NOw are wee fallen upon the strong hold of our Opposites, which is the Kings Majesties Supermacy in things Ecclesi­asticall. Sect. 1 If they did meane in good earnest to qualify the lawfulnes of the Ceremonies from holy Scripture, why have they not taken more paines and travel to debate the matter from thence? [Page 123] And if they meant to justify them by the Lawes & Constitutions of the Church, why did they not study to an orderly peaceable pro­ceeding, and to have things concluded in a lawfull Nationall Synode, after free reasoning and mature advisement? Why did they carry matters so factiously and violently? The truth is, they would have us to acquiesce and to say no more against the Ceremonies, when once we heare that they are enjoyned by his Majestie, our only su­preme Governour. What I am here to say, shall not derogate any thing from his Highnesse Supremacy, because it includeth no such thing as a nomotheticall power, to prescribe and appoint such sacred and significant Ceremonies as he shall thinke good.

The Arch-Bishop of Armagh, in his Speach which he delivered concerning the Kings Supremacy, (for which King Iames returned him in a Letter his Princely and gratious thankes, for that he had de­fended his just & lawfull power, with so much learning and reason,) whiles he treateth of the Supremacy, and expoundeth that Title of The only Supreme Governour of all his Highnes Dominions and Countries, as well in all spirituall or Ecclesiasticall things or causes, as temporall; mentioneth no such thing, as any power to dispose by his Lawes and ordi­nances, of things externall in the worship of God. Neither yet shall this following Discourse tend to the cooling & abating of that care and zeale which Princes owe to the oversight & promotion of Religion. For alas! the corruptions which have stept into Religion, and the decayes which it hath felt since Princes beganne to take small thought of it, and to leave the care of it to Popes, Bishops, Monkes, &c. can never be enough bewailed. Nihil enim, &c. For there is nothing (saith In 4. praec. col. 791. Zanchius) more pernitious, either to the Commonwealth or to the Church, then if a Prince doe all things by the judgement of others, and he himself understand not those things which are propounded to bee done.

Nor lastly, are we to sound an alarum of Rebellion. For to say that Subjects are not bound to obey such Lawes and Statutes of their Prince, as impose upon them a Yoke of Ceremonies, which hee hath no power to impose, is one thing; and to say, that they are not bound to subject themselves unto him faithfully and loyally, is another thing. Recte Gerson; Qui abusui potestatis resistit, non resistit divinae ordinationi, saith DeIud. controv. cap. 14. p. 76 the Bishop of Sarisburie. Subjection, saith Of the Church, lib. 4. c. 34. p. 400. D. Field, is required generally and absolutely, where obedience is not. If we have leave to speake with Gerard. loc. theol. tom. 6. p. 1280. Polan. Synt. lib. 10. cap. 62. col. 960. Divines, the bond and signe of subjection, is only Homage, or the oath of fidelity, whereby Sub­jects [Page 124] binde themselves to be faithfull to their Prince. And we take the judge of all flesh to witnesse, before whose dreadfull Tribunall we must stand at that great day, how free we are of thoughts of Re­bellion, & how uprightly we meane to be his Majesties most true and loy all Subjects to the end of our lives, and to devote our selves, our bodies, lives, goods and estates, and all that we have in the world, to his Highnesse service, and to the honour of his Royal Crowne.

Now for the purpose in hand, we will first examine what the Arch-Bishop of Spalato saith, for he discourseth much of the jurisdiction Sect. 2 and Office of Princes, in things and causes Ecclesiasticall. The Title of the first Chapter of his sixt Booke de Rep Eccl. holdeth; That it is the duty of Princes super Ecclesiastica invigilare. But in the body of the Chapter, he laboureth to prove, that the power of governing Eccle­siasticall things belongeth to Princes (which is farre more then to watch carefully over them.) This the Reader will easily perceive. Nay, he himselfe, Num. 115. & 174. professeth he hath been pro­ving, that Divine and Ecclesiasticall things, are to be ruled and gover­ned by the authority & Lawes of Princes. The Title prefixed to the sixt Chapter of that same Booke, is this: Legibus & edictis Principum Laicorum, & Ecclesiastica & Ecclesiasticos gubernari. So that in both Chapters, he treateth of one and the same office of Princes about things Ecclesiasticall.

Now, if we would learne what he meanes by those Ecclesiastica, which he will have to be governed by Princes, Lib 6. Cap. 5. num. 3. & 17. he resolves us that he meanes not things internall, such as the deciding of controversies in matters of faith, feeding with the Word of God, binding & loo­sing, and ministring of the Sacraments: (for in pure spiritualibus, (as he speaketh in Summa Cap. 5.) he yeeldeth thē not the power of judg­ing and defining:) but onely things externall, which pertaine to the externall worship of God, or which concerne externall Ecclesiastical Discipline. Such things Ostens. error. Fr. Suarez. Cap. 3. Nmu. 23. Sect. 3. he acknowledgeth to be res Spirituales. But vera Spiritualia, he will have to comprehend onely things inter­nall, which hee removeth from the power of Princes. Thus wee have his judgement as plaine as himselfe hath delivered it unto us.

But I demaund, 1. Why yeeldeth he the same power to Princes in governing Ecclesiastica, which he yeldeth them in governing Ecclesias­ticos? For Ecclesiasticall Persons, being members of the common-wealth no lesse then Laickes, have the same King and Governour with them. For which reason it is (as De Rep. Eccl. Cap. 6. Num. 38. the B. himself sheweth out of Molina) that they are bound to be subject to their Princes Lawes, which pertaine to the whole common-wealth. But the like cannot be alleadged for the power of Princes to governe Ecclesiastica: for the B. (I trust) would not have said, that things Ecclesiasticall and things civill doe equally and alike belong to their power and Iuris­diction.

[Page 125] 2. Why confoundeth he the governing of things and causes Ec­clesiasticall, with watching over and taking care for the same? Let us only call to mind the native signification of the word: [...] Guberno signifieth properly to rule or governe the course of a S [...]p: And in a Ship there may be many watchfull and carefull eyes over her course, and yet but one Governour directing the same.

3. Why holdeth he, that things externall in the worship of God are not vera spiritualia? For if they be Ecclesiasticall and sacred Ce­remonies (not fleshly and wordly) why will he not also acknow­ledge them for true spirituall things? And if they be not vera spiri­tualia, why calls he them res spirituales? For are not Res and Verum reciprocall, as wel as Ens and Verum?

4. Even as a Prince in his Sea-voyage is supreme Governour of all which are in the Ship with him, end by consequence of the Go­vernour, who directs her course, yet doth he not governe the action of governing or directing the course of the Ship: So though a Prince be the only supreme Governour of all his Dominions, & by consequence of Ecclesiasticall persons in his Dominions, yet he can not be said to Governe all their Ecclesiasticall actions & causes. And as the Governour of a Ship acknowledgeth his Prince for his only supreme Governour, even then whiles he is governing & directing the course of the ship, (otherwise whiles he is governing her course, he should not be his Princes Subject) yet he doth not thereby ac­knowledge that his Prince governeth his action of directing the course of the Ship, (for then should the Prince be the Pilot:) So when one hath acknowledged the Prince to be the only supreme Governour upon Earth, of all Ecclesiasticall persons in his Domi­nions, even whiles they are ordering and determining Ecclesiasticall causes; yet he hath not thereby acknowledged that the Prince go­verneth the Ecclesiasticall causes. Wherefore whiles Ostens. error Fr. Suarez. Cap. 3. n. 23. the B. taketh the English Oath of Supremacy, to acknowledge the same which he teacheth touching the Princes power, he giveth it another sence then the words of it can beare. For it saith not that the Kings Majestie is the only supreme Governour of all his Highnes Dominions, and OF all things and causes therein, as well Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall, as Temporall. But it saith, that he is the only Supreame Governour of all his Highnes Dominions IN all things or causes, &c. Now, the spirituall Guides of the Church substituted by Christ, as Deputies in his stead, who is the most supreame Governour of his own Church, and Isa. 96. on whose shoulder the Governement resteth as his Royall prorogative; even then whiles they are governing and putting or­der to Ecclesiasticall or spirituall causes, they acknowledge their Prince to be their only supreme Governour upon Earth: yet hereby they implie not that he governeth their Governing of Ecclesiasticall causes, as hath been shewed by that Simele of governing a Ship.

[Page 126] 5. Whereas the B. leaveth all things externall, which pertaine to the worship of God, to be governed by Princes, I object that the ver­sion Sect. 4 of the holy Scripture out of Hebrew and Grèeke into the vul­gar tongue, is an externall thing, belonging to the worship of God, yet it cannot be governed by a Prince who is not learned in the ori­ginall tounges.

6. Whereas he yeeldeth to Princes the power of governing in spi­ritualibus, but not in pure spiritualibus, I cannot comprehend this Di­stinction. All sacred and Ecclesiasticall things belonging to the worship of God are spirituall things.

What then understands he by things purely spirituall? If he meane things which are in such sort spirituall, that they have nothing earthly not externall in them; in this sence the Sacraments are not purely spirituall, because they consist of two parts; one earthly, and another heavenly, as Ireneus saith of the Eucharist. And so the Sacraments not being things purely spirituall, shall be left to the power and government of Princes. If it be said, that by things pu­rely spirituall, he meanes things which concerne our Spirits onely, and not the outward man; I still urge the same Instance: For the Sacraments are not in this sence spirituall, because a part of the Sa­craments, to wit, the Sacramentall Signes or Elements, concerne our externall & bodily sences of seeing, touching, and tasting.

7. The B. also contradicteth himselfe unawares: For in Lib. 6. cap. 5. n. 174. one place hee reserveth and excepteth from the power of Princes, the judging and deciding of controversies and questions of faith. Yet in Ibid. num. 177. another place hee exhorteth Kings and Princes, to compell the Divines of both sides (of the Roman and Reformed Churches) to come to a free conference, and to debate the matters controverted betwixt them; in which conference, hee requireth the Princes them­selves to bee Iudges.

It remaineth to trie what force of reason the B. hath to backe his opinion. As for the ragged rabble of humane Testimonies, which Sect. 5 he taketh together, I should but weary my Reader, and spend paper and Inke in vaine, if I should insist to answer them one by one. Only thus much I say of all those Sentences of the Fathers, and Con­stitutions of Princes and Emperours about things Ecclesiasticall, to­gether with the Histories, of the submission of some Ecclesiasticall causes to Emperours; Let him who pleaseth read them; And it shall appeare,

1. That some of those things whereunto the power of Princes was applied, were unlawfull.

2. There were many of them things Temporall or Civill, not Ec­clesiasticall or Spirituall, nor such as pertaine to the worshippe of God.

[Page 127] 3. There were some of them Ecclesiasticall or spirituall things, but then Princes did only ratify that which had beene determined by Councells, and punish with the civill sword such as did stubbornly disobey the Churches lawfull constitutions. Neither were Princes allowed to doe any more.

4. Sometimes they interposed their authority and medled in cau­ses spirituall or Ecclesiasticall, even before the definition of Coun­cells: yet did they not judge nor decide those matters, but did only convocate Councells, and urge the Cleargie to see to the misor­dered and troubled estate of the Church, and by their wholesome Lawes & ordinances to provide the best remedies for the same which they could.

5. At other times Princes have done somewhat more in Eccle­siasticall matters: but this was only in extraordinary cases, when the Cleargy was so corrupted, that either through ignorance they were unable, or through malice and perversnesse unwilling to doe their duty in deciding of controversies, making of Canons, using the keyes, and managing of other Ecclesiasticall matters: in which case Princes might and did by their coactive temporall Iurisdiction, avoid dis­order, errour and superstition, and cause a Reformation of the Church.

6. Princes have likewise in rightly constituted and well reformed Churches, by their owne Regall authority, straitly injoyned things pertaining to the worship of God: but those things were the very same which Gods owne written Word had expressely commanded.

7. When Princes went beyond these limits and bounds, they tooke upon them to judge and command more then God hath put within the compasse of their power

But as touching the passages of holy Sripture whichthe B. allead­geth, Sect. 6 I will answer thereto particularly. And first, hee produceth that place Deut. Chap. 17. vers. 19. where the King was appointed to have the Booke of the Law of God with him, that he might learne to feare the Lord his God, and to keep all the words of this Law and these Statutes to doe them. What Logicke (I pray) can from this place inferre that Princes have the supreme power of governing all Ecclesiasticall causes? Next, the B. tells us of Davids appointing of the offices of the Levites, and dividing of their courses, 1 Chron. 23. and his commending of the same to Solomon, 1. Chron 28. But he might have observed, that David did not this as a King, but as a Pro­phet or man of God. 2. Chron. 8. 14. yea those orders and courses of the Levites, were also commanded by other Prophets of the Lord. 2. Chron 29. 25. As touching Solomons appointing of the courses and charges of the Priests, Levites, & Porters, he did it not of himselfe, nor by his owne Princely authority, but because David the man of God had so commanded, 2. Chron. 8 14. For Solomon received [Page 128] from David, a patterne for all that which he was to doe in the worke of the house of the Lord, and also for the courses of the Priests and Levites, 1. Chron. 28. 11. 12 13.

The B [...]comes on and tells us that Hezekiah did applie his Regall Sect. 7 power to the Reformation of the Levites, and of the worship of God in their hands; 2. Chrō 29. 5. saying: Heare me yee Levites, sanctify now your sel­ves and sanctify the house of the Lord God of your fathers, and carry forth the filthinesse out of the holy place.

Ans. He exhorted them to no more then Gods Law required of them. For the Law ordained them to sanctify themselves, and to doe the service of the house of the Lord, Num. 8. 6. 11. 15. & 18. 32. So that Hezekiah did here constitute nothing by his owne arbitrement and authority, but plainly sheweth his warrant, vers. 11. The Lord hath chosen you to stand before him, to serve him, and that you should minister unto him. But the B, further alleadgeth out of 2 Chron. 31. that Hezekiah appointed the courses of the Priests and Levites, every man accor­ding to his service.

Answ. He might have read 2. Chron. 29. 25. that Hezekiah did all this according to the commandement of David & of God the Kings Seer, and Nathan the Prophet: for so was the commandement of the Lord by his Prophets. And who doubteth but Kings may command such things as God hath commanded before them.

The next example which the B. alleadgeth, is out of 2. Chron. 35. Sect. 8 where we read that Iosias did set the Priests and Levites againe in their charges. Which example cannot prove that Kings have the supreme power of governing Ecclesiasticall causes, unlesse it be e­vinced that Iosias changed those orders and courses of the Levites & Priests, which the Lord had commanded by his Prophets 2 Chron. 29. 25. and that he did institute other orders by his owne Regall au­thority. Whereas the contrary is manifest from the Text. For Iosias did only set the Priests and Levites those charges and courses, which had been assigned unto them after the writing of David and Solomon vers. 4. and by the commandement of David, and Asaph, and Heman, and Ieduthun the Kings Seer, vers 15. Neither did Iosias command the Priests and Levites, any other service then that which was wri­ten in the booke of Moses vers. 12. So that from his example it only followeth, that when Princes see the state of Ecclesiasticall persons corrupted, they ought to interpose their authority for reducing them to those orders and functions, which Gods Word comman­deth.

Moreover, the B. objecteth the example of Ioash: who, while he Sect. 8 yet did right in the dayes of Iehojada the Priest, 2. Chrō 24. sent the Priests & Levites, to gather from all Israell, money for repairing the house of the Lord: and when they dealt negligently in this businesse, he transferred the charge of the same unto others, and making himselfe [Page 129] the Keeper of the holy money, did both prescribe how it was to be [...]eboursed, and likewise take from good Iehojada the Preist the ad­ministration of the same. Now, where he hath read that Ioash made himselfe the keeper of the money and prescribed how it should be deboursed, also that he tooke the administration [...]rom Iehojada; I can not guesse, or the Text hath no such thing in it, but the contrary, viz. that the Kings Scri [...]e, and the High Preists Officer, keeped the mo­ney and deboursed the same, as the King and Iehojada prescribed unto them. As to that which he truly alleadgeth out of the holy Text, I answer, 1. The collection for repairing the house of the Lord was no humane ordinance, for Ioash sheweth the Commandement of Moses for it, Vers. 6. having reference to Exod. 30. 12. 13. 14. No other collections did Ioash impose, I. Wolph. in 2. Reg. 12. but those quae divino sure debebantur. 2. As for the taking of the charge of this collection from the Priests, he behooved to doe so, because they had still ne­glected the worke, when the three & twentie yeare of his raigne was come. And so say we, that when the ministers of the Church faile to doe their duty, in providing that which is necessary for the service of God, Princes ought by some other meanes to cause these things be redressed. 3. Joash did nothing with these money [...]s without Iehojada, but Id. I. bid. Pontifex eas primum laborantibus tribuit, tum in aedis s [...]crae re­stauration em maxime converti [...]. 4. And what if he had done this by himselfe? I suppose no man will reckon the hiring of Masons and Carpenters, with such as wrought Iron and Brasse, or the gathering of money for this purpose, among spirituall things or causes. 5. And if these employments about Solomons Temple were not to be called Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall, farre lesse about our materiall Churches, which are not holy nor consecrated as Solomons was for a typicall use. Wherefore without all prejudice to our cause, we may and doe commend the building and repairing of Churches by Christian Princes.

But the B. returneth to another Example in Solemon, which is the Sect. 10 putting of Abjathar the chief Priest from his Office, and surrogating of another in his place. Answ. Abjathar was civilly dead, as the Lawyers use to speake, and it was only by accident or by consequent that Solomon put him from his Office: he sent him away to Anathoth, because of his treasonable following and aiding of Adonijah, where­upon necessarily followed his falling away from the honour, dignity and Office of the High-Priest: whence it only followeth, that if a Minister be found guilty of l [...]se Majesty, the King may punish him either with banishment or proscription, or some such civill punish­ment, whereupon by consequence will follow his falling from his Ec­clesiasticall office and dignity. 2. As for Solomons putting of Za­dok in the roome of Abjathar, it maketh as litle against us, for Zadok did fall to the place jure divino.

[Page 130] The honour and office of the High-Priesthood was given to Elia­zer the Elder Sonne of Aaron, and was to remaine in his family. How it came to passe that it was transferred to Eli, who was of the family of Ithamar, we read not. Alwayes after that Abjathar, who was of the family of Ithamar, and descended of Eli, had by a capitall crime fallen from it, it did of very right belong to Zadoke, who was the chiefe of the family of Eliazer. And so all this flowed, not from Solomons, but from Gods owne authority.

The B. remembreth another example in Hezekiah to, telling us Sect. 11 that he removed the high places, and brake the Images, and cut downe the groves, and brake in peeces the brazen serpent, when the children of Israel did burne incense vnto it. Now, we wish from our hearts, that from this example all Christian Kings may learne to remove and destroy the monuments of Idolatry out of their Dominions. And if it be said that in so doing, Kings take vpon them to governe by their Princely authority, an Ecclesiasticall or spirituall cause; It is easily answered that when they destroy Idola­trous monuments, they doe nothing by their owne authority, but by the authority of Gods Law, Exod. 33 13. & 34. 13. 14. Deut 7 5. Isa. 30. 22. which commandeth to abolish such monuments, and to root out the very names of Idolls: which com­mandement is to be executed by the coaction of temporall power.

Finally, saith the B. the Kings of the Iewes 1. Kings 23. & 2 [...] Chron. 19 have in the Temple propounded the Law of the Lord to the people, renued the covenant Sect. 12 of religion, pulled downe profane Altars, broken downe Idols, slaine idolatrous Priests, liberated their Kingdome from abomination, pur­ged the Temple, 2 Chrō. 34 & 35. proclaimed the keeping of the passeover, and of the Feast of the Dedication, Esther. 9. 26. and have also instituted new Feasts. For all which things they are in 2. Chrō. 29. 2 & 34. 2. &c. the Scriptures much praised by the Holy Spirit. x 1. Mac­cab. 4. 59.

Answ. True it is, Iosias did reade the Law of the Lord to the people in the Temple, and made a covenant before the Lord, but 1. He prescribed nothing at his owne pleasure, only he required of the people to walke after the Lord, and to keepe his commaunde­ments.

2. Neither yet did he this worke by himselfe, but did convocate a Counsell of the Prophets Priests and Elders of Israel, for the advan­cing of that reformation, 2. Kings. 23. 1.

3. And if he had done it by himselfe, yet we are to remember that the reformation of a Church generally and greatly corrupted, craveth the more immediate intermedling of Princes, and a great deale more then can be ordinarily and orderly done by them, in a Church already reformed. The slaying of the Idolatrous Priests had also the warrant and authority of the Law of God, which ap­pointed a capitall punishment for blasphemers, Zanch. in 3. praec. 575. 576. 577. 578. or such as in [Page 131] contempt of God, and to rub some ignominie upon his name, did traduce his doctrine and religion, and either detract from him and attribute to Idolls that which appertained properly unto him, or else attributed unto him either by enunciation or imprecation, such things as could not stand with the glory of the Godhead. Con­cerning the abolishing of Idolatry and all the reliques thereof, we have answered that it was commaunded by God. The keeping of the passeover was also commaunded in the Law: so that when Heze­kiah enjoyned it, he did but publish Gods owne expresse ordi­nance.

Last of all touching the two remanent examples. 1. The Feast of the Dedication was not ordained by the sole authority of Iudas, but 1. Mac. 4. 59. by his brethren and by the whole Congregation of Israel: and the dayes of Purim Est. 9. 20. 21. were established by Mordecai a Prophet.

2. We have else-where made it evident, that the dayes of Purim by their first Institution were only dayes of civill joy and solemnity: and that the Feast of the Dedication was not lawfully institu­ted. d Supra Cap. 6.

Thus having dismissed the B. we will make us for clearing the pur­pose in hand. But before we come to shew particularly what Prin­ces Sect. 13 may doe, and what they may not doe, in making Lawes about things Ecclesiasticall, we will first of all lay downe these Propositi­ons following:

1. Whatsoever the power of Princes be in things and causes Ec­clesiasticall, it is not (sure) absolute nor unbounded. Solius Dei est, saith Promp [...]. morall. in Domin. 1. quadrag. text. 10. Stapleton, juxta suam sanctissimam voluntatem, actio­n [...] suas omn [...] dirigere, & omnia facere quaecunque voluit. And a­gaine: Vis tuam voluntatem esse regulam rerum omnium, ut om­nia siant pro tuo beneplacito? Whether we respect the persons or the places of Princes, their power is confined within certaine li­mits, so that they may not enjoyne whatsoever they list. As tou­ching their persons: Bishop Spotswood would doe no lesse then war­rant the Articles of Perth, by King Iames his personall qualities. His person Serm. in Perth. as­semb. saith he, were he not our Soveraigne, gives them suf­ficient authority, being recommended by him: For he knowes the na­ture of things, and the consequences of them, what is fit for a Church to have, and what not, better then we doe all.

I meane not to derogate any thing from King Iames his due de­served praise, nor to obscure his never dying memory. Only I say, that such a Prince as the B. speaketh of, who knoweth what is fit for a Church to have, and what not, better then many learned and godly Pastors assembled in a Synode, is Rara a [...]is in terris nigroque simillima Cygno. For a Prince beeing but a man, and so subject to errour: being [Page 132] but one man, and so in the greater hazard of errour, for plus vident oculi, quam oculus; and woe to him that [...] alone, when he falleth, for he hath not another to help him up saith Eccl. 4. 10. the wisest of mortall Kings: being also compassed & assailed with so many and so mighty tenta­tions, which other men are free of: and lastly, beeing so taken up and distracted with secular affaires and cares, that very seldome is he found well versed or singularly learned in the controversies of Reli­gion: may not such a one in the common sence of Christians, be thought more like to faile & miscarry, in his judgement about things Ecclesiasticall, then a whole Synod, wherein there are many of the learned, judicious and godly Ministers of the Church. Papists tell us, that they will not defend the personall actions of the Pope, Onuphr de. vit. Hadr. 6. quasi ipse solus omnibus horis sapore potuerit, id quod recte nemini concessum perhibetur. Their own records let the world know the abominable vices and impieties of Popes. Witnesse Platina, in the life of John the 10. Benedict the 4. John the 13. Boniface the 7. Iohn the 20:—Iohn the 22. Paul the 2. &c. And further when our Adversaries dispute of the Popes infallability, they graunt, for his owne person, he may be an Heriticke: only they hold that he cannot erre e Cathedra.

And shall we now Idolize the persons of Princes more then Papists doe the persons of Popes? Or shall Papists object to us, that we ex­toll the judgement of our Princes to a higher degree of authority & infallibility, then they yeeld to the judgement of their Popes? Alas, why would we put Weapons in the hands of our Adversaries?

But what say we of Princes in respect of their place and Sect. 14 calling? Is not their power absolute in that respect? Recte quidam, saith De im­per. aut. lib. 2. cap. 55. Saravia, illiberalis & inverecundi censet esse ingenij, de Princi­pum potestate & rebus gestis questionem movere, quando & Imperator sacrilegium esse scribit, de eo quod a Principe factum est disputare. praelect. tom. 1. pa. 370. 372. & tom. 2. pag. 41. Camero holdeth that in things pertaining to externall order in re­ligion, Kings may command what they will pr [...] authoritate, and for­bidde to seeke another reason beside the Majesty of their authority: yea that vvhen they command frivola, dura, & iniqua respectu nostri, our consciences are bound by those their frivolous and unjust com­maundements, not only in respect of the end, because scandall should possibly follovv in case vve obey them not, but also Iubentis respectu, because the Apostle biddeth us, obey the Magistrate for conscience sake. At the reading of these Passages in Sarauia & Camero, horrour and amazement have taken hold on me. O wisedome of God, by whom Kings doe raigne & Princes decree Iustice upon whose thigh & vesture is written King of Kings & Lord of Lords; make the Kings of the Earth to know that their Lawes are but Regulae regulatae, and mensurae mensuratae. Be wise now therefore. O ye Kings: Be instruc­ted ye Iudges of the Earth. Serve the Lord with feare, and rejoyce [Page 133] with trembling. Kisse the Sonne, and lay downe your Crownes at he feete of the Lambe Calv. in Psal. 2. that sits upon the Throne, discite justitiam moniti, and remember that this is the beginning of wisedome, by casting pride away, to addict yourselves to the Dominion of Christ: Who albeit he hath given the Kingdomes of this world unto your hands, and Non a [...]feret mortalia, Qui regna dat caelestia; Psal. 9. 6, & 22. 21. yet hath he kept the governement of his Church upon his owne shoulder. So that Rex non est proprie Rector Ecclesiae, sed Reipublicae: Ecclesiae ve­ro Defensor est. O all yee Subjects of Kings and Princes understand that in things pertaining to the Church and Kingdome of Christ, 1. Cor. 7. 23. ye are not the Servants of men; to doe what they list, and that for their listing. The Apostle Rom. 13. (o) urgeth not obedience to Magistrates for conscience sake, but only subjection for conscience (a) Taylor. on Tit. 3. 1. pag. 543. sake. For Pareus in illum locum. he concludeth his whole purpose Vers. 7. Render therefore to all their dues, tribute to whom tribute is due, custome to whom custome, feare to whom feare, honour to whom honour. There is not in all that Chapter one word of obedience to Magistrats.

And as touching the binding power of their Lawes, be they never so just they cannot bind you any other way nor in respect of the ge­nerall end of them: For per se they cannot bind more then the Chur­ches Lawes can. Which things Iren. lib 2. cap. 4. §. 3. D. Forbesse also hath told you out of Calvine.

And hence it followeth, that whensoever you may omit that which Princes enjoyne, without violating the Law of Charity, you are not holden to obey them, for the Majesty of Princely authority. Be ashamed O ye Formalists of your ascribing to Princes a Iurisdic­tion so absolute. Bury it in the grave of eternall silence. Tell it not in Rome: publish it not among the Vashals of Antichrist, lest the daughters of Babylon rejoice, lest the worshippers of the Beast triumph. O how small confidence have the Cardinals, I say not now into the Popes person, but even into his chaire, when beeing entered in the Conclave, for the election of a new Pope, they spend the whole day following in the making of Lawes, belonging to the admi­nistration & handling of all things by him. who shalbe advāced to the Popedome: which lawes every one of them subscribeth, and swareth to observe, if he be made Pope, as Onuphrius writeth. Though the Popes owne creatures the Iesuites in their Schooles and Bookes, must dispute for his infallibility e Cathedra, yet we see what trust the wise Cardinalls shut up in the Conclave, doe put in him, with what bound they tie him & within what bounds they con­fine his power. Albeit the Pope after he is created observeth not strictly this oath, as Lib. 1. that wise writer of the History of the Coun­cell of Trent noteth: yet let me say once againe; shall we set up the power of Princes higher, or make their power lesse limited, then Papists doe the power of Popes? Or shall they set bounds, to Popes, and we set none to Princes.

[Page 134] But I find my self a little digressed, after the roving absurdities Sect. 15 of some opposites. Now, therefore to returne, the second Proposition which I am here to lay downe, before I speak particularly of the pow er of Princes, is this, whatsoeuer Princes can commendably either do by themselves, or command to be done by others, in such matters as any way pertaine to the externall worship of God, must be both law ful in the nature of it, and expedient in the use of it, which conditions if they be wanting, their commandemēts cannot bind to obedience.

For Pareus in Rom. 13. 4. 1. The very ground and reason wherefore we ought to obey the Magistrate, is, for that he is the Minister of God, or a Deputie set in Gods stead to us. Now, he is the Minister of God, only for our good, Rom. 13 4. Neither were he Gods Minister, but his owne Ma­ster, if he should rule at his pleasure [...], and command things which serve not for the good of the Subjects. Since therefore the com­maundements of Princes bind only so farre as they are the Mi­nisters of God for our good: and Gods Ministers they are not, in commanding such things as are either in their nature unlawfull, or in their use inconvenient: it followeth that such commaundements of theirs cannot bind.

2. Princes cannot claime any greater power in matters Ecclesiasti­call, then the Apostle Paul had, or the Church her selfe yet hath: that is to say, Princes may not by any Temporall or Regall Iurisdiction urge any Ceremony or forme of Ecclesiasticall Policy, which the A­postle once might not, and the Church yet may not urge by a Spiri­tuall Jurisdiction. But neither had the Apostle of old, nor hath the Church now power to urge either a Ceremony or any thing else, which is not profitable for edifying. Paul could doe nothing against the truth but for the truth, and his power was given him to edifica­tion and not to destruction, 2. Cor. 13. 8 10. Neither shall Ecclesiasti­call persons to the worlds end receive any other power, beside that which is for the perfecting of the Saints, and for the edifying of the body of Christ. Eph. 4. 12. Therefore as D. Forb. Iren. lib 2 cap 4s. 10. the Churches power is only to prescribe that which may edify, so the power of Princes is in like sort given to them for edification, and not for destruction, neither can they doe ought against the truth, but only for the truth.

3. We are bound by the Law of God, to doe nothing which is not good & profitable or edifying, 1. Cor. 6. 12. & 14. 26. This Law of Charity is of a higher and straiter bound then the Law of any Prince in the World.

The generall rule of all indifferent things, is, let all things be done to edification: And Rō. 15. 1. 2. let every man please his neighbour to edification, even as Christ pleased not himself, but others. Whatso­ever then is of this ranke, which either would weaken or not edify our [Page 135] brother, he it never so lawfull, never so profitable to our selves, never so powerfully by earthly authority injoyned; Christians who are not borne vnto themselues, but vnto Christ, vnto his Church, and fellowe members, must not dare to m [...]ddle with it, saith Taylor on Tit. 1. 15. pag. 295. one well to our pur­pose.

A third Proposition I premit, which is this. Since the power Sect. 16 of Princes to make Lawes about things Ecclesiasticall, is not absolute, but bound and adstricted vnto things lawfull and expedient, which sort of things, and no other, we are allowed to doe for their com­mandements: and since Princes many times may and doe not only transgresse those bounds and limits, but likewise pretend that they are within the same, when indeed they are without them, and in­ioyne things vnlawfull and in convenient, vnder the name, title, and shew of things lawfull and convenient: Therefore it is most necessary as well for Princes to permit, as for Subjects to take liberty to trie and examine by the judgement of discretion, everie thing which auctority enjoyneth whether it be agreeable or repuguant to the rules of the word, and if after triall it be found repugnant to abstaine from the doing of the same.

For 1. The word teacheth us, that the spirituall man judgeth all things 1. Cor. 2. 15. trieth the things that are different. Phil. 1. 10. hath his sences exercised to discerne both good and evill. Hebr. 5. 14. and that every one who wold hold fast that which is good, and ab­staine from all appearance of evill, must first prove all things. 1. Thessal. 5. 21.

2. Whatsoever is not of faith is sinne Rom. 14. 23. But whatso­ever a man doeth without the triall, Knowledge, and persuasion of the lawfullnesse of it, by the word of God, that is not of faith. Ergo a sinne. It is the word of God, and not the arbitrement of Princes wehereupon faith is grounded. And though the word may be withoutfaith, yet faith can not be without the word. By it therefore must a man trie and know assuredly the lawfullnesse of that which he doth.

3. Everie one of vs shall give account of himself to God. But as we cannot give an account to God of those actions which wee have done in obedience to our Prince, except we have examined [...] considered, and vnderstood the lawfullnesse of the same: so an account could not be required of us for them, if we were bound to obey and to keep all his ordinances, in such sort that we might not trie and examine them, with full liberty to refuse those which we judg out of the word to be vnlawfull or inconvenient: for then Princes ordinances were a most sufficient warrant to us: we needed trie no more▪ let him make an account to God of his command: we have acount to make of our obedience.

4. If we be bound to receive and obey the lawes of Princes, [Page 136] without making a free triall and examining of the equity of the same, then wee could not be punished for doing [...] ▪ willingly and in ignorance, things unlawfull prescribed by them. Whereas every soule that sinneth shall dye; and when the blind leads the blind, he who is ledde falls in the ditch as well as his leader.

5. No man is permitted to doe every thing which seemeth right in his eyes, and to follow every conceit which takes him in the head: but every man is bound Gal. 6. 16. to walke by a rule: But the Law of a Prince cannot be a rule, except it be examined, whether it, be consonant to the Word of God. Index secundum legem, and his Law is only such a rule as is ruled by a higher rule: In so farre as it is ruled by the owne rule of it, in as farre it is a rule to us: and in so farre as it is not ruled by the owne rule of it, in as farre it is not a rule to us. Quid ergo? an non licebit Christiano cuique convenientiam regula & regulati (ut vocant observare? saith Ani­mad. in Bell. cont. 1. lib. 3. cap. 10. Iunius.

6. The rule whereby we ought to walke in all our wayes, and ac­cording to which we ought to frame all our actions, is provided of God Psal. 9. 7. a stable and sure rule, that it being obserued and taken heed unto, may guide and direct our practise aright, about all those things which it prescribeth. But the Law of a Prince (if we should without triall and examination take it for our rule,) cannot be such a stable and sure rule. For put the case that a Prince enjoyne two things which sometimes fall out to be incompatible, and cannot stand to­gether, in that case his Law cannot direct our practise, nor resol [...] [...] what to doe. Whereas God hath so provided for us, that the case can never occurre, wherein we may not be resolved what to doe, if we observe the rule which he hath appointed us to walke by.

7. Except this Iudgement of discretion which we plead for, be permitted unto us, it will follow that in the point of obedience we ought to give no lesse, but as much honour unto Princes, as unto God himselfe: For when God publisheth his Commandements unto us, what greater honour could we give him by our obedience, then to doe that which he commandeth, for his owne sole will and authority, without making further enquiry for any other reason.

8. The Apostle, 1. Cor. 7. 23. forbiddeth us to be the servant of men, that is, to doe things for which we have no other warrant, be­side the pleasure and will of men. Which interpretation is groun­ded upon other places of Scripture, that teach us, we are not bound to obey men in any thing, which we know not to be according to the will of God, Eph. 6 6. 7. that we ought not to live to the lusts of men but to the will of God, 1. Pet. 4. 2. and that therefore we ought in every thing to prove what is acceptable unto the Lord, Eph. 5. 20.

9. They who cleanse their way, must take heed thereto according [Page 137] to the Word, Psal. 119. 9. Therefore if wee take not heed to our way according to the Word, we doe not cleanse it. They who would walke as the Children of light, must have the Word for a lampe unto their feet, and a light unto their path, Psal. 119. 105. Therefore if we goe in any path, without the light of the Word to direct us, we walke in darkenesse and stumble, because we see not where wee goe. They who would not bee unwise, but walke circumspectly, must understand, what the will of the Lord is, Eph. 5. 17. There­fore, if we understand not what the Will of the Lord is concerning that which we doe, we are unwise, and walke not circumspectly.

10. Zanch. in Phil. 1. 10. Dona Dei in Sanctis non sunt otiosa. Whatsoever Grace God giveth us, it ought to be used and exercised, and not to lie idle in us. But Id. ibid. God giveth us actionem cognoscendi, [...] discernen­di, &c. a certaine measure of the Spirit of Discretion, to teach us what to choose as good, and what to refuse as evill, 1 Ioh. 2. 27. The same anointing teacheth you of all things, 1 Cor. 2. 15. He that is Spiri­tuall judgeth all things. Therefore God would have us to exercise that measure of the gift of discretion, which he hath bestowed on us, in discerning of things which are propounded to us, whether they ought to be done or not.

11. Doe not our Divines plead for this judgement of private dis­cretion, which ought to be permitted to Christians, when any thing is propounded to bee believed or done by them? And this their judgement is to bee seene in their writings against Papists about the Controversies de interpretatione Scripturae, deside implicita, &c.

12. The Bishop of Sarisburie in his Prelections de judice contro­versiarum, doth often and in many places commend unto Chri­stians, the same judgement of discretion which wee stand upon, & holdeth it necessary for them to trie and examine whatsoever either Princes or Prelates command them to doe. Coactiva, &c. The coactive Power of a Prince cap. 14. pag. 77. saith he, doth not absolutely bind the Subject, but onely with this condition, except he would compell him to that which is unlawfull. Therefore there is ever left unto Subjects a Power of proving and judging in their owne mind, whether that which is propounded be ungodly and unlawfull or not: and if it be ungodly, that which the King threatneth should be suffered, rather then that which he commandeth bee done. This Augustine hath taught &c. And whereas it might be objected, that this maketh a Subject to be his Princes Iudge, Ibid. c. 26. p. 152. he answereth thus. Non se &c, He maketh not himselfe anothers Iudge, who pondereth and examineth a Sentence publi­shed by another, in so farre as it containeth something either to be done or to be believed by him; but onely hee maketh himselfe the Iudge of his owne ac­tions. For, howsoever he who playeth the Iudge, is truly said to judge, yet every one who judgeth is not properly sayd to play the Iudge. Hee playeth the Iudge, who in a externall Court pronounceth a Sentence, which by force of [Page 138] Iurisdiction toucheth another: but he judgeth, who in the inferiour Court of his owne private Conscience conceiveth such a Sentence of the things to be belie­ved or done, as pertaineth to himselfe alone: This latter way private men both may and ought to judge of the Sentences and Decrees of Magistrates, neither by so doing doe they constitute themselves Iudges of the Magistrates, but Iudges of their owne actions.

Finally, there is none of our Opposites, but saith so much as in­ferreth Sect. XVII the necessity of this Iudgement of private and practicall dis­cretion, for every smatterer among them hath this much in his mouth, that if the King or the Church commande any thing un­lawfull, then we ought to obey God rather then men: but when they commaund things indifferent and lawfull, then their Ordinance ought to be our Rule. But (goodmen) will they tell us, how wee shall know, whether the things which the King, or the Church (as they speake) doe injoyne, are lawfull or unlawfull, indifferent, or not indifferent; and so we shall be at a point. Dare they say, that we must judge those things indifferent which our Superiours judge to be such, and those unlawfull, which our Superiours so judge of? Nay, then they should deliver their distinction in other tearmes, and say thus: If our Superiours injoyne any thing which they judge to be unlawfull, and which they command us so to account of, then we ought to obey God rather then men: but if they injoyne such things as they judge to be indifferent, and which they com­mand us so to account of, then we ought to obey their Ordinance. Which distinction me thinks, would have made Heraclitus himselfe to fall a lauging with Democritus. What then remaineth? Surely our Opposites must either say nothing, or else say with us, that it is not onely a Liberty but a duty of Inferiours, not to receive for a thing lawfull that which is injoyned by Superiours, because they account it and call it such, but by the judgement of their owne discretion following the rules of the Word, to trie and examine, whether the same be lawfull or unlawfull.

These Praecognita beeing now made good, come wee to speake Sect. XVIII more particularly of the Power of Princes to make Lawes and Ordi­nances about things which concerne the Worship of God. The purpose we will unfold in three distinctions, 1. of things. 2. of times 3. of ties. First, let us distinguish two sorts of things in the Worship of God, viz. things substantiall, & things circumstantiall. To things substantiall we referre as well sacred and significant Ceremonies as the more necessary and essentiall parts of Worship, and in a word, all things which are not mere externall circumstances such as were not particularly determinable within those bounds which it pleased God to set to his written Word, and the right ordering whereof, as it is common to all humane societies whether civill or sacred, so it is investigable by the very light and guidance of naturall reason. That [Page 139] among this kind of mere circumstances, sacred signifiant Cere­monies can not be reckoned, we have otherwhere made it evident. Now therefore of things pertaining to the substance of Gods wor­ship, whether they be sacred Ceremonies, or greater and more neces­sary duties, we say that Princes have not power to injoyne any thing of this kynd, which hath not the plaine and particular Institution of God himself in Scripture. They may indeed and ought to publish Gods owne ordinances and commandements, and by their coactive temporall power urge and inforce the observation of the same. Notwithstanding it is a Princes duty, Danaus pol. Chryst. lib. 6. Cap. 3. that in the worship of God, whether internall or externall, he move nothing, he prescribe nothing, except that which is expressely delivered in Gods owne written Word. We must beware we confound not things which have the plaine warrant of Gods Word, with things devised by the will of man. David, Iehosaphat, Heze­kiah, Iosiah, and other Kings among the people of God, did as well laudably as lawfully, injoyne and command that worship and for me of Religion, which God in his Law and by his Prophets commanded; and forbid, avoid, and abolish such corruptions, as God had for bid­den before them, and appointed to be abobished: whence it follow­eth not that Kings may in joyne things which want the warrant of the word, but only this much, which we all commend, viz. Zanch. in 4. praec. col. 791. Polan. synt. lib. 10. cap. 65. That a Christian Princes office in Religion, is diligently to take care that in his Domi­nion or kingdome, Religion out of the pure word of God, expounded by the word of God it self, and understood according to the first Principles of faith (which others call the analogy of faith) either be instituted; or beeing instituted be kept pure; or beeing corrupted be restored and reformed: that false doctrines, abuses, Idolls, and superstitions, be taken away to the glory of God, and to his owne and his Subjects salvation.

But in all the Scripture Princes have neither a commendable ex­ample, Sect. XIX not any other warrant, for the making of any innovation in Religion, or for the prescribing of sacred significant Ceremonies of mens devising. Ieroboam caused a change to be made in the Cere­monies and forme of Gods worship. Whereas God ordained the Arke of the Covenant to be the signe of his presence, and that his glory should dwell between the Cherubims. Ieroboam set up two Calves to be the signes representative of that God who brought Israel out of Egypt. And this he meanes while he saith, 1. King 12. 28. Behold thy Gods, &c. giving to the signes the thing signified. Whereas God ordained Ie­rusalem to be the place of worship, and all the sacrifices to be brought to the Temple of Solomon, Ieroboam made, Dan and Bethel to be places of worship, and built there Altars and high places for the sacrifices. Whereas God ordained the sonnes of Aaron onely to be his Priests, Ieroboam made Priests of the lowest of the people, which were not of the sonnes of Levi. Whereas God ordained the feast of Tabernacles to be kept on the fifteenth day of the seaventh moneth, Ieroboam ap­pointed [Page 140] it on the sisteenth day of the eight moneth. Now, if any Prince in the world might have faire pretences for the making of such innovations in Religion. Ieroboam much more. He might alledge for his changing of the signes of Gods presence, and of the place of worship, that since Rehoboams wrath was incensed against him, and against the ten Tribes which adhered vnto him, (as appeareth by 2. Chron. 13. 6. the accounting of them to be rebells, and by 2. Chron 11. 1. the gathering of a huge armie, for bringing the kingdome againe to Rehoboam) it was no longer safe for his subjects to goe up to Ierusalem to worsh p, in which case God who required mercy more then sacrifice, would beare with their changing of a fewe Ceremonies, for the safety of mens lives. For his putting downe of the Priests and Levites, and his ordaining of other Priests which were not of the sonnes of Levi: he might pretend that they were rebellious to him, in that Martir. in 1. Reg. 8. 31. hey would not assent vnto his new ordinances, which he had enacted for the safe­tie and security of his Subjects, and that they did not only simply refuse obedience to these his ordinances, but in their refusall shew themselves so stedfastly minded, that they wolud refuse and with stand even to the suffering of deprivation and deposition; and not only so, but likewy se 2. Chron. 11. 16. drew after them many others of the rest of the Tribes, to be of their judgement, and to adhere to that manner of worship which was retained in Ierusalem. Lastly, for the change which he made about the season of the feast of Tabernacles, he might have this pretence, that as it was expedient for the strengthening of his king­dome, Martir. in 1. Reg. 8. 32. to drawe and allure as many as could be had, to associat and joyne themselves with him in his forme of worship, (which could not be done if he should keep that feast, at the same time when it was keeped at Ierusalem;) so there was no lesse (if not more) order and decency in keeping it in the eight moneth, Id. ibid. when the fruits of the ground were perfectly gathered in (for thankefull remembrance whereof, that feast was celebrated) then in the seaventh, when they were not so fully collected.

These pretences he might have made yet more plausible, by pro­fessing and avouching, that he intended to worship no Idolls, but the Lord only; that he had not fallen from any thing which was funda­mentall and essentiall in divine Faith and Religion; that the changes which he had made, were only about some alterable Ceremonies, which were not essentiall to the worship of God; and that even in these Ceremonies he had not made any change for his owne will and pleasure, but for important reasons which concerned the good of his Kingdome and saffety of his Subjects. Notwithstanding of all this, the innovations which he made about these Ceremonies of sacred Signes, sacred Places, sacred Persons, sacred Times, are condemned for this very reason, because 1. Kings 22. 33. he devised them of his owne heart, [Page 141] which was enough to convince him of horrible impiety in making Israel to sinne. Moreover, when king Ahaz tooke a patterne of the Altar of Damascus and sent it to Vrijah the Priest, though we can not gather from the Text, that he either intended or pretended any other respect beside 2. Kings 16. 10. 18. the honouring and pleasuring of his Patrone and Protectour the king of Assyria, (for of his appointing that new altar, for his owne and all the peoples sacrifices, there was nothing heard till after his returne from Damascus, at which time he beganne to fall backe, from one degree of defection to a greater:) yet this very innovation of taking the patterne of an Altar from Idolaters, is marked as a sinne and a snare. Last of all, whereas many of the kings of Iudah and Israel, did either themselves worship in the groves and the high places, or else at least suffer the people to doe so: hou­soever Hospin. de orig Tēpl. lib. 1. Cap. 1. 10. Wolph. in 2. Reg. 12. 4. they might have alledged specious reasons for excusing themselves, as namely, that they gave not this honour to any strange Gods, but to the Lord only; that they choosed these places only to worship in, wherein God was of olde seene and worshipped by the Patriarchs; that the groves and the high places added a most amiable splendor and beauty, to the worship of God; and that they did con­secratethese places for divine worship, in a good meaning, and with minds wholly devoted to the honour of God: yet notwithstan­ding, because this thing was not commanded of God, neither came it in to his heart, he would admit no excuses, but ever challengeth it as a grievous fault in the governement of those Kings, that the high places were not taken away, and that the people still sacrificed in the high places. From all which examples, we learne how higly God was and is displeased with men, Hospin. ibid. pag. 3. for adding any other sacred Ce­remonies to those which he himselfe hath appointed.

Now as touching the other sort of things which we consider in Sect. XX the Worship of God, namely, things merely circumstantiall, and such as have the very same use and respect in civill, which they have in sacred actions; we hold, that whensoever it happeneth to be the duty and part of a Prince, to institute and injoyne any order or policy in these circumstances of Gods Worship, then he may onely injoyne such an order, as may stand with the observing and follow­ing of the Rules of the Word, whereunto wee are tied in the use and practice of things which are in their generall nature indifferent.

Of these Rules I am to speake in the fourth part of the Dispute. And here I say no more but this: Since the Word commandeth us 1 Cor. 10. 31. to doe all things to the Glory of God, 1 Cor. 14. 26. to doe all things to edi­fying, & Rom. 14. 5. 23. to doe all things in Faith, & full persuasion of the law­fulnesse of that which we doe: therefore there is no Prince in the world who hath Power to command his Subjects, to doe that which should either dishonour God, or not honour him; or that which should either offend their brother, or not edify him, or lastly, that [Page 142] which their conscience either condemneth, or doubteth of. For how may a Prince command that which his Subjects may not doe? But a wonder it were, if any man should so farre refuse to be asha­med, that he would dare to say, we are not bound to order whatsoe­ver we doe according to these Rules of the Word, but onely such matters of private action, wherein we are lest at full liberty, there beeing no Ordinance of Superiours to determine our practi [...]; and that it such an Ordinance be published and propounded unto us, we should take it alone for our Rule, and no longer thinke to examine and order ourpractise by the Rules of the Word.

For, 1. This were as much as to say, that in the circūstances of Gods Worship, we are bound to take heed unto Gods Rules, then onely and in that case, when men give us none of their Rules, which if they doe, Gods Rules must give place to mens Rules, and not theirs to his.

2. If it were so, then we should never make reckoning to God, whether that which wee have done in obedience to Superiours, was right or wrong, good or bad: and we should onely make recko­ning of such things done by us, as were not determined by a hu­mane Law.

3. The Law of Superiours in never the supreame, but ever a sub­ordinate Rule, and (as we said before) it can never be a Rule to us, except in so farre onely, as it is ruled by a higher Rule. Therefore we have [...]ver another Rule to take heed unto, beside their Law.

4. The Scripture speaketh most generally, and admitteth no ex­ception from the Rules which it giveth. Whatsoever ye doe (though commanded by Superiours) doe all to the Glory of God. Let all things (though commanded by Superiours) be done to edifying. Whatsoever is not of Faith (though commanded by Superiours) is sinne.

5. We may doe nothing for the sole will and pleasure of men: for this were to be the Servants of men, as hath been shewed de justit. actual. cap. 41. The Bishop of Sarisburie also assenteth hereunto. Non enim (saith he) Deus vult, ut hominis alicujus voluntatem regulam nostrae voluntatis atque vitae faciams: sed hoc privilegium sibi ac verbo suo reservatum voluit. And againe Pio itaqu [...] animo haec consideratio semper adesse debet, utrum id quod (u) dejudice controv. cap. 26. pag. 153 praecipitur sit divino mandato contrarium, necne: atque ne ex hac parte fal­lantur, adhibedum est illud judicium discretionis, quod nos tantopere ur­gemus.

These things if de im­per. author. lib. 2. c. 52. Saravia had considered, he had not so abso­lutely Sect. XXI pronounced that the Power of Kings may make Constitutions of the places and times, when and where the exercises of Piety may bee con­veniently had: also with what Order, what Rite, what Gesture, what Ha­bite, the Mysteries shall bee more decently celebrated. But what? thought hee, this Power of Kings is not a st [...]cted to the Rules of the Word? have they any Power which is to destruction, and not to edifi­cation? [Page 143] Can they commaund their Subjects to doe any thing in the circumstances of Divine Worship, which is not for the Glory of God, which is not profitable for edifying, and which they can not doe in Faith? Nay, that all the Princes in the world have not such Power as this, will easily appeare to him who attendeth unto the reasons, which wee have propounded. And because men doe easily and ordinarily pretend, that their constitutions are accor­ding to the Rules of the Word, when they are indeed repugnant to the same, therefore we have also proven, that Inferiours may & must trie and examine every ordinance of their Superiours, and that by the judgement of private discretion, following the Rules of the Word. I say, following the Rules of the Word, because wee will never allowe a man to follow Anabaptisticall or Swenckfeldian-like en­thysiasmes and inspirations.

Touching the application of what hath been said, unto the con­troverted Sect. XXII Ceremonies, there needs nothing now to be added. For that they belong not to that sort of things which may be applied to civill uses, with the same respect and account which they have, being applied to religious uses, the account I meane of mere circumstan­ces, serving onely for that common order and decency, which is and should be observed in civill, no lesse then in sacred actions; but that they belong to the substance of Worship, as beeing sacred significant Ceremonies, wherein both holinesse and necessity are placed, and which may not without high sacriledge be used out of the compasse of Worship, wee have elsewhere plainly evinced. And this kinde of things, whensoever they are mens devices, and not Gods Ordinances, can not be lawfully injoyned by Princes, as hath been shewed.

But if any man will needs have these Ceremonies in question, to goe under the name of mere circumstances, let us put the case they were no other, yet our conforming unto them, which is urged, can not stand with the Rules of the Word.

It could not be for the Glory of God, not onely for that it is of­fensive to many of Christs litle ones, but likewise for that it mini­streth occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme; to Atheists, because by these naughty observances they see the Commandements of God made of litle or no effect, and many godly both Persons & Purposes despised and depressed, whereat they laugh in their sleeve, and say, Aha, so would we have it; to Papists, because as by this our Conformity, they confirme themselves in sundry of their errors and superstitions, so perceiving us so litle to abhorre the Pompe & Bravery of their Mother of Harlots, that we care not to borrow from her some of her meretricious trinckets, they promise to them­selves, that in the end we shall take as great a draught of the Cup of the Wine of her Fornications, as they themselves

[Page 144] Neither yet can our conforming unto the Ceremonies pressed on us, be profitable for edifying, for we have given sufficient demon­stration of manifold hurts and inconveniences ensuing thereo [...].

Nor lastly can we conforme to them in Faith, for as our Con­sciences can not finde, so the Word can not afford any warrant for them. Of all which things now I onely make mention, because I have spoken of them enough otherwhere.

The second distinction, which may help our light in this ques­tion Sect. XXIII about the Power of Princes, is of times: for, when the Church and Ministers thereof are corrupted and must be reformed, Princes may doe much more in making Lawes about things Ecclesiasticall, then regularly they may, when Ecclesiasticall Persons are both able and willing to doe their duty, in rightly taking care of all things, which ought to be provided for the good of the Church, and con­servation or purgation of Religion. For (saith [...]nimad. in Bell. cōtr. 4. lib. 1. cap. 12. & 18. Iunius) both the Church, when the joyning of the Magistrate faileth, may extraordinarily doe something, which ordinarily shee can not: and againe, when the Church fai­leth of her duty, the Magistrate may extraordinarily procure, that the Church returne to her duty: that is, in such a case extraordinarily happening, these (Ecclesiasticall Persons) and those (Magistrates) may extraordinarily doe some­thing, vvhich ordinarily they can not. For this belongeth to common Lavv and Equity, that unto extraordinary evils, extraordinary remedies must also be applied. We aknowledge, that it belongeth to Princes, Cartwr. on Math. 22. sect. 3. to reforme things in the Church as often as the Ecclesiasticall Persons shall either through ignorance or disorder of the affection of covetousnesse or ambition, defile the Lords Sanctuary. At such extraordinary times, Princes by their coactive temporall Power, ought to procure & cause a Reformation of a buses, and the avoiding of misorders in the Church, though with the discontent of the Cleargie: for which end and purpose they may not onely injoyne and command the Profession of that Faith, and the Practise of that Religion which Gods Word appointeth, but also prescribe such an order and policy in the circumstances of Divine Worship, as they in their judgement of Christian Dis­cretion, observing and following the Rules of the Word, shall judge and trie to be convenient for the present time and case, and all this under the commination of such temporall losses, paines, or punish­ments, as they shall deprehend to be reasonable. But at other or­dinary times, when Ecclesiasticall Persons are neither through igno­rance unable, nor through malice and perversenesse of affection un­willing, to put order to whatsoever requireth any mutation to bee made in the Church and Service of God, in that case without their advice and consent, Princes may not make an innovation of any Ecclesiasticall Rite, nor publish any Ecclesiasticall Law.

[Page 145] When of the Church. lib. 5. cap. 53. D. Field speaketh of the Power of Princes, to prescribe Sect. XXIV and make Lawes about things spirituall or Ecclesiasticall, he saith, That the Prince may with the advice and direction of his Cleargie, command things pertaining to Gods Worship and Service, both for Profession of Faith, Ministration of the Sacraments, and con­versation fitting to Christians in generall, or men of Ecclesiasticall order in particular, under the paines of Death, Imprisonement, Ba­nishment, Confiscation of goods, and the like: and by his Princely Power establish things formerly defined and decreed against what­soever error, and contrary ill custome and observation. In all this the D. saith very right: but I demaund further these two things. 1. What if the thing have not been decreed before? and what if the free assent of the Cleargie be not had for it? would the D. have said, that in such a case, the Prince hath not Power by himselfe & by his owne sole Auctority, to injoyne it, and to establish a Law concerning it. For example, that K. Iames had not Power by him­selfe to impose the controverted Ceremonies upon the Church of Scotland, at that time, when as no free assent (much lesse the direc­tion) of the Cleargie, was had for them, so neither had they been formerly decreed, but Lawes and Decrees were formerly made a­gainst them. If the D. would have answered affirmatively, that he had this Power, then why did he in a scornefull dissimulation, so circumscribe and limit the Power of Princes, by requiring a former decree, and the free assent of the Cleargie? If he would have answe­red negatively, that he had not such Power, wee should have ren­dred him thankes for his answer. 2. Whether may the Cleargie make any lawes about things pertaining to the Service of GOD which the Prince may not as well by himselfe and without them, constitute and authorize? If the affirmative part bee graunted unto us, we gladly take it. But we suppose D. Field did, and our Op­posites yet doe hold the negative. Whereupon it followeth, that the Prince hath as much, yea the very same Power of making lawes in all Ecclesiasticall things which the Cleargie themselves have when they are conveened in a lawfull and free Assembly, yet I guesse from the D. words, what hee would have replied, namely, that the difference is great betwixt the Power of making Lawes about things Ecclesiasticall, in the Prince, and the same Power in the Cleargie as­sembled togither: for he describeth the making of a Law, to be the prescribing of something, under some paine or punishment, which he that so prescribeth hath Power to inflict. Whereby hee would make it appeare, that he yeeldeth not unto Princes, the same power of Spirituall Iurisdiction, in making of Ecclesiasticall Lawes, which agreeth to the Cleargie: because whereas a Councell of the Cleargie may frame Canons about things which concerne the Worship of God, and prescribe them under the paine of excommunication and [Page 146] other Ecclesiasticall censures, the Ordinance of Princes about such matters, is onely under the paine of some externall or bodily pu­nishment. But I answer Potestas [...] is one thing, and Potest [...] [...] is another thing. When the making of a Law is joyned either with the intention, or with the commination of a Punish­ment, in case of transgression, this is but accidentall and adventi­tious to the Law, not naturally or necessarily belonging to the es­sence of the same. For many Lawes there hath been, and may be, which prescribe not that which they containe under the same paine or punishment. decr. part. 1. dist. 3. c. 4. Gratian distinguisheth three sorts of Lawes. Omnis &c. Fvery Law saith he, either permits something, for example, let a valorous man seeke a reward: or forbids, for example, let it be lawfull to no man to seeke the marriage of holy Virgins: or punisheth, for example, Hee who committeth Murther, let him bee capitally punished. And in this third kinde onely, there is something prescribed under a paine or punishment. It is likewise holden by Aquin. 1 [...] 2 [...] q. 92. art. 2. Schoolemen, that it is a Law which permitteth some indifferent thing, as well, as it which commandeth some vertue, or forbiddeth some vice. When a Prince doth statute and ordaine, that whosoever out of a generous and magnanimous Spirit, will adventure to imbarke and hazard in a certaine military exploit, against a forraine enemy whom he inten­deth to subdue, shall be allowed to take for himselfe in propriety, all the rich spoile which he can lay hold on: there is nothing here prescribed under some paine or punishment, yet is it a Law; and properly so tearmed. And might not the name of a Law be given unto that Edict of King Darius, whereby Dan. 6. hee decreed that all they of his Dominions, should fear the God of Daniel, forasmuch as he is the living and eternall God, who raigneth for ever: yet it prescribed nothing under some paine or punishment to be inflicted by him who so prescribed. Wherefore though the Princ [...] publish­eth Ecclesiasticall Lawes under other paines and punishments, then the Cleargie doth, this sheweth onely that Potest [...]s [...] is not the same, but different in the one and in the other: yet if it be granted, that whatsoever Ecclesiasticall Law, a Synode of the Cleargie hath Power to make and publish, the Prince hath Power to make and publish without them, by his owne sole Auctority, it followeth, that that Power of the Church to make Lawes which is called Potest [...] [...], doth agree as much, as properly, and as directly to the Prince, as to a whole Synode of the Church.

Now therefore we firmly hold, 1. That the Prince may not inno­vate Sect. XXV any Cuctome or Rite of the Church, nor publish any Eccle­siasticall law, without the free assent of the Cleargie, they beeing neither unable for, nor unwilling unto their Ecclesiasticall functions [Page 147] and duties: yea further, that so farre as is possible, the consent of the whole Church ought to be had, whensoever any change is to be made of some order or custome in the Church. For that which toucheth the whole Church, and is to be used by the whole Church Bald de cas. consc lib. 4. cap. 11. c [...]s. 1. ab omnibus etiam merito curatur. Therefore Ide. ibid. when there is any change to be made in the Rites of the Church, merito fit hoc eum omnium ordinum Ecclesiae consensu. Neither was there ever a rightly reformed Church, which was helped and not hurt, by such Rites and Customes, as to their grief and miscontentment Princes did impose upon them. Whence it was, that Ibid, cas. 2 they who were orthodoxe did ever withstand such a Magistrate, as would have by his commandements tied the Church, to that vvhich vvas burdensome to their consciences. That such inconveniencie [...] may be shunned, it is fit, that when any change is to be made in the Policy of a Church, not the Cleargy alone, but the Elders also, and men of understanding among the Laytie, in a lawfull Assem­bly, freely give their voices, and consent thereunto. Good reason have our Writers to holde against Papists, that Laymen ought to have place in Councells, wherein things which concerne the whole Church are to be deliberated upon. 2. Lest it be thought enough that Princes devyse, frame, and establish Ecclesiasticall lawes, as them best liketh, and then for more shew of orderly proceeding, some secrete and sinistrous way extort and procure the assent of the Synod of the Church; therefore we adde, that it belongeth to the Synode (the Cleargie having the chiefe place therein to give direction and advice,) not to receave and approve the definition of the Prince, in things which concerne the worship of God, but it selfe to define and determine what orders and customes are fittest to bee observed, in such things, that thereafter the Prince may approve and ratify the same, and presse them upon his Subjects by his regall coactive Power. To me, it is no lesse then a matter of admiration; how Pralect. tom. 2. pag. 50. Camero could so farre forget himself as to say, that in things per­taining unto Religion, dirigere atque disponere penes magistratum est pro­prie, penes Ecclesiasticos ministerium atque executio proprie, telling us further, that the directing and disposing of such things, doth then only be­long to Ecclesiasticall Persons, when the Church suffereth persecu­tion, or when the Magistrate permitteth, that the matter be judged by the Church.

Our Writers have said much of the power of the Church to make lawes. But this man (I perceive) will correct them all, and will not aknowledge, that the Church hath any power of making lawes, about things pertaining to Religon, (except by accident, because of perse­cution, or permission) but only a power of executing what Princes pl [...]ase to direct. More fully to deliver our minde, we say; that in the making of Lawes about things which concerne the worship of God, the Prince may doe much [...] act [...] i [...]os, but nothing p [...]r act [...] [...]li­citos. [Page] For the more full explanation of which distinction, I liken the Prince to the will of man: the Ministers of the Church, to mans par­ticular sences: a Synod of the Church, to that internall sence which is called Sensus communis, the fontaine & originall of all the externall: things and actions Ecclesiasticall, or such as concerne the worship of God, to the objects and actions of the particular sences: and the power of making Ecclesiasticall lawes, to that power and vertue of the common sence, whereby it perceiveth, discerneth, and judgeth of the objects and actions of all the particular sences. Now as the will commandeth the common sence to discerne and judge of the actions and objects of all the particular sences, thereafter commandeth the eye to see, the eare to heare, the nose to smell, &c yet it hath not power by it selfe to exercice or bring forth any of these actions; for the will can neither see, nor yet judge of the object and action of sight, &c. So the Prince may command a Synode of the Church, to judge of Ecclesiasticall things and actions, and to define what order and forme of policy is most convenient to be observed, in things per­taining to divine worship, and thereafter he may command the par­ticular Ministers of the Church to exercise the workes of their Mini­stery, and to applie themselves unto that forme of Church regi­ment and policy, which the Synode hath prescribed, yet he may not by himselfe define and direct such matters, nor make any lawes thereanent.

For proof of these things I adde, 1. Politicke government, versatur Sect. XXVI circa res terrenas & hominem externum (saith Til. synt. part. 2. disp. 32. th. 33. one of our Writers) Ma­gistratus saith Danaeus. pol. christ. lib. 6. cap. 1. another) instituti sunt a Deo rerum humanarum quae homi­num societati necessariae sunt respectu, & ad earum curam. But they are Ec­clesiasticall Ministers, who are Hebr. 5. 1. ordained for men in thing pertaining to God, that is, in things which pertaine unto Gods worship. It be­longeth not therefore to Princes to governe and direct things of this nature, even as it belongeth not to Pastors to governe and direct earthly things, which are necessary for the externall, and civill socie­tie of men. I meane, ordinarly and regularly, for of extraordinary cases we have spoken other wise. But according to the common order and regular forme, we are ever to put this difference, betwixt Civill and Ecclesiasticall governement, which Fr. Iun. Ecclesiast. lib. 3. cap. 4. one of our best learned Divines hath excellently conceived after this manner. Altera differentia, &c. The other difference (saith he) taken from the matter and subject of the administrations. For we have put in our definition humane things to be the subject of civill administration: but the subject of Ecclesiasticall ad­ministration, we have taught to be things divine and sacred: Things divine and sacred we call, both those which God commandeth for the sanctification of our minde and conscience, as things necessary; and also those which the decency and order of the Church requireth to be ordained and observed, for the profitable and convenient use of the things which are necessary. For example, Prayers; the [Page 149] administration of the Word and Sacraments, Ecclesiasticall censure; are things necessary, and essentially belonging to the Communion of Saincts: but set dayes, set houres, set places, fasts, and if there be any such like, they belong to the de­cency and order of the Church: without which the Church can not be well edified, nor any particular member thereof rightly fashioned, and fitly set in the body. But humane things, we call, such duties as touch the life, the body, goods, and good name, as they are expounded in the seconde table of the Decalogue: for these are the things in which the wholle civill administration standeth. Behold, how the very circumstances, which pertaine to Ecclesiasticall order and decency, are exempted from the compasse of civill governe­ment.

2. Naturall reason (saith de Iudice controv. cap. 14 p. 70. the Bishop of Sarisburie) telleth, that to judge of every thing, and to instruct others, belongeth to them who before others take paines & study to the care and knowledge of the same. So Phisitions judge, which meat is whollesome, which noysome: Lawyers declare, what is just, what unjust: and in all Arts and Sciences, they who professedly place their labour and study in the polishing and practising of the same, both use and ought to direct the judgements of others. Since therefore Gerard. locor. theol. tom. 6. pag. 840. the Ministers of the Church are those quibus Ecclesiae cura incumbit vel maxime; since they doe above and before the civill Magistrate, devote themselves to the care and knowledge of things pertaining to God & his worship, where about they professe to bestow their ordinary study and painefull travell; were it not most repugnant to the law of naturall reason, to say, that they ought not to direct, but be directed by the Magistrate in such matters?

3. The Ministers of the Church are appointed to be Watchmen in the City of God, Mich. 7. 4. and Overseers of the Flocke, Acts. 20. v. 28. But when Princes doe without the direction and definition of Ministers establish certaine Lawes to be observed in things pertai­ning to Religion, Ministers are not then Watchmen and Over­seers, because they have not the first sight, and so can not give the first warning of the change which is to be made in the Church. The Watchmen are upon the walles: the Prince is within the City. Shall the Prince now view and consider the breaches and defects of the City, better and sooner then the Watchmen themselves? Or, shall one within the City tell what should be righted and helped therein, be­fore them who are upon the walles? Againe, the Prince is one of the flocke, and is committed among the rest to the care, attendance, and guidance of the Overseers. And I pray, shall one of the sheep direct the Overseers how to governe and leade the whole flocke, or prescribe to them what orders and customes they shall observe for preventing or avoiding any hurt and inconvenience, which may happen to the flocke?

4. Christ hath ordained men of Ecclesiasticall order, zanch. in Eph. 4. 12. not one­ly for the worke of the Ministery, that is, for preaching the Word and [Page] ministring the Sacraments, for warning and rebuking them who sinne, for comforting the afflicted, for confirming the weake, &c. but also for provyding whatsoever concerneth either the private spirituall good of any member of the Church, which the Apostle calleth the perfecting of the Saincts, or the publike spirituall good of the whole Church, which he calleth the edifying of the body of Christ, Eph. 4. 12. Since therefore the making of Lawes, about such things without which the worship of God can not be orderly nor decently (and so not rightly) performed, concerneth the spirituall good and benefit of the whole Church, and of all the members thereof; it followeth, that Christ hath committed the power of judging, defin­ing, and making lawes about those matters, not to Magistrats, but to the Ministers of the Church.

5. Hebr. 13. 17. The Apostle speaking of the Church Ministers, saith, Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit your selves: for they watch for your soules as they that must give account. Whence we gather, that in things pertaining to God, & which touch the spirituall benefit of the soule, the Ministers of the Church ought to give direction, & to be obeyed, as those who in things of this nature have the rule over all others in the Church, (and by consequence over Princes also,) so that it bee in the Lord. And lest this place and power which is given to Ministers, should either be abused by thēselves to the com­manding of what they will, or envied by others, as too great ho­nour & preeminence, the Apostle sheweth what a painefull charge lieth on them, and what a great reckoning they have to make. They watch for your soules saith he, not only by preaching & war­ning every one, and by offering up their earnest prayers to God for you, but likewise by taking such care of Ecclesiasticall discipli­ne, order, and policy, that they must provide and procure whatso­ever shall be expedient for your spirituall good, and direct you in what convenient and beseeming manner, you are to performe the workes of Gods worship, as also to avoid and shunne every scan­dall and inconveniency, which may hinder your spirituall good. And of these things, whether they have done them or not, they must make account before the judgement seat of the great Bishop of your soules. Surely, if it belong to Princes to define and ordaine, what order & policy should be observed in the Church, what formes and fashiones should be used, for the orderly and right managing of the exercises of Gods worship, how scandalls and misorders are to be shunned, how the Church may be most edified, and the spiri­tuall good of the Saincts best helped and advanced, by whollesome & profitable lawes, concerning things which pertaine to Religion; then must Princes take also upon them a great part of that charge of Pastors, to watch for the soules of men, and must liberat them from beeing lieable to a reckoning for the same.

[Page] 6. [...] the great, Theodosi [...] both the one and the other, Sect. XXVII Martian [...], Charles the great, and other Christian Princes, when there was any change to be made of Ecclesiasticall rites, did not by their owne auctority imperiously injoyne the change, but convo­cate Synods for deliberating upon the matter, as [...] cas. consc. lib. 6. c. 11. cas. 2. Balduine noteth. The great Counsell of Nice was assembled by Constantine, not only because of the Arrian heresie, but also (as lib. 1. cap. 8. Socrates witnesseth) because of the difference about the keeping of Easter. And though the Bishops, when they were assembled did put up to him libells of accusation, one against another, so that there could bee no great hope of their agreement upon fit and convenient Lawes; yet not­withstanding, he did not interpone his owne definition and decree, for taking up that difference about Easter, only he exhorted the Bishops conveened in the Councell to peace, and so commended the whole matter to be judged by them.

7. We have for us the judgment of worthie Divines. A notable Testimony of Iunius we have allready cited. pol. Christ. lib. 6. cap. 3. Dan [...] will not allowe Princes by thēselves to make Lawes about Ecclesiasticall rites, but this he will have done by a Synod. Porro quod ad ritus, &c. Furthermore saith he for Rites & Ceremonies, & that externall order which is necessary in the ad­ministration of the Church, let a Synod of the Church conveene; the supreme and Godly Magistrat both giving commandement for the conveening of it, and beeing present in it. And let that Synod of the Church lawfully assembled, define what should be the order and externall regiment of the Church. This decree of the Ecclesiasticall Synod, shall the godly and supreame Magistrat afterward confirme, stablish, and ratify by his edict. In. 2. Reg. 12. 5. Ioh. Wolphius ob­serveth of King Ioash, that he did not by himself take order for the reparation of the Temple, nor define what was to be done unto eve­ry breach therein, but committed this matter to be directed and ca­red for by the Priests, whom it chiefly concerned, commanding them to take course for the reparation of the breaches of the house, wheresoever any breach should be found, and allowing them money for the worke. Whereupon he further noteth, that as the superior part of mans soule, doth not it self, heare, see, touch, walke, speake, but commandeth the eares, eyes, hands, feet, and tounge, to doe the same, so the Magistrat should not himselfe either teach, or make lawes, but command that these things be done by the Doctors and Teachers. Cartwright and Pareus upon Hebr. 13. 17. tell the Papists, that we aknowledge, Princes are holden to be obedient unto Pa­stors, in things that belong unto God, if they rule according to the Word. Which could not be so, if the making of Lawes about things pertaining to God and his worship, did not of right and due belong unto Pastors, but unto Princes themselves. Our secound Booke of Discipline Chap. 12. ordaineth. The Ecclesiasticall Assemblies have their place: vvith povver to the Kirke to appoint times and places convenient▪ for [Page] the same, and all men as vvell Magistrats, as inferiours, to be subject to the judgement of the same in Ecclesiasticall causes. ubi su­pra. Balduine holdeth, that a Prince may not by himself injoyne any new Ecclesiasticall rite, but must convocat a Synod, for the deliberation and definition of such things. And what meane Perk. on Revel. 3. 7. our Writers, when they say, that Kings have no spirituall, but only a civill power in the Church? As actions are discerned by the objects, so are powers by the actions: If therefore Kings doe commendably by themselves make lawes, about things pertaining to Gods worship, which is an spirituall action, then have they also a spirituall power in the Church. But if they have no spirituall power, that is, no power of spirituall jurisdiction, how can they actually exerce spirituall jurisdiction? That the making of Lawes about things pertaining to Gods worship, is an action of spirituall jurisdiction, it needeth not great demonstration. For, 1. When a Synod of the Church maketh Lawes, about such things, all men know that this is an action of spirituall jur [...]ction, flowing from that power of spirituall jurisdiction w [...] is called potestas [...]. And how then can the Princes making of such lawes, be called an action of civill, not of spirituall jurisdiction? I see not what can be answered, except it be said, that the making of those lawes by a Synod is an action of spirituall jurisdiction, because they are made and published with the commination of spirituall and Ec­clesiasticall punishments, in case of transgression; but the making of them by the Prince, is an action of civill jurisdiction only, because he prescribeth and commandeth, under the paine of some temporall losse or punishment. But I have allready confuted this answere; be­cause notwithstanding of the different punishments which the one and the other hath power to threaten and inflict, yet at least that part of spirituall jurisdiction which we call potestas [...] remai­neth the same in both, which power of making Lawes must not (as I shew) be confounded with that other power of judging & punish­ing offenders. 2. Actions take their species or kynd from the ob­ject and the end, when other circumstances hinder not. Now a Prince his making of Lawes about things pertaining to Religion, is such an action of Iurisdiction, as hath both a spirituall end, which is the edification of the Church and spirituall good of Christians, and likewise a spirituall object, for that all things pertaining to di­vine worship, even the very externall circumstances of the same, are rightly called things spirituall and divine, not civill or human, our Opposites can not denie, except they say, not only that such things touch the lives, bodies, estates, or names of men, and are not ordained for the spirituall benefit of their soules, but also that the Synod of the Church, whose power reacheth only to things spi­rituall, not civill or human, can never make Lawes about those cir­cumstances [Page] which are applied unto and used in the worship of God. And as the Prince his making of Lawes about things of this nature, is in respect of the object and end, an action of spirituall jurisdiction, so there is no circumstance at all, which varieth the kind, or ma­keth it an action of civill jurisdiction only. If it be said that the circumstance of the person changeth the kynd of the action, so that the making of Lawes about things pertaining to Religion, if they be made by Ecclesiasticall persons, is an action of spirituall juris­diction, but if by the civill Magistrat, an action of civill jurisdiction: this were a most extreamely unadvised distinction: for so might 2. Chrō. 26. 18. Vzziah the King have answered for himself, that in burning in­cense he did not take upon him to execute the Priests office, because he was only a civill person: so may the Pope say, that he taketh not upon him the power of Emperours and Monarchs, because he is an Eccle [...]sticall person. Many things men may doe de facto, which they can not de jure. Civill persons may exerce a spirituall jurisdic­tion and office, and againe Ecclesiasticall persons may exerce a civill jurisdiction, de facto, thought not de jure. Wherefore the Prince his making of Lawes about things spirituall, remaineth still an action of spirituall jurisdiction, except some other thing can be alledged to the contrary, beside the circumstance of the Person. But some man peradventure will object, that a Prince by his civill power may injoyne and command, not only the observation of those Ecclesia­sticall rites which a Synod of the Church prescribeth, but also that a Synod (when need is) presribe new orders and rites, all which are things spirituall and divine: And why then may he not by the same civill power make lawes about the Rites and circumstances of Gods worship, notwithstanding that they are (in their use and application to the actions of worship) things spirituall, not civill.

Ans. Aquin. 3 [...]. q. 85. art. 2. The Schoolmen say, that an action proceedeth from charity two wayes, either elicitivè, or imperativè: and that those actions which are immediatly produced and wrought out by charity, belong not to other vertues distinct from charity, but are comprehended under the effects of charity it self, such as are the loving of good, and re­joycing [...]o it: other actions say they, which are only commanded by charity, belong to other speciall vertues distinct from charity; So say I, an action may proceed from a civill power either elicitivé, or imperativè. Elicitivè a civill power can only make Lawes about things civill or human: but imperativé, it may command the Ec­clesiasticall power to make Lawes about things spirituall, which Lawes thereafter it may command to be observed by all who are in Sect. XXVIII the Church.

8. Our Opposites themselves aknowledge no lesse, then that which I have beene pleading for. To devise new rites and Ceremonies saith apud Parker [...]f th [...]osse; c. 5. sect. 6. D. Bilson, is not the Princes vocation, but to receive and allowe such [Page 154] as the Scriptures and Canons commend, and such as the Bishops and Pastors of the place shall advise. And saith not de Iudi­ce controv. cap. 16. pag. 92. the Bishop of Sarisburie, Ceremo­nias utiles & decoras excogitare, ad Ecclesiasticos pertinet, tamen easdem comprobare, & toti populo observandas imponere, ad Reges spectat. praelect. tom. 1. pag. 25. Ca­mero saith, that it is the part of a Prince to take care for the health of mens soules, even as he doth for the health of their bodies, and that as he provideth not for the curing or preventing of bodily deseases directly and by himself, but indirectly and by the Phisitions, so he should not by himself prescribe cures & remedies for mens spirituall maladies. Perinde Principis est curare salutem animarum, ac ejusdem est sa­luti corporum prospicere: non est autem Principis providere ne morbi grassentur directe, esset enim Medicus, at in directe tamen Princeps id sludere debet. Whence it followeth, that even as when some bodily sicknesse sprea­deth, a Princes part is not to prescribe a cure, but to command the Phisitions to doe it: just so, when any abuse, misorder, confusion, or scandall in the Church, requireth or maketh it neecssary that a mutation be made of some rite or order in the same, & that whole­some Lawes be enacted, which may serve for the order, decency, & edification of the Church, a Prince may not doe this by himself, but may only command the Pastors and Guides of the Church, who watch for the soules of men, as they who must give account, to see to the exigency of the present state of matters Ecclesiasticall, and to provide such Lawes as they beeing met togither in the name of the Lord, shall after due and free deliberation, find to be conve­nient, and which being once prescribed by them, hee shall by his royall auctority confirme, establish, and presse.

Needs now it must be manifest, that the lawfullnesse of our con­forming unto the Ceremonies in question, can be no way warran­ted Sect. XXIX by any ordinance of the Supreame Magistrat, or any power which he hath in things spirituall or Ecclesiasticall. And if our Op­posites would ponder the reasons we have given, they should be quickely quieted, understanding that before the Princes ordinance about the Ceremonies can be said to bind us, it must first be shewed that they have beene lawfully prescribed by a Synod of the Church. So that they must retire and hold them at the Churches ordi­nance. And what needeth any more? let us once see any lawfull or­dinance of the Synod or Church representative for them we shall without any more adoe aknowledge it to be out of all doubt, that his Majesty may well urge Conformity unto the same.

Now of the Churches power we have spoken in the former Cha­pter. And if we had not, yet that which hath beene said in this Chapter, maketh out our point. For it hath beene proven, that nei­ther King nor Church hath power to command any thing, which is not according to the rules of the Word, that is, which serveth not for the glory of God, which is not profitable for edifying, & which [Page 155] may not be done in faith, unto which rules whether the things which are commanded us, be agreeable or not, we must trie and examine by the privat judgement of Christian discretion, following the light of Gods Word.

Resteth the third distinction, whereof I promised to speake, & that Sect. XXX was of Ties or Bonds. Quaedam obligatio, &c. Some bond (saith locor. theol. tom. 6. p. 963. Ge­rard) is absolute, when the Lavv bindeth the conscience simply, so that in no respect, nor in no case, without the offence of God, and vvound of conscience, one may depart from the prescript thereof: but another bond is hypotheticall, vvhen it bindeth not simply, but under a condition, to vvit, if the transgres­sion of the Lavv be done of contempt; if for the cause of lucre or some other vitious end; if it have scandall joyned vvith it. The former way he saith that the Law of God and Nature bindeth, and that the Law of the civill Magistrat bindeth the latter way. And with him we hold, that whatsoever a Prince commandeth his Subjects in things any way pertaining to Religion, it bindeth only this latter way; and that hee hath never power to make Lawes, binding the former way. For confirmation wherefore wee say,

1. The Lawes of an Ecclesiasticall Synod, to the obedience where­of in things belonging to the worship of God, we are farre more strictly tied, then to the obedience of any Prince in the world, who (as hath beene shewed) in this sort of things, hath not such a voca­tion nor power to make Lawes: the Lawes (I say) of a Synod can not bind absolutely, but only conditionally, or in case they can not be transgressed without violating the Law of Charity, by contempt shewed, or scandall given. Which as I have made good in the first part of this Dispute; so let me now produce for it a plaine testimony of de Iudi­ce controv. c. 16. pag. 86. 87. the Bishop of Sarisburie, who holdeth that the Churches rites and ordinances, doe only bind in such sort, ut si extra, &c. That if out of the case of scandall or contempt, through imprudence, oblivion, or some rea­sonable cause inforcing, they be omitted, no mortall sinne is incurred before God. For as touching these constitutions, I judge the opinion of Gerson to be most true, to vvit, that they remaine unviolated, so long as the Lavv of Cha­rity is not by men violated about the same. Much lesse then, can the Lawes of Princes about things Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall, bind absolutely, and out of the case of violating the Law of Cha­rity.

2. If we be not bound to receive and aknowledge the Lawes of Princes as good and equitable, except only in so farre, as they are warranted by the Law of God and Nature, then we are not bound in conscience to obey them, except only conditionally, in case the violating of them include the violating of the Law of God and Na­ture. But the former is true. Therefore the latter. It is Gods pecu­culiar soveraignety, that his will is a rule ruling but not ruled, and that therefore a thing is good, because God will have it to be good. [Page 156] Mans will is only such a rule, as is ruled by higher rules, and it must be knowne to be norma recta, before it can be to us norma recti.

3. If we be bound te trie and examine by the judgement of dis­cretion (following the rules of the Word,) whether the things which Princes command be right, and such as ought to be done, and if we find them not to be such, to neglect them; then their Lawes can not bind absolutely and by themselves, (else what need were there of such triall and examination?) but only conditio­nally, and in case they can not be neglected without violating some other Law, which is of a superior bond. But the former wee have proven by strong reasons. Therefore the latter standeth sure.

4. If neither Princes may command, nor wee doe any thing, which is not lawfull and expedient, and according to the other rules of the Word, then the Lawes of Princes bind not absolutely, but only in case the neglecting of them can not stand with the Law of Charity, and the rules of the Word. But the former hath beene evinced and made good. Therefore the latter necessarily follo­weth.

5. If the Lawes of Princes could bind absolutely and simply, so that in no case without offending God & wounding our conscience, we could neglect them, this bond should arise either from their owne auctority, or from the matter and thing it self which is com­manded. But from neither of these it can arise. Therefore from nothing. It can not arise from any auctority which they have, for if by their auctority we meane their Princely preeminence & dignity, they are Princes, when they command things unlawfull, as well, as when they command things lawfull, and so if because of their pre­eminence their Lawes doe bind, then their unlawfull ordinances doe bind, no lesse then if they were lawfull: but if by their auctority, we meane the power which they have of God to make Lawes, this power is not absolute, (as hath beene said,) but limited: therefore from it no absolute bond can arise, but this much at the most, that Perkins on Rev. 1. 5. Kings on earth must be obeyed, so farre as they command in Christ. Neither yet can the bond be absolute in respect of the thing it self which is commanded.

When Princes publish the commandements of God, the things them selves binde, whether they should command them or not: but we speake of such things as Gods Word hath left in their nature indiffe­rent, & of such things we say, that if being injoyned by Princes they did absolutely binde, then they should be in themselves immuta­bly necessary, even secluding, as well the Lawes of Princes which injoyne them, as the end of order, decency, and edification, where unto they are referred. To say no more, hath not Iren. lib. 2. cap. 4. §. 3. D For­besse [Page 157] told us in Calvines words, Notatu dignum, &c. It is vvorthy of ob­servation that human Lavves, vvhether they be made by the Magistrat or by the Church, hovvsoever they be necessary to be observed, (I speake of such as are good & just,) yet they doe not therefore by themselves binde the conscience, because the vvhole necessity of observing them, looketh to the generall end, but consisteth not in the things commanded.

6. Whatsoever bond of conscience, is not confirmed and war­ranted by the Word, is before God no bond at all. But the absolute bond, wherewith conscience is bound to the obedience of the Lawes of Princes, is not confirmed nor warranted by the Word. Ergo. The Proposition no man can denie who aknowledgeth, that none can have power or dominion over our consciences, but God only, Ia. 4. 12. the great Lawgiver, who alone can save and destroy. Nei­ther doth any Writer whom I have seene, hold that Princes have any power over mens consciences, but only that conscience is bound by the Lawes of Princes, for this respect, because God who hath power over o