{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_26849/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_26849","id":"gutenberg_26849","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/26849","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - British","Category: History - Early Modern (c. 1450-1750)","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Church of Scotland -- History","Gillespie, George, 1613-1648"],"text":"THE WORKS OF\n\n                           MR. GEORGE GILLESPIE\n\n                          MINISTER OF EDINBURGH,\n\n                AND ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS FROM SCOTLAND\n\n                    TO THE WESTMINSTER ASSEMBLY, 1644\n\n                           NOW FIRST COLLECTED.\n\n                  WITH MEMOIR OF HIS LIFE AND WRITINGS,\n\n                       BY M. W. HETHERINGTON, LL.D.\n\n                             IN TWO VOLUMES.\n\n                                 VOL. I.\n\n                                EDINBURGH:\n\n                     ROBERT OGLE AND OLIVER AND BOYD.\n\n               M. OGLE & SON AND WILLIAM COLLINS, GLASGOW.\n\n                       HAMILTON, ADAMS & CO, LONDON\n\n                                  1846.\n\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\nADVERTISEMENT.\nMEMOIR OF THE REV. GEORGE GILLESPIE.\nAPPENDIX. EXTRACTS FROM WODROW\u2019S ANALECTA (MAITLAND CLUB EDITION)\nDISPUTE AGAINST THE ENGLISH POPISH CEREMONIES OBTRUDED ON THE CHURCH OF\nSCOTLAND.\n   DEDICATION\n   AUTHOR\u2019S PREFACE\n   PROLOGUE.\n   ORDER.\n   THE FIRST PART. AGAINST THE NECESSITY OF THE CEREMONIES.\n      CHAPTER I. THAT OUR OPPOSITES DO URGE THE CEREMONIES AS THINGS\n      NECESSARY.\n      CHAPTER II. THE REASON TAKEN OUT OF ACTS XV. TO PROVE THE NECESSITY\n      OF THE CEREMONIES, BECAUSE OF THE CHURCH\u2019S APPOINTMENT, CONFUTED.\n      CHAPTER III. THAT THE CEREMONIES THUS IMPOSED AND URGED AS THINGS\n      NECESSARY, DO BEREAVE US OF OUR CHRISTIAN LIBERTY, FIRST, BECAUSE\n      OUR PRACTICE IS ADSTRICTED.\n      CHAPTER IV. THAT THE CEREMONIES TAKE AWAY OUR CHRISTIAN LIBERTY\n      PROVED BY A SECOND REASON, NAMELY, BECAUSE CONSCIENCE ITSELF IS\n      BOUND AND ADSTRICTED.\n      CHAPTER V. THAT THE CEREMONIES TAKE AWAY CHRISTIAN LIBERTY, PROVED\n      BY A THIRD REASON, VIZ., BECAUSE THEY ARE URGED UPON SUCH AS, IN\n      THEIR CONSCIENCES, DO CONDEMN THEM.\n      CHAPTER VI. THAT THE CEREMONIES TAKE AWAY CHRISTIAN LIBERTY PROVED\n      BY A FOURTH REASON, VIZ., BECAUSE THEY ARE PRESSED UPON US BY NAKED\n      WILL AND AUTHORITY, WITHOUT GIVING ANY REASON TO SATISFY OUR\n      CONSCIENCES.\n      CHAPTER VII. THAT FESTIVAL DAYS TAKE AWAY OUR LIBERTY, WHICH GOD\n      HATH GIVEN US, PROVED; AND FIRST OUT OF THE LAW.\n      CHAPTER VIII. THAT FESTIVAL DAYS TAKE AWAY OUR CHRISTIAN LIBERTY,\n      PROVED OUT OF THE GOSPEL.\n      CHAPTER IX. SHOWING THE WEAKNESS OF SOME PRETENCES WHICH OUR\n      OPPOSITES USE FOR HOLIDAYS.\n   THE SECOND PART. AGAINST THE EXPEDIENCY OF THE CEREMONIES.\n      CHAPTER I. AGAINST SOME OF OUR OPPOSITES, WHO ACKNOWLEDGE THE\n      INCONVENIENCY OF THE CEREMONIES, AND YET WOULD HAVE US YIELD TO\n      THEM.\n      CHAPTER II. AGAINST THOSE OF OUR OPPOSITES WHO PLEAD FOR THE\n      CEREMONIES AS THINGS EXPEDIENT.\n      CHAPTER III. THAT THE CEREMONIES ARE INEXPEDIENT, BECAUSE THEY ARE\n      PREPARATIVES FOR GREATER EVILS.\n      CHAPTER IV. THAT THE CEREMONIES ARE INEXPEDIENT, BECAUSE THEY HINDER\n      EDIFICATION.\n      CHAPTER V. THAT THE CEREMONIES ARE INEXPEDIENT, BECAUSE THEY ARE\n      OCCASIONS OF INJURY AND CRUELTY.\n      CHAPTER VI. THAT THE CEREMONIES ARE INEXPEDIENT, BECAUSE THEY HARDEN\n      AND CONFIRM THE PAPISTS.\n      CHAPTER VII. THAT THE CEREMONIES ARE INEXPEDIENT, BECAUSE THEY\n      DISTURB THE PEACE OF THE CHURCH.\n      CHAPTER VIII. THAT THE INEXPEDIENCY OF THE CEREMONIES, IN RESPECT OF\n      THE SCANDAL OF THE WEAK, MAY BE PLAINLY PERCEIVED. TWELVE\n      PROPOSITIONS TOUCHING SCANDAL ARE PREMITTED.\n      CHAPTER IX. ALL THE DEFENCES OF THE CEREMONIES, USED TO JUSTIFY THEM\n      AGAINST THE SCANDAL IMPUTED TO THEM, ARE CONFUTED.\n   THE THIRD PART. AGAINST THE LAWFULNESS OF THE CEREMONIES.\n      CHAPTER I. THAT THE CEREMONIES ARE UNLAWFUL, BECAUSE SUPERSTITIOUS,\n      WHICH IS PARTICULARLY INSTANCED IN HOLIDAYS, AND MINISTERING THE\n      SACRAMENTS IN PRIVATE PLACES.\n      CHAPTER II. THAT THE CEREMONIES ARE UNLAWFUL BECAUSE THEY ARE\n      MONUMENTS OF BY-PAST IDOLATRY, WHICH NOT BEING NECESSARY TO BE\n      RETAINED, SHOULD BE UTTERLY ABOLISHED, BECAUSE OF THEIR IDOLATROUS\n      ABUSES: ALL WHICH IS PARTICULARLY MADE GOOD OF KNEELING.\n      CHAPTER III. THAT THE CEREMONIES ARE UNLAWFUL, BECAUSE THEY SORT US\n      WITH IDOLATERS, BEING THE BADGES OF PRESENT IDOLATRY AMONG THE\n      PAPISTS.\n      CHAPTER IV. THAT THE CEREMONIES ARE IDOLS AMONG THE FORMALISTS\n      THEMSELVES; AND THAT KNEELING IN THE LORD\u2019S SUPPER BEFORE THE BREAD\n      AND WINE, IN THE ACT OF RECEIVING THEM, IS FORMALLY IDOLATRY.\n      CHAPTER V. THE FIFTH ARGUMENT AGAINST THE LAWFULNESS OF THE\n      CEREMONIES TAKEN FROM THE MYSTICAL AND SIGNIFICANT NATURE OF THEM.\n      CHAPTER VI. THAT THE LAWFULNESS OF THE CEREMONIES IS FALSELY\n      GROUNDED UPON THE HOLY SCRIPTURE; WHERE SUCH PLACES AS ARE ALLEGED\n      BY OUR OPPOSITES, EITHER FOR ALL THE CEREMONIES IN GENERAL, OR FOR\n      ANY ONE OF THEM IN PARTICULAR, ARE VINDICATED FROM THEM.\n      CHAPTER VII. THAT THE LAWFULNESS OF THE CEREMONIES CANNOT BE\n      WARRANTED BY ANY ECCLESIASTICAL LAW, NOR BY ANY POWER WHICH THE\n      CHURCH HATH TO PUT ORDER TO THINGS BELONGING TO DIVINE WORSHIP.\n      CHAPTER VIII. THAT THE LAWFULNESS OF THE CEREMONIES CANNOT BE\n      WARRANTED BY ANY ORDINANCE OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATE; WHOSE POWER IN\n      THINGS SPIRITUAL OR ECCLESIASTICAL IS EXPLAINED.\n      DIGRESSION I. OF THE VOCATION OF MEN OF ECCLESIASTICAL ORDER.\n      DIGRESSION II. OF THE CONVOCATION AND MODERATION OF SYNODS.\n      DIGRESSION III. OF THE JUDGING OF CONTROVERSIES AND QUESTIONS OF\n      FAITH.\n      DIGRESSION IV. OF THE POWER OF THE KEYS, AND ECCLESIASTICAL\n      CENSURES.\n      CHAPTER IX. THAT THE LAWFULNESS OF THE CEREMONIES CANNOT BE\n      WARRANTED BY THE LAW OF NATURE.\n   THE FOURTH PART. AGAINST THE INDIFFERENCY OF THE CEREMONIES.\n      CHAPTER I. OF OUR OPPOSITES\u2019 PLEADING FOR THE INDIFFERENCY OF THE\n      CEREMONIES.\n      CHAPTER II. OF THE NATURE OF THINGS INDIFFERENT.\n      CHAPTER III. WHETHER THERE BE ANYTHING INDIFFERENT IN ACTU EXERCITO.\n      CHAPTER IV. OF THE RULE BY WHICH WE ARE TO MEASURE AND TRY WHAT\n      THINGS ARE INDIFFERENT.\n      CHAPTER V. THE FIRST POSITION WHICH WE BUILD UPON THE GROUND\n      CONFIRMED IN THE FORMER CHAPTER.\n      CHAPTER VI. ANOTHER POSITION BUILT UPON THE SAME GROUND.\n      CHAPTER VII. OTHER POSITIONS BUILT UPON THE FORMER GROUND.\n      CHAPTER VIII. THAT THE CEREMONIES ARE NOT THINGS INDIFFERENT TO THE\n      CHURCH OF SCOTLAND; BECAUSE SHE DID ABJURE AND REPUDIATE THEM BY A\n      MOST SOLEMN AND GENERAL OATH.\n      CHAPTER IX. A RECAPITULATION OF SUNDRY OTHER REASONS AGAINST THE\n      INDIFFERENCY OF THE CEREMONIES.\nA BROTHERLY EXAMINATION OF SOME PASSAGES OF MR COLEMAN\u2019S LATE SERMON UPON\nJOB XI. 20.\n   NOTICE.\n   EXTRACT FROM COLEMAN\u2019S SERMON.\n   A BROTHERLY EXAMINATION, &c.\nNIHIL RESPONDES: OR A DISCOVERY OF THE EXTREME UNSATISFACTORINESS OF MR\nCOLEMAN\u2019S PIECE.\n   THAT MR COLEMAN DOTH NOT ONLY PREVARICATE, BUT CONTRADICT HIMSELF,\n   CONCERNING THE STATE OF THE QUESTION.\n   THE PARTICULARS IN MY BRIEF EXAMINATION, WHICH MR COLEMAN EITHER\n   GRANTETH EXPRESSLY, OR ELSE DOTH NOT REPLY UNTO.\n   HIS ABUSING OF THE SCRIPTURES.\n   HIS ERRORS IN DIVINITY.\n   HIS ABUSING OF THE HONOURABLE HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.\n   HIS ABUSING THE REVEREND ASSEMBLY OF DIVINES.\n   HIS CALUMNIES.\n   THE REPUGNANCY OF HIS DOCTRINE TO THE SOLEMN LEAGUE AND COVENANT.\nMALE AUDIS; OR, AN ANSWER TO MR COLEMAN\u2019S MALE DICIS.\n   PREFACE TO THE READER.\n   CHAPTER I. THAT MR COLEMAN DOTH STILL CONTRADICT HIMSELF IN THE STATING\n   OF THIS PRESENT CONTROVERSY ABOUT CHURCH GOVERNMENT.\n   CHAPTER II. A CONFUTATION OF THAT WHICH MR COLEMAN HATH SAID AGAINST\n   CHURCH GOVERNMENT; SHOWING ALSO THAT HIS LAST REPLY IS NOT MORE, BUT\n   LESS SATISFACTORY THAN THE FORMER, AND FOR THE MOST PART IS BUT A\n   TERGIVERSATION AND FLEEING FROM ARGUMENTS BROUGHT AGAINST HIM, AND FROM\n   MAKING GOOD HIS OWN ASSERTIONS AND ARGUMENTS CONCERNING THE DISTINCTION\n   OF CIVIL AND CHURCH GOVERNMENT.\n   CHAPTER III. THAT MR COLEMAN\u2019S AND MR HUSSEY\u2019S OPPOSING OF CHURCH\n   GOVERNMENT NEITHER IS NOR CAN BE RECONCILED WITH THE SOLEMN LEAGUE AND\n   COVENANT.\n   CHAPTER IV. MR COLEMAN AND MR HUSSEY\u2019S ERRORS IN DIVINITY.\n   CHAPTER V. THE PRELATICAL WAY AND TENETS OF MR COLEMAN AND MR HUSSEY,\n   REPUGNANT ALSO, IN DIVERS PARTICULARS, TO THE VOTES AND ORDINANCES OF\n   PARLIAMENT.\n   CHAPTER VI. MR COLEMAN\u2019S WRONGING OF THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.\n   CHAPTER VII. CALUMNIES CONFUTED, AND THAT QUESTION BRIEFLY CLEARED,\n   WHETHER THE MAGISTRATE BE CHRIST\u2019S VICEGERENT.\n   CHAPTER VIII. THAT MR COLEMAN DOTH GREAT VIOLENCE, BOTH TO HIS OWN\n   WORDS AND TO THE WORDS OF OTHERS WHOM HE CITETH.\nONE HUNDRED AND ELEVEN PROPOSITIONS CONCERNING THE MINISTRY AND GOVERNMENT\nOF THE CHURCH.\n   PROPOSITIONS.\nA SERMON PREACHED BEFORE THE HONOURABLE HOUSE OF COMMONS AT THEIR LATE\nSOLEMN FAST\n   PREFACE TO THE READER.\n   SERMON.\nA SERMON PREACHED BEFORE THE RIGHT HONOURABLE THE HOUSE OF LORDS, IN THE\nABBEY CHURCH AT WESTMINSTER.\n   PREFACE TO THE READER.\n   SERMON.\nFootnotes\n\n\n\n\n\n\nADVERTISEMENT.\n\n\n(Transcriber\u2019s Note: This book is an 1846 reprint of George Gillespie\u2019s\nbooks, which were originally published separately.  Each is reprinted here\nwith its original title page and other front matter.  The paper book had\nno page numbers; each book is transcribed here with its own page\nnumbering, which may have no correspondence with the publisher\u2019s idea of\nthe page numbers.)\n\nIn presenting to the public, for the first time, a Complete Edition of the\nWorks of Mr GEORGE GILLESPIE, there are two or three points to which the\nPublisher begs to direct special attention.\n\nAlthough the great value of Gillespie\u2019s various works was well known to\nmany, yet there had been no recent reprints of them, and they had become\nso very scarce that it was with great difficulty any of them could be\nobtained. Recent controversies had brought forward the very subjects which\nhad been so ably treated by Gillespie; and it was felt, that justice to\nthe Church of which he was so great an ornament, and to the cause which he\nso strenuously supported, demanded the republication of his whole works,\nin a form, and at a price, which should render them generally accessible.\n\nIn prosecuting this task the idea was suggested, that it would be\ndesirable to publish what remained of those Notes on the Proceedings of\nthe Westminster Assembly of Divines, which Gillespie was known to have\nwritten, if the permission of the Advocates, in whose Library they were,\ncould be obtained. That permission was most readily granted. The\nmanuscript volumes, of what purported to be Gillespie\u2019s Notes, form part\nof the large collection entitled, the Wodrow MSS. They appear, however,\nnot to be Gillespie\u2019s own Notes, but copies separately taken from the\noriginal. The fact that they are manifestly separate and independent\ntranscriptions, furnishes good evidence of the genuineness and\nauthenticity of the original manuscripts, though it is not now known where\nthey are, if still in existence. In making a new copy for the press every\nfacility was granted by the Librarians of the Advocates\u2019 Library, with\ntheir well-known courtesy and liberality; and much aid was rendered by\nDavid Laing, Esq., a gentleman thoroughly conversant with Scottish\necclesiastical literature, and generously ready to communicate to others\nthe benefit of his own extensive and accurate knowledge.\n\nBeing desirous to render this Edition of Gillespie\u2019s works as full and\ncomplete as possible, several small and comparatively unimportant papers\nhave been copied from the Wodrow Manuscript, some account of which will be\nfound at the close of the Memoir. An appendix to the Memoir contains all\nthat could be gleaned from Wodrow\u2019s Analecta, as printed by the Maitland\nClub.\n\nThe Memoir itself has been drawn up with considerable care, and is as\nextensive as the paucity of materials for its composition would admit. It\nmight, indeed, have been enlarged by a more full account of the great\nevents which occurred during the period in which Gillespie lived; but this\nwould have been an unfair changing of biography into history, and would\nnot have been suited to the object in view.\n\nAs the parts of the Collected Edition of Gillespie\u2019s Works were issued\nsuccessively, they have been paged separately; and may be arranged in\nvolumes according to the taste of their purchasers. It will, however, be\nfound most expedient to adopt a chronological arrangement, such as is\nindicated in the closing pages of the Memoir.\n\n\n\n\n\nMEMOIR OF THE REV. GEORGE GILLESPIE.\n\n\nGeorge Gillespie was one of the most remarkable men of the period in which\nhe lived, singularly fertile as that period was in men of great abilities.\nHe seems to have been almost unknown, till the publication of his first\nwork, which dazzled and astonished his countrymen by the rare combination\nit displayed of learning and genius of the highest order. From that time\nforward, he held an undisputed position among the foremost of the\ndistinguished men by whose talents and energy the Church of Scotland was\ndelivered from prelatic despotism. Yet, although greatly admired by all\nhis compeers during his brilliant career, so very little has been recorded\nrespecting him, that we can but glean a scanty supply of materials, from a\nvariety of sources, out of which to construct a brief memoir of his life\n\nWe have not met with any particular reference to the family from which\nGeorge Gillespie was descended, except a very brief notice of his father,\nthe Rev. John Gillespie, in Livingston\u2019s \u201cMemorable Characteristics.\u201d From\nthis we learn that he was minister at Kirkcaldy, and that he was, to use\nLivingston\u2019s language, \u201ca thundering preacher.\u201d In that town George\nGillespie was born; but, as the earlier volumes of the Session Register of\nBirths and Baptisms have been lost, the precise year of his birth cannot\nbe ascertained from that source. It could not, however, have been earlier\nthan 1612, in which year his father was chosen to the second charge in\nKirkcaldy, as appears from the town records, nor later than 1613, as the\nexisting Register commences January, 1614, and, in the end of that year,\nthe birth of a daughter of Mr John Gillespie is registered, and again in\n1610, of a son, baptised Patrick. It may be assumed, therefore, with\ntolerable certainty, that George Gillespie was born early in the year\n1613, a date which agrees with that engraven on his tombstone. Wodrow,\nindeed, states, on the authority of Mr Simpson, that Gillespie was born on\nthe 21st of January, 1613.\n\nNothing has been recorded respecting the youthful period of Gillespie\u2019s\nlife. The earliest notice of him which appears, is merely sufficient to\nintimate that his mind must have been carefully cultivated from his\nboyhood, as it relates to the time of his being sent to the University of\nSt Andrews, to prosecute his studies, in 1629, when he was, of course, in\nhis 16th year. It appears to have been the custom of the Presbytery of\nKirkcaldy, as of many others at that time, to support young men of merit\nat the University, as Presbytery Bursars, by means of the contributions of\nthe parishes within its bounds. In the Session Record of Kirkcaldy the\nfollowing statement occurs, dated November, 1629:\u2014\u201cThe Session are content\nthat Mr George Gillespie shall have as much money of our Session, for his\ninterteynment, as Dysart gives, viz. 20 merks, being our Presbytery\nBursar.\u201d In some of the brief biographical notices of him which have been\ngiven, we are informed that during the course of his attendance at the\nUniversity, he gave ample evidence of both genius and industry, by the\nrapid growth and development of mental power, and the equally rapid\nacquirement of extensive learning, in both of which respects he surpassed\nhis fellow-students. That this must have been the case, his future\neminence, so early achieved, sufficiently proves; but nothing of a very\ndefinite nature, relating to that period, has been preserved.\n\nWhen he had completed his academic career, and was ready to enter into the\noffice of the ministry, his progress was obstructed by a difficulty which,\nfor a time, proved insurmountable. Being conscientiously convinced that\nthe prelatic system of church government is of human invention, and not of\nDivine institution, and having seen the bitter fruits it bore in Scotland,\nhe would not submit to receive ordination from a bishop, and could not, at\nthat juncture, obtain admission into the ministerial office without it.\nThough thus excluded from the object of his pursuit, he found congenial\nemployment for his pious and active mind in the household of Lord Kenmure,\nwhere he resided as domestic chaplain, till the death of that nobleman in\nSeptember, 1634. Soon afterwards we find him discharging a similar duty in\nthe family of the Earl of Cassilis, and, at the same time, acting as tutor\nto Lord Kennedy, the Earl\u2019s eldest son. This latter employment furnished\nhim with both leisure and inducement to prosecute his studies, and that,\ntoo, in the very direction to which his mind had been already predisposed.\nBut, in order to obtain an intelligible view of the state of matters in\nScotland at that period, we must take a brief survey of the events which\nhad been moulding the aspect of both church and kingdom for some time\nbefore.\n\nIt may be assumed as a point which no person of competent knowledge and\ncandid mind will deny or dispute, that the Reformed Church of Scotland\nwas, from its very origin, Presbyterian; equally opposed to the prelatic\nsuperiority of one minister over others, and to the authority of the civil\npower in spiritual matters. This point, therefore, we need not occupy\nspace in proving; but we may suggest, that there is a much closer and more\nimportant connexion between the two elements here specified, than is\ngenerally remarked. For, as a little reflection will show, without the\npre-eminence of some small number of ministers over the rest, the civil\npower cannot obtain the means of directly exercising an authoritative\ncontrol in spiritual matters. Even the indirect methods of corruption\nwhich may be employed can be but partially successful, and may at any time\nbe defeated, whenever the general body shall be restored to purity and put\nforth its inherent power. A truly presbyterian church, therefore, never\ncan be thoroughly depended on by civil rulers who wish to use it as a mere\nengine of state for political purposes; consequently, a truly presbyterian\nchurch has never found much favour in the estimation of the civil\npower,\u2014and, it may be added, never will, till the civil power itself\nbecome truly Christian. Thus viewed, it was not strange that the civil\npower in Scotland, whether wielded by a regent such as Morton, or a king\nlike James VI., should strenuously and perseveringly seek the subversion\nof the Presbyterian Church. In the earlier stage of the struggle, first\nMorton, and then James, attempted force, but found the attempt to be in\nvain. At length the King seemed inclined to leave off the hopeless and\npernicious contest; and, in the year 1592, an Act of Parliament was\npassed, ratifying all the essential elements of the Presbyterian Church,\nin doctrine, government, discipline, and worship. But this proved to be\nmerely a cessation of hostilities on the part of the King, preparatory to\ntheir resumption in a more insidious and dangerous manner, and by the dark\ninstrumentality of his boasted \u201cking-craft.\u201d\n\nThe first indication of the crafty monarch\u2019s designs was in the year 1597,\nwhen he, \u201cof his great zeal and singular affection which he always has to\nthe advancement of the true religion, presently professed within this\nrealm,\u201d to use his own words, enacted that all who should be appointed to\nthe prelatic dignity, should enjoy the privilege of sitting and voting in\nParliament. The pretence was, that these persons would attend better to\nthe interests of the Church than could be done by laymen; the intention\nwas, to introduce the prelatic order and subvert the Presbyterian Church.\nAnd, that this might be done quietly and imperceptibly, the question\nrespecting the influence which these parliamentary representatives of the\nChurch should have in the government of the Church itself, was left to be\ndetermined by the King and the General Assembly. Many of the most\njudicious and clear-sighted of the ministers perceived the dangerous\ntendency of this measure, and gave it their decided and strenuous\nopposition; but others, wearied out by their conflict with the avaricious\nand tyrannical conduct of the nobility, which they hoped thus more\neffectually to resist, or gained over by the persuasions of the King and\nthe court party, supported the proposal. The result was, that the measure\nwas carried in the Assembly of 1598, by a majority of ten, and that\nmajority formed chiefly by the votes of the elders, whom the King had\ninduced to support his views. Scarcely had even this step been taken, when\nthe Church became alarmed at the possible consequences; and, in order to\navoid increasing that alarm, all further consideration of the measure,\nwith reference to its subordinate details, was postponed till the meeting\nof the next Assembly. Nor was this enough. As the time for the next\nAssembly drew near, the King felt so uncertain of success, that he\nprorogued the appointed meeting, and betook himself to those private\nartifices by which his previous conquest had been gained.\n\nWhen the Assembly of 1600 met, the most intense interest was felt by the\nwhole kingdom in its proceedings, all men perceiving that upon its\ndecision would depend the continuation or the overthrow of the\npresbyterian form of church government in Scotland. The King\u2019s first step\nwas the arbitrary exclusion from the Assembly of the celebrated Andrew\nMelville. The discussion commenced respecting the propriety of ministers\nvoting in Parliament. But when those who favoured the measure could not\nmeet the argument of its opponents, the King again interposed, and\nauthoritatively declared that the preceding General Assembly had already\ndecided the general question in the affirmative; and that they had now\nonly to determine subordinate arrangements. The measure was thus saved\nfrom defeat. The next question, whether the parliamentary ministers should\nhold their place for life, or be annually elected, was decided in favour\nof annual election. Yet James prevailed upon the cleric to frame an\nambiguous statement in the minute of proceedings, virtually granting what\nthe Assembly had rejected. Even then, though thus both overborne and\ntricked by the King, the Church framed a number of carefully expressed\n\u201ccaveats,\u201d or cautions, for protecting her liberties, and guarding against\nthe introduction of Prelacy. It was not, however, the intention of the\nKing to pay any regard to these \u201ccaveats,\u201d so soon as he might think it\nconvenient to set them aside; and, accordingly, within a few months he\nappointed three bishops to the vacant sees of Ross, Aberdeen, and\nCaithness, directly in violation of all the \u201ccaveats\u201d by which he had\nagreed that the appointment of ecclesiastical commissioners to Parliament\nshould be regulated.\n\nThat mysterious event, the Gowry conspiracy, and the views taken of it by\nsome of the best and most influential of the ministers, tended to alter\nthe aspect of the struggle between the King and the Church; and though the\nKing twice interposed to change the Assembly\u2019s time and place of meeting\nby his own authority, contrary to the provisions of the act, 1592, yet the\nchurch succeeded in maintaining a large measure of its primitive freedom\nand purity, against the encroachments of the crafty and perfidious monarch\nand his \u201ccreatures,\u201d to use their own phrase, the bishops.\n\nThe Assembly of 1602, however, was the last that retained anything like\npresbyterian liberty, and ventured to act on its own convictions of duty.\nBut, the death of Queen Elizabeth, and the accession of James to the\nEnglish throne, directed his main attention for a time to other matters,\nand gave occasion to a temporary pause in his violations of all the laws\nwhich he had repeatedly sworn to maintain. The pause was brief. The\nflattering servility of the English bishops inflated his vanity to an\nextravagant degree, and rendered him the more determined to subvert wholly\nthe Presbyterian Church of Scotland, and to erect Prelacy on its ruins. He\nhad already presumed more than once to postpone meetings of the General\nAssembly, by his own arbitrary authority; he resumed this course,\npostponed the Assembly for one year, naming another,\u2014then prorogued it\nagain, without naming another day of meeting, which was nearly equivalent\nto an intimation, that it should entirely depend upon his pleasure whether\nit should ever meet again,\u2014directly contrary to the act, 1592, in which it\nwas expressly stipulated that the Assembly should meet at least once a\nyear. The most zealous and faithful of the ministers were now fully aware\nof the imminent peril to which spiritual liberty was exposed. On the 2d of\nJuly, 1605, the day on which the General Assembly had been appointed to\nmeet at Aberdeen, nineteen ministers met, constituted the Assembly in the\nusual form, and while engaged in reading a letter presented by the King\u2019s\nCommissioner, a messenger-at-arms entered, and in the King\u2019s name, charged\nthem to dismiss, on pain of being held guilty of rebellion. The moderator\nappointed another day of meeting, and dissolved the Assembly in the usual\nmanner. This bold and independent, though perfectly legal and\nconstitutional conduct, roused the wrath of the King to fury. Six of the\nmost eminent of the ministers, one of whom was John Welsh of Ayr,\nson-in-law of Knox, were confined in a miserable dungeon in the castle of\nBlackness, for a period of fourteen months, and then banished to France.\nEight others were imprisoned for a time, and banished to the remotest\nparts of Scotland. The severity of Robert Bruce\u2019s treatment was increased;\nand six other ministers, who had not been directly involved in the\nresistance to the King\u2019s authority, by the suppressed Assembly of\nAberdeen, were called to London, and engaged in captious disputations by\nthe crafty monarch, and his sycophantic prelates, in order to find\noccasion against them also. The result was, the confinement in the Tower\nof Andrew Melville, and his subsequent banishment to France; and the\nprohibition of his nephew, James Melville, to return to Scotland.\n\nHaving thus succeeded, by fraud and force, in cutting off the leading\nministers, James next summoned an Assembly to meet at Linlithgow, in\nDecember 1606, naming the persons who were to be sent by the presbyteries.\nIn this packed Assembly he succeeded in his design of introducing more\ngenerally the prelatic element, by the appointment of constant moderators\nin each presbytery. Advancing now with greater rapidity, he instituted, in\n1610, the Court of High Commission, which may be well termed the Scottish\nInquisition; and in the same year, in an Assembly held at Glasgow, both\nnominated by the King, and corrupted by lavish bribery, the whole prelatic\nsystem of church government was introduced; the right of calling and\ndismissing Assemblies was declared to belong to the royal prerogative, the\nbishops were declared moderators of diocesan synods; and the power of\nexcommunicating and absolving offenders was conferred on them.\n\nThe government of the Church was thus completely subverted in its external\naspect. Its forms indeed remained. There were still presbyteries and\nsynods, and there might be a General Assembly, if the King pleased; but\nthe power of presbyteries or synods was vested in the Prelates, and the\nKing could prevent any Assembly from being held, as long as he thought\nproper. But the Presbyterian Church, though overborne, was not destroyed,\nnor was its free spirit wholly subdued. When, in 1617, the King attempted\nto arrogate to himself and his prelatic council the power of enacting\necclesiastical laws, he was immediately met by a protestation against a\nmeasure so despotic. By an arbitrary stretch of power, he banished the\nhistorian Calderwood, the person who presented to him the protestation;\nbut he felt it necessary to have recourse once more to his previously\nemployed scheme, of a packed and bribed Assembly, in which to enact his\ninnovations. This was accordingly done in the Assembly of 1618, held in\nPerth, in which, by the joint influence of bribery and intimidation, he\nsucceeded in obtaining a majority of votes in favour of _the five articles\nof Perth_, as they are usually called. These _five articles_\nwere,\u2014_kneeling at the communion_,\u2014_the observance of\nholidays_,\u2014_episcopal confirmation_,\u2014_private baptism_,\u2014_and the private\ndispensation of the Lord\u2019s Supper_. It will at once be seen that these\ninnovations were directly contrary to the presbyterian principle, which\nholds that human inventions ought not to be added to divine institutions.\n\nThis was the last attempt made by King James for the overthrow of the\nPresbyterian Church. It was but partially successful. Not less than\nforty-five, even of the ministers summoned to Perth by the King, voted\nagainst the _five articles_; and in defiance of the authority of the King,\nand the Prelates, and the terrors of the Court of High Commission, a large\nproportion of the ministers, and a much larger proportion of the people\nthroughout the kingdom, never conformed to these articles. Various\nattempts were made by the prelatic faction to suppress the resistance of\nthe faithful ministers and people. At one time a minister who would not\nyield was suspended from his ministry; at another, he was banished from\nhis flock, and confined to some remote district of the country. But all\nwas ineffectual, although much suffering and distress of mind was caused\nby these harrassing persecutions. Very gladly would the ministers and\npeople have abandoned the prelatised church, and maintained the government\nand ritual of the Church of their fathers by their own unaided exertions,\nhad they been permitted. But no such permission could be obtained. They\nwere compelled either to abstain from preaching altogether, or to remain\nin connection with the Church. And even this alternative was not always\nleft to their choice. They were frequently kept in a species of\nimprisonment in their own houses, not permitted to leave the Church, and\nyet forbidden to preach, or even to expound the word of God to the members\nof their own households. Such was the monstrous and intolerable tyranny\nexercised by Prelacy in Scotland, in its desperate attempts to destroy the\nPresbyterian Church.\n\nBut the Presbyterian Church has always proved to be not easily destroyed.\nAt the very time when Prelacy and king-craft were uniting for its\ndestruction, its Divine Head was graciously supporting it under its\ntrials, giving it life to endure them, and preparing for its deliverance.\nThe sufferings endured by the faithful ministers in many parts of the\ncountry, tended to make them objects of admiration, love, and respect to\nthe people, who could not but draw a very striking contrast between their\nconduct, and that of the haughty and irreligious prelates. But mighty as\nwas this influence in the hearts of the people, one infinitely more mighty\nbegan to be felt in many districts of the kingdom. God was pleased to\ngrant a time of religious revival. The power of vital godliness aroused\nthe land, shining in its strength, like living fire. At Stewarton, at\nShotts, and in many others quarters, great numbers were converted, and the\nfaith of still greater numbers was increased. A time of refreshing from\nthe presence of God had evidently come; and it soon became equally\nevident, that the enemies of spiritual freedom were under the blinding\ninfluence of infatuation.\n\nThe younger bishops, inflated with vanity, acted towards the Scottish\nnobility in a manner so insolent, as to rouse the pride of these stern and\nhaughty barons. But the prelates had learned from Laud, what measures\nwould be agreeable to Charles I., who, to all his father\u2019s despotic ideas\nof royal prerogative, and love of Prelacy, and to at least equal\ndissimulation, added the formidable elements of a temper dark and\nrelentless, and a proud and inflexible will. The consequences soon\nappeared. Charles resolved, that the Church of Scotland should not only be\nepiscopalian in its form of government, but also in all its discipline,\nand in its form of worship. In order to accomplish this long wished for\npurpose, it was resolved that a Book of Canons, and a Liturgy, should be\nprepared by the Scottish bishops, and transmitted to those of England, for\ntheir revision and approval. The book of Canons appeared in 1635, and was\nregarded by the nation with the utmost abhorrence, both on its own\naccount, and as intended to introduce innovations still more detested.\nWhat was dreaded soon took place. The Liturgy was prepared, sent to\nEngland, and revised, several of the corrections being written by Laud\nhimself, all tending to give it a decidedly popish character. Some copies\nof this production appeared early in the year 1637, and were immediately\nsubjected to the examination of acute and powerful minds, well able to\ndetect and expose their errors, and to resist this tyrannical attempt to\ndo violence to the conscience of a free and religious people.\n\nThe crisis came. A letter from his Majesty was procured, requiring the\nLiturgy to be used in all the churches of Edinburgh, and an act of the\nPrivy Council was passed, to enforce obedience to the royal mandate.\nArchbishop Spotswood summoned the ministers together, announced to them\nthe King\u2019s pleasure, and commanded them to give intimation from their\npulpits, that on the following Sabbath the public use of the Liturgy was\nto be commenced. The 23d day of July, 1637, was that on which the perilous\nattempt was to be made. In the cathedral church of St. Giles, the Dean of\nEdinburgh, attired in his surplice, began to read the service of the day.\nAt that moment, an old woman, named Jenny Geddes, unable longer to\nrestrain her indignation, exclaimed, \u201cVillain, dost thou say mass at my\nlug!\u201d and seizing the stool on which she had been sitting, threw it at the\nDean\u2019s head. Instantly all was uproar and confusion. Threatened or\nassailed on all sides, the Dean, terrified by this sudden outburst of\npopular fury, tore himself out of their hands and fled, glad to escape,\nthough with the loss of his priestly vestments. In vain did the magistracy\ninterfere. It was impossible to restore sufficient quiet to allow the\nservice to be resumed; and the defeated prelatic party were compelled to\nabandon the Liturgy, thus dashed out of their trembling grasp by a woman\u2019s\nhand.\n\nSuch was the state of affairs in both church and kingdom, when George\nGillespie first appeared in public life. He had already refused to receive\nordination at the hands of a bishop; he had marked well the pernicious\neffects of their conduct on the most sacred interests of the community;\nand his strong and active intellect was directed to the prosecution of\nsuch studies as might the better enable him to assail the wrong and defend\nthe right. His residence in the household of the Earl of Cassilis, while\nit furnished the means of continuing his learned researches, was not\nlikely to change their direction; for the Earl was one of those\nhigh-hearted and independent noblemen, who could not brook prelatic\ninsolence, even when supported by the Sovereign\u2019s favour. The first\nproduction from the pen of Gillespie, the fruit, doubtless, of his\nprevious studies, was a work entitled \u201cA Dispute against the English\nPopish Ceremonies obtruded upon the Church of Scotland.\u201d Its publication\nwas remarkably well timed, being in the summer of 1637, at the very time\nwhen the whole kingdom was in a state of intense excitement, in the\nimmediate expectation that the Liturgy would be forced upon the Church.\nNothing could have been more suited to the emergency. It encountered every\nkind of argument employed by the prelatic party; and, as the defenders of\nthe ceremonies argued that they were either necessary, or expedient, or\nlawful, or indifferent, so Gillespie divided his work into four parts,\narguing against their _necessity_, their _expediency_, their _lawfulness_,\nand their _indifferency_, with such extensiveness of learning and\nacuteness and power of reasoning, as completely to demolish all the\narguments of all his prelatical antagonists. The effect produced by this\nsingularly able work may be conjectured from the fact, that within a few\nmonths after its publication, a proclamation was issued by the Privy\nCouncil, at the instigation of the bishops, commanding all the copies of\nit that could be found to be called in and burned. Such was the only\nanswer that all the learned Scottish prelates could give to a treatise,\nwritten by a youth who was only in his twenty-fifth year when it appeared.\nThe language of Baillie shows the estimation in which that learned, but\ntimid and cautious man, held Gillespie\u2019s youthful work. \u201cThis same youth\nis now given out also, by those that should know, for the author of the\n\u2018English Popish Ceremonies,\u2019 whereof we all do marvel; for, though he had\ngotten the papers, and help of the chief of that side, yet the very\ncomposition would seem to be far above such an age. But, if that book be\ntruly of his making, I admire the man, though I mislike much of his\nmatter; yea, I think he may prove amongst the best wits of this isle.\u201d\n\nSo far as argument was concerned, the controversy was ended by Gillespie\u2019s\nwork, as no answer was ever attempted by the prelates. But the contest,\nwhich began as one of power against principle, ere long became one of\npower against power. In vain did the King attempt to overawe the firm\nminds of the Presbyterians. In vain did the bishops issue their commands\nto the ministers to use the Liturgy. These commands were universally\ndisobeyed; for the spirit of Scotland was now fairly roused\u2014a spirit which\nhas often learned to conquer, but never to yield. It was to be expected\nthat Gillespie would not be allowed to remain much longer in comparative\nobscurity, after his remarkable abilities had become known. The church and\nparish of Wemyss being at that time vacant, the congregation, to whom he\nhad been known from his infancy, \u201cmade supplication\u201d that he might be\ntheir minister. This request was granted, \u201cmaugre St Andrew\u2019s beard,\u201d as\nBaillie says; that is, in spite of the opposition made by Spotswood,\nArchbishop of St Andrews, who knew enough of the young man to regard him\nwith equal fear and hatred. He was ordained by the Presbytery of Kirkcaldy\non the 26th of April, 1638, the celebrated Robert Douglas, at that time\nminister of Kirkcaldy, presiding at the ordination; and was the first who\nwas admitted by a presbytery, at that period, without regard to the\nauthority of the bishops. This, indeed, soon ceased to be a singularity;\nbut, it must be remembered, that though the attempt to impose the Liturgy\nupon the Church had been successfully resisted, the ostensible government\nof the Church was still held by the prelates, and continued to be held by\nthem, till they were all deposed by the famous General Assembly which met\nin Glasgow on the 21st day of November, 1638. But their power had received\na fatal blow, and it could not fail to be highly gratifying to George\nGillespie, that the first free act of the Presbyterian Church, to the\nrecovery of whose liberty he had so signally contributed, should be his\nown ordination to the ministerial office.\n\nFrom that time forward, the life of George Gillespie was devoted to the\npublic service of the Church; and he was incessantly engaged in all the\ngreat measures of that momentous period. He, however, was not the man of\nthe age. That man was Alexander Henderson, the acknowledged leader of the\nChurch of Scotland\u2019s Second Reformation. And, as it is not our purpose to\nwrite a history of that period, we must confine ourselves chiefly to those\nevents in which Gillespie acted a prominent part.\n\nThe next intimation that we receive of Gillespie is in Baillie\u2019s account\nof the Glasgow Assembly. \u201cAfter a sermon of Mr Gillespie,\u201d says Baillie,\n\u201cwherein the youth very learnedly and judiciously, as they say, handled\nthe words, \u2018The King\u2019s heart is in the hand of the Lord,\u2019 yet did too much\nencroach on the King\u2019s actions: he (Argyle) gave us a grave admonition, to\nlet authority alone, which the Moderator seconded, and we all religiously\nobserved, so long as the Assembly lasted.\u201d This proves, at least, that\nGillespie was highly esteemed by his brethren, who had selected him as one\nto preach before that important Assembly, notwithstanding his youth. It\nshould be added, that on consulting the records of that Assembly\u2019s\nproceedings, we do indeed find Argyle\u2019s grave admonition not to interfere\nwith the authority due to the King in his own province, and the\nModerator\u2019s answer; but nothing to lead us to think that it had any\nreference to Gillespie\u2019s sermon. Baillie had not, at that time, learned to\nknow and appreciate Gillespie, as he did afterwards and, as he had been\nsomewhat startled by the point and power of the \u201cEnglish Popish\nCeremonies,\u201d he might not unnaturally conclude, that Argyle\u2019s caution\nagainst what might be, had been caused by what had already been beginning\nto appear in the language of the youthful preacher.\n\nThe course of public affairs swept rapidly onward, though certainly not in\nsuch a channel as to gratify the lovers of arbitrary power and\nsuperstition. The King, enraged to find his beloved Prelacy overthrown at\nonce and entirely, prepared to force it upon the Scottish Covenanted\nChurch and people by force of arms. The Covenanters stood on the\ndefensive, and met the invading host on the Border, prepared to die rather\nthan submit to the loss of religious liberty. But the English army was\nlittle inclined to fight in such a cause. They had felt the king\u2019s tyranny\nand the oppression of their own prelates, and were not disposed to destroy\nthat liberty, so nobly won by Scotland, for which they were themselves\nmost earnestly longing. A peace ensued. The King granted that spiritual\nliberty which he was unable to withhold; and the ministers who had\naccompanied the Scottish army, returned to the discharge of their more\npeaceful duties. But this peace proved of short duration. The King levied\na new and more powerful army, and again declared war against his Scottish\nsubjects. Again the Covenanters resumed their weapons of defence, and\nmarched towards the Border, a number of the most eminent ministers, among\nwhom was Gillespie, being required to accompany the army, and empowered to\nact as a presbytery. It was, however, judged necessary to anticipate the\napproach of the English by entering England. This bold movement changed\nthe nature of the contest for the time, because the English parliament\nfelt the utmost jealousy of the King\u2019s despotic designs, and would not\ngrant him the necessary support. Negotiations for peace were begun at\nRipon, and transferred to London. This rendered it necessary for the\nScottish Commissioners for the peace to reside at London. Henderson,\nBlair, Baillie and Gillespie accompanied the Commissioners to London,\nresided with them there in the capacity of chaplains, and availed\nthemselves of the opportunity thus afforded, for proving to the people of\nEngland that presbyterian ministers were not such rude and ignorant men as\ntheir prelatic calumniators had asserted. The effect of their preaching\nwas astonishing, as even Clarendon, their prejudiced and bitter reviler,\nadmits. Wherever they preached, the people flocked in crowds to hear them,\nand even clustered round the doors and windows of the churches in which\nthey were proclaiming the unsearchable riches of Christ. It soon became\napparent that both the cause, and the men by whom it was defended, were\ntoo mighty to be despised. Courtly parasites might scoff, but the heart of\nEngland was compelled to know that living faith and true eloquence are\nequally powerful to move and guide the minds of men, whether on the bleak\nwaste of a Scottish moor, or in the midst of a mighty city.\n\nSoon after the return of the Scottish Commissioners and ministers, in the\nAssembly of 1641, the town of Aberdeen gave a call to George Gillespie to\nbe one of their pastors. This call, however, he strenuously and\nsuccessfully resisted, and was permitted to remain at Wemyss. But next\nyear, the town of Edinburgh applied to the General Assembly, to have him\ntranslated to one of the charges there, and this application was\nsuccessful, so that he became one of the ministers of Edinburgh in the\nyear 1642, and continued so during the remainder of his life.\n\nBut although Edinburgh had succeeded in obtaining Gillespie, the citizens\nwere not long permitted to enjoy the benefit of his ministry. Another\nclass of duties awaited him, in a still more public and important sphere\nof action. It is impossible here to do more than refer to the great events\nwhich at that time agitated not only Scotland, but also England. The\nsuperstition, bigotry and intolerance of Archbishop Laud and his\nfollowers, combining with and urging on the despotism of the King, had at\nlength completely exhausted the patience of the English people and\nparliament. Every pacific effort had proved fruitless; and it had become\nundeniably evident, to every English patriot, that Prelacy must be\nabolished and the royal prerogative limited, unless they were prepared to\nyield up every vestige of civil and religious liberty. They made the\nnobler choice, passed an act abolishing Prelacy, and summoned an Assembly\nof Divines to deliberate respecting the formation of such a Confession of\nFaith, Catechism, and Directory, as might lead to uniformity between the\nChurches of the two kingdoms, and thereby tend to secure the religious\nliberty of both. The Assembly of Divines met at Westminster, on the 1st\nday of July, 1643. Soon afterwards Commissioners from the English\nParliament, and from the Westminster Assembly, were appointed to proceed\nto Edinburgh, to be present at the meeting of the General Assembly in\nAugust, and to seek a conference, respecting the best method of forming\nthe basis of a religious and civil confederacy between the two kingdoms,\nin their time of mutual danger. These Commissioners, accordingly, attended\nthe meeting of the Assembly in Edinburgh, and the result of their\nconferences was the framing of that well-known bond of union between the\ntwo countries, THE SOLEMN LEAGUE AND COVENANT\u2014\u201ca document which we may be\npardoned for terming the noblest, in its essential nature and principles,\nof all that are recorded among the international transactions of the\nworld.\u201d\n\nAs the main object for which the Solemn League and Covenant was framed,\nwas to secure the utmost practicable degree of uniformity in the religious\nworship of both countries; and, as the English Divines had already met at\nWestminster to take the whole subject into consideration, and had\nrequested the assistance of Commissioners from the Church of Scotland, the\nGeneral Assembly named some of the most eminent of their ministers and\nelders as Commissioners to the Westminster Assembly. These were, Alexander\nHenderson, Robert Douglas, Robert Baillie, Samuel Rutherford, and George\nGillespie, ministers; and the Earl of Cassilis, Lord Maitland, and Sir\nArchibald Johnston of Warriston, elders; but neither the Earl of Cassilis\nnor Robert Douglas went. Three of these, Lord Maitland, Henderson, and\nGillespie, set off for London, along with the English Commissioners,\nimmediately after the rising of the General Assembly; the other three,\nWarriston, Rutherford, and Baillie, followed about a month afterwards. On\nthe 15th of September the Scottish Commissioners were received into the\nWestminster Assembly with great kindness and courtesy; and, on the 25th of\nthe same month, the Solemn League and Covenant was publicly sworn and\nsubscribed by both Parliament and Assembly, after addresses by Nyo and\nHenderson. It was not, however, till the 12th of October, that the\nWestminster Assembly commenced its serious deliberations concerning Church\nGovernment, Discipline, and a Directory of Worship, in the hope of\narriving at such conclusions as might produce religious uniformity in the\nChurches of England, Scotland, and Ireland, if not also with the Reformed\nChurches of the Continent.\n\nScarcely had the Westminster Assembly begun its deliberations, when it\nbecame abundantly apparent, that, however sincere its members might all be\nin the desire to promote the religious welfare of the community, they\nwere, nevertheless, divided in their views as to how that could be best\naccomplished. There were three parties in the Assembly, the Presbyterians,\nthe Independents, and the Erastians. Of these the Presbyterians(1) formed\nby far the most numerous, comprising at least nine-tenths of the entire\nbody. There were at first only five Independent divines, commonly termed\n\u201cthe Five Dissenting Brethren;\u201d but their number finally amounted to ten\nor eleven. Only two ministers were decided Erastians, but a considerable\nnumber of the parliamentary members, chiefly those who were professionally\nlawyers, advocated that secular policy. The Scottish Commissioners refused\nto exercise the right of voting, but were continually present in the\nAssembly, and took a very prominent part in all its deliberations and\ndebates, supporting, as might be expected, the views of the Presbyterians.\nThe chief strength of the Independents consisted in the tenacity with\nwhich they adhered to their own opinions, disputing every proposition\nbrought forward by others, but cautiously abstaining from giving any\ndefinite statement of their own; and in the close intercourse which they\ncontrived to keep with Cromwell and the military Independents. And the\nErastian party, though few in numbers within the Assembly itself,\npossessed, nevertheless, considerable influence, arising out of their\nreputation for learning, having as their ornament and support, that\ndistinguished man, emphatically called \u201cthe learned Selden.\u201d But the true\nsource of their power was the Parliament, which, having deprived the King\nof that ecclesiastical supremacy which he had so grievously abused, wished\nto retain it in its own possession, and therefore, supported the Erastian\nparty in the Assembly.\n\nNumerous and protracted were the debates which arose in the Westminster\nAssembly, during the discussion of the various topics on which these three\nparties differed in opinion; and in all those debates no person took a\nmore active part, or gained more distinction than George Gillespie. His\nprevious course of studies had rendered him perfectly familiar with all\nthat had been written on the subjects under discussion; his originally\nacute and powerful intellect had been thoroughly trained and exercised to\nits highest degree of clearness and vigour; and to a natural, perspicuous,\nand flowing readiness of language, the warmth and earnestness of his heart\nadded the energy and elevation which form the very essence of true\neloquence. We have already referred to the high expectations which Baillie\nentertained of his future career. But high as these had been, they were\nfar surpassed by the reality, as he himself declares. \u201cNone in all the\ncompany did reason more, and more pertinently than Mr Gillespie. That is\nan excellent youth; my heart blesses God in his behalf!\u201d\u2014\u201cVery learned and\nacute Mr Gillespie, a singular ornament of our church, than whom not one\nin the whole Assembly speaks to better purpose, and with better acceptance\nby all the hearers.\u201d\u2014\u201cMr George Gillespie, however I had a good opinion of\nhis gifts, yet I profess he has much deceived me: Of a truth there is no\nman whose parts in a public dispute I do so admire. He has studied so\naccurately all the points that ever yet came to our Assembly, he has got\nso ready, so assured, so solid a way of public debating, that however\nthere be in the Assembly divers very excellent men, yet, in my poor\njudgment, there is not one who speaks more rationally, and to the point,\nthan that brave youth has done ever.\u201d\n\nWe cannot here follow the course of the prolonged deliberations in which\nGillespie so greatly distinguished himself; but there is one instance of\nhis eminence which has so often been related, and not always very\naccurately, that it would be unpardonable not to give it here,\u2014especially\nas some pains have been taken to obtain as full and correct a version of\nit as is now practicable. After the Westminster Divines had agreed\nrespecting the office-bearers whose permanent continuation in the church\ncan be proved from scriptural authority; they proceeded to inquire\nconcerning the subject of Church Discipline. In this the Presbyterians\nwere constrained to encounter both the Independents and the Erastians; for\nthe Independents, on the one hand, denied any authoritative\nexcommunication or suspension, and the Erastians, on the other, admitted\nsuch a power, but placed it in the hands of the civil magistracy. For a\nconsiderable time the discussion was between the Presbyterians and the\nIndependents; but when the arguments of the latter party had been\nconclusively met and answered by their antagonists, the Erastians hastened\nto the rescue, and their champion, \u201cthe learned Selden,\u201d came to the\nAssembly, when the discussion drew near its close, prepared to pour forth\nall his learning for the discomfiture of the hitherto triumphant\nPresbyterians. His intention had been made known extensively, and even\nbefore the debate began, the house was crowded by all who could claim or\nobtain admission. Gillespie, who had been probably engaged in some\nCommittee business as usual, was rather late in coming, and upon his\narrival, not being recognised as a member by those who were standing about\nthe door and in the passages, was told that it was impossible for him to\nget in, the throng was so dense. \u201cCan ye not admit a _pinning_?\u201d said he,\nusing a word employed by masons, to indicate the thin slips of stone with\nwhich they pin, or fill up the chinks and inequalities that occur in the\nbuilding of a plain wall. He did, however, work his way to the seat\nallotted to the Scottish Commissioners, and took his place beside his\nbrethren. The subject under discussion was the text, Matt. xviii. 15-17,\nas bearing upon the question respecting excommunication. Selden arose, and\nin a long and elaborate speech, and with a great display of minute\nrabbinical lore, strove to demonstrate that the passage contained no\nwarrant for ecclesiastical jurisdiction, but that it related to the\nordinary practice of the Jews in their common civil courts, by whom, as he\nasserted, one sentence was excommunication, pronounced by their own\nauthority. Somewhat confused, if not appalled, by the vast erudition\ndisplayed, even the most learned and able of the divines seemed in no\nhaste to encounter their formidable opponent. At length both Herle and\nMarshall, two very distinguished men, attempted answers, but failed to\ncounteract the effect of Selden\u2019s speech. Gillespie had been observed by\nhis Scottish brethren writing occasionally in his note-book, as if marking\nthe heads of Selden\u2019s argument; and one of them, some accounts say\nRutherford, turning to him in this emergency, said, \u201cRise, George, rise\nup, man, and defend the right of the Lord Jesus Christ to govern, by his\nown laws, the church which he hath purchased with his blood.\u201d Thus urged,\nGillespie arose, gave first a summary of Selden\u2019s argument, divesting it\nof all the confusion of that cumbrous learning in which it had been\nwrapped, and reducing it to its simple elements; then in a speech of\nsingular acuteness and power, completely refuted it, proving that the\npassage could not be interpreted or explained away to mean a mere\nreference to a civil court. By seven distinct arguments he proved, that\nthe whole subject was of a spiritual nature, not within the cognisance of\ncivil courts; and he proved also, that the church of the Jews both\npossessed and exercised the power of spiritual censures. The effect of\nGillespie\u2019s speech was so great, as not only to convince the Assembly, but\nalso to astonish and confound Seldon himself, who is reported to have\nexclaimed in a tone of bitter mortification, \u201cThat young man, by this\nsingle speech, has swept away the learning and labour of ten years of my\nlife!\u201d Those who were clustered together in the passage near the door,\nremembering Gillespie\u2019s expression when he was attempting to enter, said\none to another, \u201cIt was well that we admitted the _pinning_, otherwise the\nbuilding would have fallen.\u201d Even his Scottish brethren, although well\nacquainted with his great abilities, were surprised with his masterly\nanalysis of Selden\u2019s argument, and looked into his note-book, expecting\nthere to find the outline of the summary which he had given. Their\nsurprise was certainly not diminished when they found that he had written\nnothing but, _Da lucem, Domine_, Lord give light,\u2014and similar brief\npetitions for the direction of that divine Head and King of the church,\nwhose crown-rights he was about to defend.\n\nVarious other anecdotes have been recorded respecting Gillespie\u2019s singular\nskill and ability in debate; but the preceding is at once the most\nstriking and the best authenticated, and may suffice to prove his\neminence, both in learning and in power of argument, among the Westminster\nDivines.(2)\n\nThe first part of the task in which the Westminster Assembly was engaged,\nwas the framing of a Directory for Public Worship. This having been\ncompleted about the close of the year 1644, the General Assembly of the\nChurch of Scotland met on the 23d of January, 1645, to take this Directory\ninto consideration, and to give it their sanction, should it be found\nsatisfactory. Baillie and Gillespie were sent to Scotland, to be present\nat the Assembly, that they might introduce the subject, and give any\nexplanation that might appear necessary, and to do everything in their\npower to procure for it the desired approbation. In this they were\ncompletely successful, and the Assembly passed an act sanctioning the\nDirectory,\u2014that act having been written, as Baillie informs us, by\nGillespie. Having accomplished the object of their mission, they returned\nto London, where Gillespie was speedily engaged in the Erastian\nControversy, during which he produced his greatest work.\n\nWe have already referred to the distinguished ability with which Gillespie\nencountered and defeated Selden, in the discussion which arose within the\nWestminster Assembly itself. But the principles of Erastianism were\nentertained by many who were not members of that Assembly, and were\nadvocated in other quarters, so as to lead to a literary controversy. The\nRev. Thomas Coleman, one of the Erastians divines, the other being\nLightfoot, preached a sermon before the House of Commons, on the 30th of\nJuly, 1645, in which there was a peculiar display of Erastianism of the\nvery strongest kind. This sermon was printed, as were all sermons preached\nbefore either House, and excited at once the disapprobation of all the\nfriends of religious liberty. It did not remain long unanswered. On the\n27th of August, the same year, Gillespie preached before the House of\nLords; and when his sermon was also published, he added to it an appendix\nentitled, \u201cA Brotherly Examination of some passages of Mr Coleman\u2019s late\nprinted sermon.\u201d In this appendix Gillespie not only answered and refuted\nColeman, but turned his arguments completely against himself. Coleman soon\nafterwards published a pamphlet entitled, \u201cA Brotherly Examination\nRe-examined.\u201d To this Gillespie replied in another bearing the title,\n\u201cNihil Respondes,\u201d in which he somewhat sharply exposed the weak and\ninconclusive character of his opponent\u2019s argument. Irritated by the\ncastigation he had received, Coleman published a bitter reply, to which he\ngave the somewhat unintelligible title of \u201cMale Dicis\nMaledicis,\u201d\u2014intending, probably, to insinuate that Gillespie\u2019s answer was\nof a railing character. This roused Gillespie, and induced him to put\nforth his controversial power in a singularly vigorous pamphlet, entitled,\n\u201cMale Audis,\u201d in which he took a rapid survey of the whole Erastian\ncontroversy, so far as Coleman and some of his friends had brought it\nforward, convicted him and them of numerous self-contradictions, of\nunsoundness in theology, of violating the covenant which they had sworn,\nand of inculcating opinions fatal to both civil and religious liberty. To\nthis powerful production Coleman attempted no reply; nor have its\narguments ever been answered by any subsequent advocate of Erastianism.\n\nBut however able and well-timed these controversial pamphlets were, they\nwere not enough to occupy even the few spare hours that Gillespie was able\nto snatch from his attendance on the business of the Assembly. He had\nplanned, and was all the while prosecuting, a much larger work. That work\nappeared about the close of the year 1646, under the title of \u201cAaron\u2019s Rod\nBlossoming: or, the Divine Ordinance of Church Government Vindicated.\u201d In\nthis remarkably able and elaborate production, Gillespie took up the\nErastian controversy as stated and defended by its ablest advocates,\nfairly encountering their strongest arguments, and assailing their most\nformidable positions, in the frank and fearless manner of a man thoroughly\nsincere, and thoroughly convinced of the truth and goodness of his cause.\nAs it may be presumed that the readers of this memoir are also in\npossession of \u201cAaron\u2019s Rod,\u201d we need not occupy space in giving even a\nbrief outline of that admirable work; but as we are convinced that the\nErastian conflict, which has been recently resumed, must still be fought,\nand will be ultimately won, we strenuously recommend the studious perusal\nof Gillespie\u2019s masterly production to all who wish fully to comprehend the\nsubject.(3) One or two points of general information, however, it may be\nexpedient to give. In the \u201cAaron\u2019s Rod,\u201d while Gillespie intentionally\ntraversed the whole ground of the Erastian controversy, he directed also\nspecial attention to the productions of the day. This he could not avoid;\nbut this has tended unfortunately, to give to his work the appearance of\nbeing to some extent an ephemeral production, suited to the period when it\nappeared, but not so well suited to the present times. It addresses itself\nto answer the arguments of Selden, and Coleman, and Hussey, and Prynne;\nand as the writings of these men have sunk into oblivion, we are liable to\nregard the work which answered them as one which has done its deed, and\nmay also be allowed to disappear. Let it be observed, that Erastianism\nnever had abler advocates than the above-named men. Selden was so\npre-eminent for learning that his distinguishing designation was \u201cthe\nlearned Selden.\u201d Coleman was so thoroughly conversant with Hebrew\nliterature, that he was commonly termed \u201cRabbi Coleman.\u201d Hussey, minister\nat Chessilhurst in Kent, was a man of great eloquence, both as a speaker\nand a writer, and possessed no small influence among the strong-minded men\nof that period. And Prynne had a double claim on public attention both\nthen and still; for he had been so formidable an antagonist of the Laudean\nPrelacy, as to have been marked out by Laud as a special victim,\u2014had been\ncondemned to the pillory, and suffered the loss of both his ears by the\nsentence of that cruel prelate,\u2014and had been rescued from his sufferings,\nand restored to political life and influence, by the Long Parliament. He\nwas, moreover, both a learned man, an acute lawyer, and an able and subtle\ncontroversialist, and his writings exercised at the time no mean\ninfluence. When such men undertook the advocacy of the Erastian argument,\nencouraged as they were by the English Parliament, it may well be\nconceived that they would present it both in its ablest, and in its most\nplausible form. And it is doing no discredit to Erastians of the present\nday, to say that they are not likely to produce anything either more\nprofound in learning, or more able and acute in reasoning than was done by\ntheir predecessors of the Long Parliament, and the Westminster Assembly.\nIf, therefore, Gillespie\u2019s Aaron\u2019s Rod completely defeated the acute and\nable men of that day, we may well recommend it to the perusal of those\nwhose duty it may be to engage in a similar controversy in the present\nage.\n\nBut while such were Gillespie\u2019s labours in the field of controversy, the\nvalue of which could not be easily over-estimated, his memory would be\ngrievously wronged were we to regard him only as a controversialist. For\nalthough the topics which first engaged the attention of the Westminster\nAssembly were those on which the greatest difference of opinion existed,\nand to which, almost of necessity, the public mind, both then and ever\nsince, has been most strongly directed, there was a very large portion of\ntheir duty, and that, too, of the highest importance, and demanding the\nutmost care, in which a much greater degree of unanimity prevailed. For a\nconsiderable time after the Assembly commenced its deliberations, its\nattention was almost exclusively occupied with the framing of Directories\nfor public worship and ordination, and with discussions respecting the\nform of Church government, including the power of Church censure. These\ntopics involved both the Independent and the Erastian controversies; and\ntill some satisfactory conclusions had been reached on these points, the\nAssembly abstained from entering upon the less agitating, but not less\nimportant work of framing a Confession of Faith. But having completed\ntheir task, so far as depended upon themselves, they then turned their\nattention to their doctrinal labours.\n\nThe manner in which the Assembly entered upon this solemn duty deserves\nthe utmost attention, as intimating the earnest and prudent spirit by\nwhich their whole deliberations were pervaded. They appointed a committee\nto prepare and arrange the main propositions which were to be examined and\ndigested into a system by the Assembly. The members of this committee\nwere, Dr Hoyle, Dr Gouge, Messrs Herle, Gataker, Tuckney, Reynolds, and\nVines, with the Scottish Commissioners Henderson, Baillie, Rutherford, and\nGillespie. Those learned and able divines began their labours by\narranging, in the most systematic order, the various great and sacred\ntruths which God has revealed to man; and then reduced these to thirty-two\ndistinct heads or chapters, each having a title expressive of its subject.\nThese were again subdivided into sections; and the committee formed\nthemselves into several subcommittees, each of which took a specific topic\nfor the sake of exact and concentrated deliberation. When these\nsub-committees had completed their respective tasks, the whole results\nwere laid before the entire committee, and any alterations suggested and\ndebated till all were of one mind. And when any title, or chapter, had\nbeen thus fully prepared by the committee, it was reported to the\nAssembly, and again subjected to the most minute and careful\ninvestigation, in every paragraph, sentence, and even word. All that\nlearning the most profound, intellect the most searching, and piety the\nmost sincere could accomplish, was thus concentrated in the Westminster\nAssembly\u2019s Confession of Faith, which may be safely termed the most\nperfect statement of systematic Theology ever framed by the Christian\nChurch.\n\nIn the preliminary deliberations of the Committee the Scottish divines\ntook a leading part, and none more than Gillespie. But no report of these\ndeliberations either was or could be made public. The results alone\nappeared when the Committee, from time to time, laid its matured\npropositions before the Assembly. And it is gratifying to be able to add,\nthat throughout the deliberations of the Assembly itself, when composing,\nor rather, formally sanctioning the Confession of Faith, there prevailed\nalmost an entire and perfect harmony. There appears, indeed, to have been\nonly _two_ subjects on which any difference of opinion existed among them.\nThe one of these was the doctrine of Election, concerning which Baillie\ninforms us they had \u201clong and tough debates;\u201d the other was concerning\nthat which heads the chapter entitled \u201cOf Church Censures,\u201d as its\nfundamental proposition, viz. \u201cThe Lord Jesus Christ, as King and Head of\nhis Church, has therein appointed a government in the hand of\nchurch-officers distinct from the civil magistrate.\u201d This proposition the\nAssembly manifestly intended and understood to contain a principle\ndirectly and necessarily opposed to the very essence of Erastianism, and\nit was regarded in the same light by the Erastians themselves, hence it\nhad to encounter their most strenuous opposition. It was, however,\nsomewhat beyond the grasp of the lay-members of the Assembly, especially\nsince their champion Selden had in a great measure withdrawn from the\ndebates after his signal discomfiture by Gillespie, and consequently it\nwas triumphantly carried, the single dissentient voice being that of\nLightfoot, the other Erastian divine, Coleman, having died before the\nconclusion of the debate. The framing of the Confession occupied the\nAssembly nearly a year. After having been carefully transcribed, it was\npresented to the parliament on the 3d of December, 1646.\n\nA plan similar to that already described was also employed in preparing\nthat admirable digest of Christian doctrine, the Shorter Catechism, and so\nfar as can be ascertained, by the same Committee. For a time, indeed, they\nattempted to prosecute the framing of both Confession and Catechism at\nonce; but after some progress had been made with both, the Assembly\nresolved to finish the Confession first, and then to construct the\nCatechism upon its model, so far at least as to have no proposition in the\none which was not in the other. By this arrangement they wisely avoided\nthe danger of subsequent debate and delay. Various obstacles, however,\ninterposed, and so greatly impeded the progress of the Assembly, that the\nCatechism was not so speedily completed as had been expected. It was,\nhowever, presented to the House of Commons on the 5th of November 1647,\nand the Larger, in the spring of the following year.\n\nThere is one anecdote connected with the formation of the Shorter\nCatechism both full of interest and so very beautiful, that it must not be\nomitted. In one of the earliest meetings of the Committee, the subject of\ndeliberation was to frame an answer to the question \u201c_What is God_?\u201d Each\nman felt the unapproachable sublimity of the divine idea suggested by\nthese words; but who could venture to give it expression in human\nlanguage! All shrunk from the too sacred task in awe-struck reverential\nfear. At length it was resolved, as an expression of the Committee\u2019s deep\nhumility, that the youngest member should first make the attempt. He\nconsented; but begged that the brethren would first unite with him in\nprayer for divine enlightenment. Then in slow and solemn accents he thus\nbegan his prayer:\u2014\u201cO God, Thou art a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and\nunchangeable, in Thy being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and\ntruth.\u201d\u2014When he ceased, the first sentence of his prayer was immediately\nwritten down and adopted, as the most perfect answer that could be\nconceived, as, indeed, in a very sacred sense, God\u2019s own answer,\ndescriptive of Himself.(4) Who, then, was the youngest member of the\nCommittee? When we compare the birth-dates of the respective members of\nthe Committee, we find that George Gillespie was the youngest by more than\na dozen years. We may, therefore, safely conclude, that George Gillespie\nwas the man who was thus guided to frame this marvellous answer.\n\nWithout further enlarging on these points, we may, without hazard, affirm,\nthat however eminent Gillespie was in the department of controversy, he\nwas scarcely, if at all, less so in that of systematic theology, while his\npersonal piety was of the most elevated and spiritual character. Rarely,\nindeed, have such qualities met in any one man, as were united in him; but\nwhen God requires such a man, he creates, endows and trains him, so as to\nmeet the necessity.\n\nWhen the public labours of the Westminster Assembly drew near a close, the\nScottish commissioners returned to their native country. Henderson had\npreviously found the repose of the grave, Rutherford remained a short time\nbehind. Baillie and Gillespie appeared at the General Assembly which met\nin August, 1647, and laid before that supreme ecclesiastical court the\nresult of their protracted labours. The Confession of Faith was ratified\nby that Assembly. The same Assembly caused to be printed a series of\npropositions, or \u201cTheses against Erastianism,\u201d as Baillie terms them,\namounting to one hundred and eleven, drawn up by George Gillespie,\nembodying eight of them in the act which authorised their publication. The\nperusal of these propositions would enable any person of unprejudiced and\nintelligent mind to master and refute the whole Erastian theory; and could\nnot fail, at the same time, to draw forth sentiments of admiration towards\nthe clear and strong mind by which they were framed.\n\nBut the incessant toils in which Gillespie\u2019s life had been spent had\nshattered his constitution beyond the power of recovery; and the state in\nwhich he found Scotland on his return was such as to permit no relaxation\nof these toils. The danger in which the obstinacy and duplicity of Charles\nI. had placed that unhappy monarch\u2019s life, drew forth towards him the\nstrong compassion of all who cherished sentiments of loyalty to the\nsovereign and pity for the man. But in many instances these generous\nfeelings were allowed to bias the dictates of religious principle and\nsound judgment; and a party began to be formed for the purpose of\nattempting to save the King even at the hazard of entering into a war with\nEngland. This was, of course, eagerly encouraged by all who had previously\nadhered to the King\u2019s party in the contest between him and the\nCovenanters; and a series of intrigues began and were carried on, breaking\nthe harmony which had previously existed, and preparing for the disastrous\nconsequences which soon afterwards ensued. Gillespie exerted himself to\nthe utmost of his power to avert the coming calamities which he\nanticipated, by striving to prevent the commission of crimes which provoke\njudgment. His influence was sufficient to restrain the Church from\nconsenting to countenance the weak and wicked movements of politicians.\nBut his health continued to sink under these incessant toils and\nanxieties. He was chosen moderator of the General Assembly of 1648,\nthough, as Baillie states, \u201che did much deprecate the burden, as he had\ngreat reason, both for his health\u2019s sake, and other great causes.\u201d\n\nThis Assembly met on the 12th of July, 1648, and so arduous and difficult\nwere the duties which it had to discharge, that it did not end its labours\ntill the 12th of August. Although Gillespie was then rapidly sinking under\nthe disease of which he died, which, from its symptoms, must have been\nconsumption, he continued to take an active part in all its deliberations,\nand drew up the last public paper which it directed to be framed, in\nanswer to a document, issued by the State, respecting the engagement that\nhad been formed for the support of the King. The arduous labours of the\nAssembly being thus ended, Gillespie left Edinburgh and retired to\nKirkcaldy, with the view of seeking, by change of scene and air, some\nrenovation to his health. But the disease had taken too firm a hold of his\nenfeebled constitution, and he continued to suffer from increasing\nweakness. Still the cares of the distracted Church and country pressed\nheavily on his mind. He was now unable to attend the public meetings of\nChurch courts; but on the 8th of September he addressed a letter to the\nCommission of Assembly, in which he stated clearly and strongly his\nopinion concerning the duties and the dangers of the time. Continuing to\nsink, and feeling death at hand, he partly wrote and partly dictated what\nmay be termed his dying \u201cTestimony against association with malignant\nenemies of the truth and godliness.\u201d(5) At length, on the 17th day of\nDecember, 1648, his toils and sorrows ceased, and he fell asleep in Jesus.\n\nSo passed away from this world one of those bright and powerful spirits\nwhich are sent in troublous times to carry forward God\u2019s work among\nmankind. Incessant toil is the destiny of such highly-gifted men while\nhere below; and not unfrequently is their memory assailed by those mean\nand little minds who shrunk with instinctive fear and hatred before the\nenergetic movements which they could neither comprehend nor encounter. But\ntheir recompense is in heaven, when their work is done; and future\ngenerations delight to rescue their reputation from the feeble obloquy\nwith which malevolence and folly had endeavoured to hide or defame it.\nThus has it been with George Gillespie to a considerable extent already;\nand we entertain not the slightest shadow of doubt that his transcendent\nmerit is but beginning to be known and appreciated as it deserves, and\nthat ere very long his well-earned fame will shine too clearly and too\nstrong to be approached by detractors.\n\n                                * * * * *\n\nWe have but little more to relate respecting George Gillespie. His death\nwas deeply lamented by all who loved their church and country at the time;\nand such was the feeling generally entertained of his great merit, that\nthe Committee of Estates, or government of the kingdom, by an Act dated\n20th December, 1648, did, \u201cas an acknowledgment for his faithfulness in\nall the public employments entrusted to him by this Church, both at home\nand abroad, his faithful labours, and indefatigable diligence in all the\nexercises of his ministerial calling, for his Master\u2019s service, and his\nlearned writings, published to the world, in which rare and profitable\nemployments, both for Church and State, he truly spent himself and closed\nhis days, ordain, That the sum of one thousand pounds sterling be given to\nhis widow and children.\u201d And though the Parliament did, by their Act,\ndated June 8th, 1650, unanimously ratify the preceding Act, and\nrecommended to their Committee to make the same effectual, yet in\nconsequence of Cromwell\u2019s invasion, and the confusion into which the whole\nkingdom was thereby thrown, this benevolent design was frustrated, as his\ngrandson, the Rev. George Gillespie, minister at Strathmiglo, afterwards\ndeclared.(6) So much for the trust to be placed in national gratitude and\nthe promises of statesmen.\n\nGeorge Gillespie was buried at Kirkcaldy, his birth-place, and the place\nalso where he died. A tomb-stone, erected to his memory by his relatives\nand friends, bore an inscription in Latin, recording the chief actions of\nhis life, and stating the leading elements of his character. But when\nPrelacy was re-imposed on Scotland, after the restoration of Charles II.,\nthe mean malice of the Prelatists gratified itself by breaking the\ntomb-stone. This petty and spiteful act is thus recorded in the \u201cMercurius\nCaledonius,\u201d one of the small quarto newspapers or periodicals of the\ntime, of date January 16th to 25th, 1661. \u201cThe late Committee of Estates\nordered the tomb-stone of Mr George Gillespie, whereon was engraven a\nscandalous inscription, should be fetched from the burial place, and upon\na market-day, at the cross of Kirkcaldy, where he had formerly been\nminister, and there solemnly broken by the hands of the hangman; which was\naccordingly done,\u2014a just indignity upon the memory of so dangerous a\nperson.\u201d\n\nThe Committee of Estates by which this paltry deed was done was that of\nMiddleton\u2019s parliament, frequently called the \u201cdrunken parliament,\u201d from\nthe excesses of its leading men, and which on the following year\nsignalised itself by the Glasgow act,\u2014that act which emptied nearly four\nhundred pulpits in one day. The inaccuracy of the statement made by the\nprelatic newspaper, asserting that he had formerly been minister at\nKirkcaldy, will not surprise any person who is acquainted with the\nwritings of the Prelatists of that period, who seem not to have been able\nto write the truth when relating the most common and well-known facts. But\none is somewhat surprised to find statements equally inaccurate made\nrespecting George Gillespie, by reverend and learned historians. In Dr\nCook\u2019s History of the Church of Scotland, we find in one passage George\nGillespie\u2019s character and conduct completely misunderstood and\nmisrepresented, (vol. iii. pages 160-162), and in a subsequent passage an\nassertion that the proceedings of that party in the church called the\nProtestors were, in the year 1650, \u201cdirected by Gillespie, a factious\nminister, whose name has been frequently mentioned,\u201d (page 196). George\nGillespie was the only person of whom mention was made, or could be made,\nin the previous portion of the history, as his brother had not then began\nto take any active part in public affairs; but he was dead nearly two\nyears before the date to which the latter passage refers. It is plain that\nDr Cook confounded George Gillespie with his brother Patrick, and ascribed\nto the former the actions of the latter, regarding them both as but one\nand the same person. He further asserts, that Gillespie was \u201csuspected of\ncorresponding with the Sectaries.\u201d That Patrick Gillespie corresponded\nwith the Sectaries, and was much trusted and countenanced by Cromwell, is\nperfectly true; but before that time George Gillespie had joined the One\nChurch and family in heaven. In every period of his life, and in every\ntransaction in which he was engaged, George Gillespie was far above all\nprivate or discreditable intriguing, which is the vice of weak, cunning,\nand selfish minds. And while we do not think it necessary further to\nprosecute this vindication of his memory, we yet think it our duty, when\nwriting a memoir of him, thus briefly to set aside the groundless\naccusation, whether it be adduced by prelatic or Erastian writers,\u2014his\nbaffled antagonists when living, his impotent calumniators when dead.\n\nThe tomb-stone, as has been related, was broken in 1661, but the\ninscription was preserved. A plain tablet was erected in 1745, by his\ngrandson, the Rev. George Gillespie, minister of Strathmiglo, on which the\ninscription was re-produced, with a slight addition, mentioning both\nevents. It is still to be seen in the south-east porch of the present\nchurch. The inscription is as follows:\u2014\n\n\n    MAGISTER GEORGIUS GILLESPIE, PASTOR EDINBURGENSIS, JUVENILIBUS\n    ANNIS RITUUM ANGLORUM PONTIFICIORUM TURMAM PROSTRAVIT: GLISCENTE\n    AETATE, DELEGATUS CUM MANDATIS IN SYNODO ANGLICANA, PR\u00c6SULEM E\n    ANGLIA ERADICANDUM, SINCERUM DEI CULTUM UNIFORMEM PROMOVENDUM,\n    CURAVIT; ERASTUM AARONIS GERMINANTE VIRGA CASTIGAVIT. IN PATRIAM\n    REVERSUS FOEDIFRAGOS ANGLIAM BELLO LACESSENTES LABEFACTAVIT:\n    SYNODI NATIONALIS ANNO 1648, EDINBURGI HABIT\u00c6 PR\u00c6SES ELECTUS,\n    EXTREMAM PATIR\u00c6 SU\u00c6 OPERAM CUM LAUDE NAVAVIT: CUMQUE OCULATIS\n    TESTIS VIDISSET MALIGNANTIUM QUAM PR\u00c6DIXERAT RUINAM, EODEM QUO\n    FOEDUS TRIUM GENTIUM SOLENNE RENOVATUM TUIT DIE DECEDENS IN PACE,\n    ANNO \u00c6TATIS 36, IN GAUDIUM DOMINI INTRAVIT: INGENIO PROFUNDUS,\n    GENIO MITIS, DISPUTATIONE ACUTUS, ELOQUIO FACUNDUS, ANIMO\n    INVICTUS, BONOS IN AMOREM, MALOS IN INVIDIAM, OMNES IN SUI\n    ADMIRATIONEM, RAPUIT: PATL\u00c6 SU\u00c6 ORNAMENTUM; TANTO PATRE DIGNA\n    SOBOLES.\n\n\n    THIS TOMB BEING PULLED DOWN BY THE MALIGNANT INFLUENCE OF\n    ARCHBISHOP SHARP, AFTER THE INTRODUCTION OF PRELACY, MR GEORGE\n    GILLESPIE, MINISTER OF THE GOSPEL AT STRATHMIGLO, CAUSED IT TO BE\n    RE-ERECTED, IN HONOUR OF HIS SAID WORTHY GRANDFATHER, AND AS A\n    STANDING MONUMENT OF DUTIFUL REGARD TO HIS BLESSED MEMORY; ANNO\n    DOMINI, 1746.\n\n\nIt may be expedient to give a translation:\u2014\n\n\n    \u201cMaster George Gillespie, minister at Edinburgh, in his youthful\n    years overthrew a host of \u2018English popish ceremonies;\u2019 as he\n    approached full manhood, having been sent as commissioner to the\n    Westminster Assembly, his attention was directed to the task of\n    extirpating Prelacy from England, and promoting purity and\n    uniformity in the worship of God. He chastised Erastianism in his\n    \u2018Aaron\u2019s Rod Blossoming.\u2019 Having returned to his native country he\n    weakened the violators of the covenant, who were bent on provoking\n    a war with England.(7) Having been chosen moderator of the General\n    Assembly which met at Edinburgh in the year 1648, he devoted his\n    last exertions to the service of his country so as to draw forth\n    public approbation: and having, as an eye-witness, seen that ruin\n    of the malignants which he had foretold, departing in peace on the\n    same day on which the League of the three kingdoms was solemnly\n    renewed, in the 36th year of his age, he entered into the joy of\n    the Lord. He was a man profound in genius, mild in disposition,\n    acute in argument, flowing in eloquence, unconquered in mind. He\n    drew to himself the love of the good, the envy of the bad, and the\n    admiration of all. He was an ornament of his country,\u2014a son worthy\n    of such a father.\u201d\n\n\nSuch was the \u201cscandalous inscription\u201d which the peevish spleen, yet bitter\nmalice of Scottish Prelacy, found gratification in attempting to destroy.\nBut there is a righteous retribution even in this world. Men rear their\nown monuments, and write inscriptions on them which time cannot\nobliterate. Gillespie\u2019s enduring monument is in his actions and his\nwritings, which latest ages will admire. The monuments of Scottish Prelacy\nare equally imperishable, whether in the wantonly defaced tomb-stones of\npiety and patriotism, or in the moss-grown martyr-stones that stud the\nmoors and glens of our native land; and the inscriptions thereupon are\nfearfully legible with records of indelible infamy.\n\nIt remains but to offer a few remarks respecting Gillespie\u2019s various\nworks. The first production of his pen was his remarkable \u201cDispute against\nthe English Popish Ceremonies.\u201d It was published in 1637, when its author\nwas only in the 25th year of his age; and it must have been completed some\ntime previous to its publication, as it appears to have been printed\nabroad, most probably in Holland. This gives countenance to one statement\nwhich affirms it to have been written when Gillespie had scarcely passed\nhis 22d year.\n\nHis next work was published in London, in the year 1641, where he was\nduring the progress of the treaty with the King. It is referred to by\nBaillie in the following terms:\u2014\u201cThink not we live any of us here to be\nidle; Mr Henderson has ready now a short treatise, much called for, of our\nchurch discipline; Mr Gillespie has the grounds of Presbyterial Government\nwell Asserted; Mr Blair, a pertinent answer to Hall\u2019s Remonstrance: all\nthese are ready for the press.\u201d The valuable treatise here referred to has\nnot been so much noticed as several other of Gillespie\u2019s writings, but is\nincluded in this collective edition.\n\nHis Sermons and Controversial Pamphlets were produced in the years\n1641-5-6, during the sittings of the Westminster Assembly.\n\nAaron\u2019s Rod Blossoming was published at London also, about the close of\nthe year 1646. This is his greatest work.\n\nThe celebrated Hundred and Eleven Propositions were prepared before he\nleft London, and laid before the General Assembly on his return to\nScotland in the summer of 1647. Perhaps it is not possible to obtain a\nclear conception of Erastianism better than by the study of these\npropositions. They have been reprinted several times, yet were rarely to\nbe obtained.\n\nThe short, yet very able and high-principled papers which he prepared for\nthe Assembly and its Commission in 1648, were his latest writings.\n\nA short time after his death, and during the year 1649, his brother\nPatrick published in one volume, entitled a \u201cTreatise of Miscellany\nQuestions,\u201d a series of papers, twenty-two in number, on a variety of\nimportant topics, which appeared to be in a condition fit for the press.\nThough this is a posthumous production, and consequently without its\nauthor\u2019s finishing corrections, it displays the same clearness, precision,\nand logical power, which characterise his other works. We are inclined to\nconjecture that these Essays, as we would now term them, were written at\ndifferent times during the course of several years, and while he was\nstudying the various topics to which they relate. Several of them are on\nsubjects which were debated in the Westminster Assembly; and it is very\nprobable that Gillespie wrote them while maturing his views on these\npoints preparatory for those discussions in which he so greatly\ndistinguished himself. This conjecture is strengthened by the curious and\ninteresting fact, that a paper, which will be found beginning at page 109\nof the part now printed for the first time from the MS., is almost\nidentical, both in argument and language, though somewhat different in\narrangement, with chapter viii. pages 115 to 120, of Aaron\u2019s Rod. The\narrangement in the Aaron\u2019s Rod is more succinct than in the paper referred\nto, but its principles, and very much of the language, are altogether the\nsame. May not this indicate Gillespie\u2019s mode of study and composition? May\nhe not have been in the habit of concentrating his mind on the leading\ntopics of the subjects which he was studying, writing out pretty fully and\ncarefully his thoughts on these topics, and afterwards connecting and\narranging them so as to form one complete work? If so, then we may\nconclude that the Miscellany Questions contain such of these masses of\nseparate thinking as Gillespie found no opportunity of using in any other\nmanner, and, therefore, consented to their publication in their present\nform.\n\nIn Wodrow\u2019s Analecta it is stated that Gillespie had a manuscript volume\nof sermons prepared for the press, which were bought from the printer by\nthe Sectaries, and probably destroyed. It is also stated, that there were\nsix octavo volumes of notes written by Gillespie at the Westminster\nAssembly then extant, containing an abstract of its deliberations. Of\nthese manuscript volumes there are two copies in the Wodrow MSS.,\nAdvocates\u2019 Library, but neither of them appears to be Gillespie\u2019s own\nhand-writing; the quarto certainly is not, and the octavo seems to be an\naccurate copy of _two_ of the original volumes. These have been collated\nand transcribed by Mr Meek, with his well-known care and fidelity, and the\nresult is now, for the first time, given to the public. What has become of\nthe missing volumes is not known, and it is to be feared the loss is\nirrecoverable. There is one consideration, however, which mitigates our\nregret for the loss of these volumes. The one which has been preserved\nbegins February 2d, 1644, and ends January 3d, 1645.(8) Lightfoot\u2019s\nJournal continues till the end of 1644, and then terminates abruptly, as\nif he had not felt it necessary any longer to continue noting down the\noutline of the debates. Yet Lightfoot continued to attend the Assembly\nthroughout the whole of its protracted deliberations. From other sources\nalso, we learn that the whole of the points on which there existed any\nconsiderable difference of opinion in the Assembly, had been largely\ndebated during the year 1644, so that little remained to be said on either\nside. The differences, indeed, continued; but they assumed the form of\nwritten controversy, the essence of which we have in the volume entitled,\n\u201cThe Grand Debate.\u201d It is probable, therefore, that the lost volumes of\nGillespie\u2019s manuscript contained chiefly his own remarks on the writings\nof the Independents, and, not unlikely, the outlines of the answers\nreturned by the Assembly. Supposing this to be the case, it would\ndoubtless have been very interesting to have had Gillespie\u2019s remarks and\narguments, but they could not have given much information which we do not\nat present possess.\n\nA few brief notices respecting the papers now first published may both be\ninteresting, and may conduce to rendering them intelligible to the general\nreader.\n\nThere is _first_, an extract attested by the scribes, or clerks, of the\nWestminster Assembly, copied from the original, by Wodrow, and giving a\nstatement of the Votes on Discipline and Government, from session 76, to\nsession 186.\n\n_Second_, Notes of Proceedings from February 2, to May 14, 1644, to p. 64.\n\n_Third_, Notes of Proceedings from September 4, 1644, to January 3, 1645,\nto p. 100. (By consulting Lightfoot, we learn that the time between May\nand September was occupied chiefly in debates respecting Ordination, the\nmode of dispensing the Lord\u2019s Supper, Excommunication, and Baptism, with\nsome minor points.)\n\n_Fourth_, Debates in the Sub-committee respecting the Directory, 4th\nMarch, to 10th June, p. 101-2.\n\n_Fifth_, Notes of Proceedings in the Grand Committee, from September 20,\nto October 25, 1644, p. 103-7. This part of the manuscript, though short,\nis of very considerable importance, as giving us a specimen of the manner\nin which the Grand Committee acted. The Grand Committee was composed of\nsome of the most influential persons of the Lords, of the Commons, and of\nthe Assembly, together with the Scottish Commissioners. The duty of that\nCommittee was to consult together respecting the subjects to be brought\nbefore the Assembly, and to prepare a formal statement of those subjects\nfor the purpose of regular deliberation. By this process a large amount of\ndebate was precluded, and the leading men were enabled to understand each\nother\u2019s sentiments before the more public discussions began. And as the\nScottish Commissioners were necessarily constituent members of this\nCommittee, their influence in directing the whole proceedings was both\nvery great, and in constant operation. Lightfoot\u2019s journal gives no\naccount of the proceedings of this Committee.\n\n_Sixth_, A paper on excommunication, &c. It has already been mentioned\nthat this paper is nearly identical with part of a chapter in the Aaron\u2019s\nRod.\n\n_Seventh_, A short note on some discussions which took place in the\nCommittee of the General Assembly at Edinburgh, on the 7th and 8th of\nFebruary, 1645, at the time when Baillie and Gillespie laid before the\nAssembly the Directory which had been recently completed.\n\n_Eighth_, The Ordinance of the two Houses of the English Parliament, 12th\nJune, 1643, summoning the Assembly of Divines. This is added chiefly for\nthe purpose of shewing the intention of the Parliament in calling the\nAssembly.\n\nIt has been already stated that there are two MS. volumes, purporting to\nbe copies of Gillespie\u2019s Notes. The one of these is in octavo, and seems\nto have been carefully taken; the other is in quarto, and appears to be\npartly a copy, partly an abstract. In it Gillespie is always spoken of in\nthe third person, which has caused many variations. The transcriber has\nalso made many omissions, not only of one, but of several paragraphs at a\ntime, frequently passing over the remarks of the several speakers. It\nappears to have been his object to copy chiefly the argumentative part of\nthe manuscript. This defective transcription had belonged to Mr William\nVeitch, as appears from his name written on the cover and first page, with\nthe addition \u201cminister at Peebles, 1691.\u201d In the copy transcribed for the\npress, the octavo manuscript has been followed. The quarto, however, along\nwith Lightfoot, has been found useful in correcting the Scripture\nreferences, which had all to be carefully examined and verified; but\nsometimes all three failed to give satisfaction, and a conjectural\nsubstitute has been given, enclosed in brackets, and with a point of\ninterrogation. In concluding these remarks, we cannot help expressing\ngreat gratification to see for the first time a complete edition of the\nworks of George Gillespie; and in order also to complete the memoir, we\nadd, as an appendix, some very interesting extracts from the Maitland Club\nedition of Wodrow\u2019s Analecta, chiefly relative to his last illness and\ndeath.\n\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. EXTRACTS FROM WODROW\u2019S ANALECTA (MAITLAND CLUB EDITION)\n\n\n\u201cMR GEORGE GILLESPIE.\n\n\u201cMr George Gillespie, first minister of Kirkcaldy, and afterward minister\nof Edinburgh; when he was a child, he seemed to be somewhat dull and soft\nlike, so that his mother would have stricken and abused him, and she would\nhave made much of Patrick, his younger brother. His father, Mr John\nGillespie, minister of Kirkcaldy, was angry to see his wife carry so to\nhis son George; and he would have said, \u2018My heart, let alone; though\nPatrick may have some respect given him in the Church, yet my son George\nwill be the great man in the Church of Scotland.\u2019 And he said of him when\nhe was a-dying, \u2018George, George, I have gotten many a brave promise for\nthee.\u2019 And indeed he was very soon a great man; for it\u2019s reported, that\nbefore he was a preacher, he wrote the \u2018English Popish Ceremonies.\u2019 He\nwas, of all ministers in his time, one of the greatest men for disputing\nand arguing; so that he was, being but a young man, much admired at the\nAssembly at Westminster, by all that heard him; he being one of the\nyoungest members that was there. I heard old Mr Patrick Simson say, that\nhe heard his cousin, Mr George Gillespie say, \u2018Let no man who is called of\nGod to any work, be it never so great and difficult, distrust God for\nassistance, as I clearly found at that great Assembly at Westminster. If I\nwere to live a long time in the world, I would not desire a more noble\nlife, than the life of pure and single dependence on God; for, said he,\nthough I may have a claim to some gifts of learning and parts, yet I ever\nfound more advantage by single looking to God for assistance than by all\nthe parts and gifts that ever I could pretend to, at that time.\u2019\n\n\u201cWhen he was at London, he would be often on his knees; at another time,\nreading and writing. And when he was sitting in that great Assembly at\nWestminster, he was often observed to have a little book, and to be\nmarking down something with his pen in that book, even when some of the\nmost learned men, as Coleman and Selden, were delivering their long and\nlearned orations, and all he was writing was for the most part his pithy\nejaculations to God, writing these words; _Da lucem, Domine; Da lucem!_\nWhen these learned men had ended their oration, the Moderator proposed who\nshould give an answer to their discourse; they all generally voted Mr\nGillespie to be the person. He being a young man, seemed to blush, and\ndesired to be excused, when so many old and learned divines were present,\nyet all the brethren, with one voice, determined he should be the person\nthat should give an answer to that learned oration. Though he seemed to\ntake little heed, yet being thus pressed, he rose up, and resumed all the\nparticulars of that learned oration very distinctly, and answered every\npart of it so fully, that all that heard him were amazed and astonished;\nfor he died in 1648, and was then but about thirty-six years of age. Mr\nCalamy, if I be not forgotten, said, we were ready to think more of Mr\nGillespie than was truly meet; if he had not been stained by being against\nour way and judgment for the Engagement.\n\n\u201cHe was one of the great men that had a chief hand in penning our most\nexcellent Confession of Faith and Catechisms. He was a most grave and bold\nman, and had a most wonderful gift given him for disputing and arguing. My\nfather told me, he observed that when there was a considerable number of\nministers met, there were several of our great nobles were strongly\nreasoning with our ministers about the engagement 1648. When Mr Gillespie\nwas busy studying his sermon that he was to preach before the Parliament\nto-morrow, the ministers sent privately for Mr Gillespie, whom he observed\nto come in very quietly, and when Lauderdale, Glencairn, and some others,\nrose up and debated very strongly for the engagement, Mr Gillespie rose up\nand answered them so fully and distinctly, firstly, secondly, and thirdly,\nthat he fully silenced them all; and Glencairn said, \u2018There is no standing\nbefore this great and mighty man!\u2019 I heard worthy Mr Rowat say, that Mr\nGillespie said, \u2018The more truly great a man is, he was really the more\nhumble and low in his own eyes,\u2019 as he instanced in the great man Daniel;\nand, said he, \u2018God did not make choice of some of us as his instruments in\nthe glorious work of Reformation, because we were more fit than others,\nbut rather because we were more unfit than others.\u2019 He was called _Malleus\nMallignantium_, and Mr Baillie, writing to some in this church anent Mr\nGeorge Gillespie, said, \u2018He was truly an ornament to our church and\nnation.\u2019 And Mr James Brown, late minister of Glasgow, told me that there\nwas an English gentleman said to him, that he heard Mr Gillespie preach,\nand he said, he believed he was one of the greatest Presbyterians in the\nworld. He was taken from the Greyfriars\u2019 Church to the New Church. He has\nwritten several pieces, as \u2018Aaron\u2019s Rod Blossoming,\u2019 and \u2018Some Miscellany\nQuestions,\u2019 and his \u2018Assertion of the Government of the Church of\nScotland, about Ruling Elders.\u2019 He had several little books wherein he set\ndown his remarks upon the proceedings of the Assembly at\nWestminster.\u201d\u2014WODROW\u2019S ANALECTA, vol. iii. pp. 109-18.\n\n\u201cWhat follows here I have in conversation with Mr Patrick Simpson, whose\nmemory was most exact. What concerns Mr Gillespie, and the Marquis of\nMontrose, I read over to him, and he corrected. The rest are hints I set\ndown after conversation, when two or three days with him in his house at\nRenfrew, in the year 1707.\n\n(ACCOUNT OF THE LAST ILLNESS AND DEATH OF MR GEORGE GILLESPIE.)\n\n\u201cMr George Gillespie being moderator of the Assembly held at Edinburgh,\nJuly 12th, 1648, was all the time thereof, as also half a year before, in\na greater weakness of body than ordinary; that being now come to a height,\nwhich long before had been gathering. He had a great hoasting and\nsweating, which in the time of the General Assembly began to grow worse;\nbut being extraordinarily (so I may say) upheld, was not so sensible as\nwhen the Assembly dissolved it appeared to be. On occasion whereof, the\nnext Wednesday after the rising of the Assembly, he went with his wife\nover to Kirkcaldy, there intending to tarry for a space, till it should\nplease the Lord, by the use of means, to restore him to some more health\nto come over again. But when he was come there, his weakness and disease\ngrew daily more and more, so that no application of any strength durst be\nused towards him. It came to that, he kept his chamber still to his death,\nwearing and wasting hoasting, and sweating. Ten days before his death his\nsweating went away, and his hoasting lessened, yet his weakness still\nencreased, and his flux still continued. On Wednesday morning, which day\nhe began to keep his bed, his pain began to be very violent, his breath\nmore obstructed, his heart oppressed; and that growing all the next night\nto a very great height, in the midst of the night there were letters\nwritten to his brother, and Mr Rutherford, and Mr John Row, his death\napproaching fast. On Friday all day, and Thursday all night, he was at\nsome ease. Friday at night, till Saturday in the afternoon, in great\nviolence, the greatness of pain causing want of sleep. Mr Rutherford and\nLord Craigihall came to visit him. Thus much for his body. Now I\u2019ll speak\na little of what concerns his soul, and the exercise of his mind all the\nwhile.\n\nMonday, December 11, 1648, came my Lords Argyle, Cassils, Elcho, and\nWarriston to visit him. He did faithfully declare his mind to them, as\npublic men, in that point whereof he hath left a testimony to the view of\nthe world, as afterwards; and the speaking was very burdensome, yet he\nspared not very freely to fasten their duty upon them. The exercise of his\nmind all the time of his sickness was vary sad and constant, without\ncomfortable manifestations, and sensible presence for the time, yet he\ncontinued in a constant faith of adherence, which ended in an adhering\nassurance, his grips growing still the stronger.\n\n\u201cOne day, a fortnight before his death, he had leaned down on a little\nbed, and taking a fit of faintness, and his mind being heavily exercised,\nand lifting up his eyes, this expression fell with great weight from his\nmouth, \u2018O my dear Lord, forsake me not forever!\u2019 His weariness of this\nlife was very great, and his longing to be relieved, and to be where the\nveil would be taken away.\n\n\u201cTuesday, December 14, (1648) he was in heavy sickness, and three pastors\ncame in the afternoon to visit him, of whom one said to him, \u2018The Lord\nhath made you faithful in all he hath employed you in, and it\u2019s likely we\nbe put to the trial; therefore what encouragement give you us thereanent!\u2019\nWhereto he answered in few words, \u2018I have gotten more by the Lord\u2019s\nimmediate assistance than ever I had by study, in the disputes I had in\nthe Assembly of Divines in England; therefore let never man distrust God\nfor assistance that cast themselves on him, and follow his calling. For my\nown part, the time that I have had in the exercise of the ministry is but\na moment.\u2019 To which sentence another pastor answered, \u2018But your moment\nhath exceeded the gray heads of others! This I may speak without\nflattery.\u2019 To which he answered disclaiming it with a \u2018no;\u2019 for he desired\nstill to have Christ exalted, as he said at the same time, and another.\nAnd at other times, when any such things were spoken to him, \u2018What are all\nmy righteousnesses but rotten rags? All that I have done cannot abide the\ntouchstone of his justice. They are all but abominations, and as an\nunclean thing, when they are reckoned between my God and me. Christ is all\nthings, and I am nothing!\u2019 The other pastor when the rest were out, asked,\n\u2018Whether he was enjoying the comforts of God\u2019s presence, or if they were\nfor a time suspended! He answered, Indeed they were suspended.\u2019 Then\nwithin a little while he said, \u2018Comforts! aye comforts!\u2019 meaning, that\nthey were not easily attained. His wife said, \u2018What reck\u2019d the comfort if\nbelieving is not suspended!\u2019 He said, \u2018No.\u2019 Speaking farther to that his\ncondition, he said, \u2018Although that I should never see any more light of\ncomfort than I do see, yet I shall adhere, and do believe that He is mine,\nand I am his!\u2019\n\n\u201cThe next morrow being Friday, he not being able to write, did dictate out\nthe rest of a paper, which he had been before writing himself, and did\nsubscribe it before two witnesses, who also did subscribe; wherein he gave\nfaithful and clear testimony to the work and cause of God, and against the\nenemies thereof, to stop the mouths of calumniators and to confirm his\nchildren.\n\n\u201cIn all his discourses this was mixed as one thing, that he longed for the\ntime of relief, and rejoiced because it was so near. His breath being very\nshort, he said, \u2018Where the hallelujahs are sung to the Lamb, there is no\nshortness of breath!\u2019 And being in very great pain all the Friday night,\nhis mother said in the morning, \u2018In all appearance you will not have\nanother night.\u2019 To which he said, \u2018Think you that your word will hold\ngood?\u2019 She said, \u2018I fear it will hold over good.\u2019 He said, \u2018Not over\ngood.\u2019 That day he blessed his children and some others, (Mr Patrick\nSimson, the writer of this) and said, \u2018God bless you: and as you carry the\nname of your grandfather, so God grant you his graces.\u2019 That afternoon,\nbeing Saturday, came Mr Samuel Rutherford, who, among other things, said,\n\u2018The day, I hope, is dawning, and breaking in your soul, that shall never,\nhave an end.\u2019 He said, \u2018It is not broken yet; but though I walk in\ndarkness and see no light, yet I will trust in the name of the Lord and\nstay upon my God!\u2019 Mr Samuel said, \u2018Would not Christ be a welcome guest to\nyou?\u2019 He answered, \u2018Welcome! the welcomest guest that ever I saw.\u2019 He said\nfurther, \u2018Doth not your soul love Christ above all things?\u2019 He answered,\n\u2018I love him heartily: who ever knew any thing of him but would love him!\u2019\n\n\u201cMr James Wilson going to pray, asked \u2018What petitions he would have him to\nput up for him?\u2019 He said, \u2018For more of himself, and strength to carry me\nthrough the dark valley.\u2019\n\n\u201cSaturday night he became weaker, and inclined to drowsiness and sleeping,\nand was discerned in his drowsiness a little to rave; yet being till the\nlast half hour in his full and perfect senses, and having taken a little\njelly and drink, about half an hour before his death he spake as sensibly\nbetwixt as ever, and blessed some persons that morning with very spiritual\nand heavenly expressions. About seven or eight of the clock his drowsiness\nencreased, and he was overheard in it speaking (after he had spoken more\nimperfectly some words before) those words, \u2018Glory! Glory! a seeing of\nGod! a seeing of God! I hope it shall be for his glory!\u2019 After he had\ntaken a little refreshment of jelly, and a little drink through a reed, he\nsaid that the giving him these things made him drowsy; and a little\nafterwards, \u2018There is a great drowsiness on me, I know not how it comes.\u2019\n\n\u201cHis wife seeing the time draw near, spake to him and said, \u2018The time of\nyour relief is now near, and hard at hand.\u2019 He answered, \u2018I long for that\ntime. O! happy they that are there.\u2019 This was the last word he was heard\nsensibly to speak. Mr Frederick Carmichael being there, they went to\nprayer, expecting death so suddenly. In the midst of prayer he left his\nrattling(9) and the pangs and fetches of death begin thence, his senses\nwent away. Whereupon they rose from prayer, and beheld till, in a very\ngentle manner, the pins of his tabernacle were loosed.\n\n\u201cHe said (_supra_) \u2018Say not over good,\u2019 because he thought she wronged him\nso far in wishing the contrary of what he longed for.\n\n\u201cMr Carmichael said, \u2018You have been very faithful, and the Lord has\nhonoured you to do him very much service, and now you are to get your\nreward.\u2019 He answered \u2018I think it reward enough, that ever I got leave to\ndo him any service in truth and sincerity.\u2019 \u201d\n\nThis account was dictated to me by Mr Patrick Simson, Mr Gillespie\u2019s\ncousin, who was with him to his last sickness, and at his death, and took\nminutes at the time of these his expressions. I read it over, after I had\nwritten it, to him. He corrected some words, and said to me, \u201cThis is all\nI mind about his expressions toward his close. They made some impression\non me at the time, and I then set them down. I have not read the paper\nthat I mind these forty years, but I am pretty positive these were his\nvery words.\u201d A day or two after, I went in with him to his closet to look\nfor another paper, for now he had almost lost his sight, and in a bundle,\nI fell on the paper he wrote at the time, and told him of it. When we\ncompared it with what I wrote, there was not the least variation betwixt\nthe original and what I wrote, save an inconsiderable word or two, here\naltered; which is an instance of a strong memory, the greatest ever I\nknew.\n\n(Subscribed) R WODROW\n\nSept. 8, 1707 WODROW\u2019s ANALECTA, vol. I, pp. 154-159\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n_What follows about Mr Gillespie I wrote also from Mr Simson\u2019s mouth._\n\n\u201cGeorge Gillespie was born January 21st, 1613. He was first minister at\nWeemyse, the first admitted under Presbytery 1638. He was minister at\nWeemyse about two years. He was very young when laureate, before he was\nseventeen. He was chaplain first to my lord Kenmure, then to the Lord of\nCassilis. When he was with Cassilis, he wrote his \u2018English Popish\nCeremonies,\u2019 which when printed, he was about twenty-two. He wrote a\n\u2018Dialogue between a Civilian and Divine,\u2019 a piece against Toleration,\nentitled \u2018Wholesome Severity reconciled with Christian Liberty.\u2019 He died\nin strong faith of adherence, though in darkness as to assurance, which\nfaith of adherence he preached much. He died December seventeen, 1648. If\nhe had lived to January 21, 1649, he had been thirty six years.\n\n\u201cThe last paper he wrote, was \u2018The Commission of the Kirk\u2019s Answer to the\nState\u2019s Observations on the Declaration of the General Assembly anent the\nUnlawfulness of the Engagement.\u2019 The Observations were penned, (as my\nrelator supposes) by Mr William Colville, who wrote all these kind of\npapers for the Committee of Estates, and printed during the Assembly\nwhereof he was moderator. They could not overtake it, but remitted it to\nthe Commission to sit on Monday, and Mr Gillespie wrote the answer on\nSaturday and the Sabbath, when he (the thing requiring haste) staid from\nsermon, and my informer, Mr Patrick Simson, transcribed it against Monday\nat ten, when it passed without any alteration. And just the week after, he\nwent over to Fife, where he died. He was not full ten years in the\nministry. He had all his sermons in England, part polemical, part\npractical prepared for the press, and but one copy of them, which he told\nthe printer\u2019s wife he used to deal with, and bade her have a care of them.\nAnd she was prevailed on by some money from the Sectaries, who were mauled\nby him, to suppress them. He was very clear in all his notions, and the\nmanner of expressing them. There are six volumes in 8vo manuscript which\nhe wrote at the Assembly of Divines remaining.\u201d\u2014WODROW\u2019S ANALECTA, vol. i.\np. 159-160.\n\n\n\n\n\nDISPUTE AGAINST THE ENGLISH POPISH CEREMONIES OBTRUDED ON THE CHURCH OF\nSCOTLAND.\n\n\n              DISPUTE AGAINST THE ENGLISH POPISH CEREMONIES\n\n                   OBTRUDED ON THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND;\n\n     WHEREIN NOT ONLY OUR OWN ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE SAME ARE STRONGLY\nCONFIRMED, BUT LIKEWISE THE ANSWERS AND DEFENCES OF OUR OPPOSITES, SUCH AS\n   HOOKER, MORTOUNE, BURGES, SPRINT, PAYBODY, ANDREWS, SARAVIA, TILEN,\n        SPOTSWOOD, LINDSEY, FOSBESSE, ETC., PARTICULARLY CONFUTED\n\n                           BY GEORGE GILLESPIE,\n\n                          MINISTER AT EDINBURGH,\n\n                                  1662.\n\n                             Jer. ix. 12-14.\n\n\u201cWho is the wise man, that may understand this? and who is he to whom the\n mouth of the Lord hath spoken, that he may declare it, for what the land\nperisheth?\u201d \u201cAnd the Lord saith, Because they have forsaken my law which I\nset before them, and have not obeyed my voice, neither walked therein, but\n here walked after the imagination of their own heart, and after Baalim.\u201d\n\n                                EDINBURGH:\n\n                     ROBERT OGLE, AND OLIVER & BOYD.\n\n               M. OGLE & SON AND WILLIAM COLLINS, GLASGOW.\n\n       D. DEWAR, PERTH. G. & R. KING, ABERDEEN. W. M\u2019COMB, BELFAST.\n\n          HAMILTON, ADAMS & CO., AND JAMES NISBET & CO., LONDON.\n\n                                MDCCCXLIV.\n\n                     Reprinted from Edition of 1660.\n\n               A. MURRAY, PRINTER, MILNE SQUARE, EDINBURGH.\n\n\n\n\nDEDICATION\n\n\nTO\nALL AND EVERY ONE\nIN THE\nREFORMED CHURCHES\nOF\nSCOTLAND, ENGLAND, AND IRELAND,\nWHO\nLOVE THE LORD JESUS, AND MEAN TO ADHERE UNTO THE REFORMATION OF RELIGION.\nGRACE, MERCY, AND PEACE, FROM GOD OUR FATHER,\nAND FROM\nTHE LORD JESUS CHRIST.\n\n\n\n\nAUTHOR\u2019S PREFACE\n\n\nAs Satan\u2019s malice, and man\u2019s wickedness, cease not to molest the thrice\nhappy estate of the church of Christ, so hath the eternal council of the\nonly wise God predetermined the coming of offences, persecutions,\nheresies, schisms and divisions, that professors may be proved before they\nbe as approved and made manifest, 1 Cor. xi. 19. And hence \u201cIt must needs\nbe that offences come,\u201d Matt. xviii. 17; neither hath the church ever\nenjoyed both purity and peace any long time together. But whiles the\nchurch of God, thus disquieted, at well with dangerous alterations, as\nwith doleful altercations, is presented in the theatre of this world, and\ncrieth out to beholders, \u201cHave ye no regard, all ye that pass by!\u201d Lam. i.\n12. A pity it is to see the crooked and sinistrous courses of the greatest\npart, every man moving his period within the enormous confines of his own\nexorbitant desires; the atheistical nullisidian, nothing regardeth the\nassoiling of ecclesiastical controversies,\u2014he is of Gallio\u2019s humour, Acts\nxviii. 17, and cares for none of those things; the sensual Epicurean and\nriotous ruffian (go church matters as they will) eats and drinks, and\ntakes his pleasure; the cynical critic spueth out bitter aspersions,\ngibeth and justleth at everything that can be said or done in the cause of\nreligion; the acenical jester playeth fast and loose, and can utter\nanything in sport, but nothing in earnest; the avaricious worldling hath\nno tune but _Give_, _give_, and no anthem pleaseth him but _Have_, _have_;\nthe aspiring Diotrephes puffeth down every course which cannot puff up;\nthe lofty favourite taketh the pattern of his religion from the court\niconography, and if the court swim, he cares not though the church sink;\nthe subdulous Machiavillian accounteth the show of religion profitable,\nbut the substance of it troublesome: he studieth not the oracles of God\nbut the principles of Satanical guile, which be learneth so well that he\nmay go to the devil to be bishopped; the turn-coat temporiser wags with\nevery wind, and (like Diogenes turning about the mouth of his voluble\nhogshead, after the course of the sun) wheresoever the bright beams of\ncoruscant authority do shine and cherish, thither followeth and sitteth\nhe; the gnathonic parasite sweareth to all that his benefactor holdeth;\nthe mercenary pensioner will bow before he break; he who only studieth to\nhave the praise of some witty invention, cannot strike upon another anvil;\nthe silly idiot (with Absolom\u2019s two hundred, 2 Sam. xv. 11,) goeth, in the\nsimplicity of his heart, after his perverse leaders; the lapped Nicodemite\nholds it enough to yield some secret assent to the truth, though neither\nhis profession nor his practice testify so much; he whose mind is\npossessed with prejudicate opinions against the truth, when convincing\nlight is holden forth to him, looketh asquint, and therefore goeth awry;\nthe pragmatical adiaphorist, with his span-broad faith and ell-broad\nconscience, doth no small harm\u2014the poor pandect of his plagiary profession\nin matters of faith reckoneth little for all, and in matters of practice\nall for little. Shortly, if an expurgatory index were compiled of those,\nand all other sorts of men, who either through their careless and neutral\non looking, make no help to the troubled and disquieted church of Christ,\nor through their nocent accession and overthwart intermeddling, work out\nher greater harm, alas! how few feeling members were there to be found\nbehind who truly lay to heart her estate and condition? Nevertheless, in\nthe worst times, either of raging persecution or prevailing defection, as\nGod Almighty hath ever hitherto, so both now, and to the end, he will\nreserve to himself a remnant according to the election of grace, who\ncleave to his blessed truth and to the purity of his holy worship, and are\ngrieved for the affliction of Joseph, as being themselves also in the\nbody, in confidence whereof I take boldness to stir you up at this time,\nby putting you in remembrance. If you would be rightly informed of the\npresent estate of the reformed churches, you must not acquiesce in the\npargetting verdict of those who are wealthy and well at ease, and mounted\naloft upon the uncogged wheels of prosperous fortune (as they call it).\nThose whom the love of the world hath not enhanced to the serving of the\ntime can give you the soundest judgment. It is noted of Dionysius\nHallicarnasseus(10) (who was never advanced to magistracy in the Roman\nrepublic) that he hath written far more truly of the Romans than Fabius,\nSalustius, or Cato, who flourished among them with riches and honours.\n\nAfter that it pleased God, by the light of his glorious gospel, to dispel\nthe more than cimmerian darkness of antichristianism, and, by the antidote\nof reformation, to avoid the poison of Popery; forasmuch as in England and\nIreland, every noisome weed which God\u2019s hand had never planted was not\npulled up, therefore we now see the faces of those churches overgrown with\nthe repullulating twigs and sprigs of popish superstition. Mr Sprint\nacknowledgeth the Reformation of England to have been defective, and\nsaith, \u201cIt is easy to imagine of what difficulty it was to reform all\nthings at the first, where the most part of the privy council, of the\nnobility, bishops, judges, gentry, and people, were open or close Papists,\nwhere few or none of any countenance stood for religion at the first, but\nthe Protector and Cranmer.\u201d(11) The church of Scotland was blessed with a\nmore glorious and perfect reformation than any of our neighbour churches.\nThe doctrine, discipline, regiment, and policy established here by\necclesiastical and civil laws, and sworn and subscribed unto by the king\u2019s\nmajesty and several presbyteries and parish churches of the land, as it\nhad the applause of foreign divines; so was it in all points agreeable\nunto the word, neither could the most rigid Aristarchus of these times\nchallenge any irregularity of the same. But now, alas! even this church,\nwhich was once so great a praise in the earth is deeply corrupted, and\nhath \u201cturned aside quickly out of the way,\u201d Exod. xxxii. 8. So that this\nis the Lord\u2019s controversy against Scotland. \u201cI had planted thee a noble\nvine, wholly a right seed? How then art thou turned into the degenerate\nplant of a strange vine unto me?\u201d Jer. ii. 21.\n\nIt is not this day feared, but felt, that the rotten dregs of Popery,\nwhich were never purged away from England and Ireland and having once been\nspued out with detestation, are licked up again in Scotland, prove to be\nthe unhappy occasions of a woeful recidivation. Neither is there need of\nLyncean eyes, for if we be not poreblind, it cannot be hid from us. What\ndoleful and disastrous mutation (to be bewailed with tears of blood) hath\nhappened to the church and spouse of Christ in these dominions? Her comely\ncountenance is miscoloured with the fading lustre of the mother of\nharlots, her shamefaced forehead hath received the mark of the beast, her\nlovely locks are frizled with the crisping pins of antichristian fashions,\nher chaste ears are made to listen to the friends of the great whore, who\nbring the bewitching doctrine of enchanting traditions, her dove eyes look\npleasantly upon the well attired harlot, her sweet voice is mumming and\nmuttering some missal and magical liturgies, her fair neck beareth the\nhalter like to kens of her former captivity, even a burdensome chain of\nsuperfluous and superstitious ceremonies, her undefiled garments are\nstained with the meritricious bravery of Babylonish ornaments, and with\nthe symbolising badges of conformity with Rome, her harmless hands reach\nbrick and mortar to the building of Babel, her beautiful feet with shoes\nare all besmeared, whilst they return apace in the way of Egypt, and wade\nthe ingruent brooks of Popery. Oh! transformed virgin, whether is thy\nbeauty gone from thee? Oh! forlorn prince\u2019s daughter, how art thou not\nashamed to look thy Lord in the face? Oh! thou best beloved among women,\nwhat hast thou to do with the inveigling appurtenances and habilement of\nBabylon the whore?\u2014But among such things as have been the accursed means\nof the church\u2019s desolation, which peradventure might seem to some of you\nto have least harm or evil in them, are the ceremonies of kneeling in the\nact of receiving the Lord\u2019s supper, cross in baptism, bishopping,\nholidays, &c., which are pressed under the name of things indifferent; yet\nif you survey the sundry inconveniences and grievous consequences of the\nsame, you will think far otherwise. The vain shows and shadows of these\nceremonies have hid and obscured the substance of religion; the true life\nof godliness is smothered down and suppressed by the burden of these human\ninventions, for their sakes, many, who are both faithful servants to\nChrist and loyal subjects to the king, are evil spoken of, mocked,\nreproached, menanced, molested; for their sakes Christian brethren are\noffended, and the weak are greatly scandalised; for their sakes the most\npowerful and painful ministers in the land are either thrust out, or\nthreatened to be thrust out from their callings; for their sakes the best\nqualified and most hopeful expectants are debarred from entering into the\nministry; for their sakes the seminaries of learning are so corrupted,\nthat few or no good plants can come forth from thence, for their sakes\nmany are admitted into the sacred ministry, who are either popish and\nArminianised, who minister to the flock poison instead of food; or silly\nignorants, who can dispense no wholesome food to the hungry; or else\nvicious in their lives, who draw many with them into the dangerous\nprecipice of soul perdition; or, lastly, so earthly minded, that they\nfavour only the things of this earth, not the things of the Spirit of God,\nwho feed themselves, but not the flock, and to whom the Great Shepherd of\nthe sheep wilt say, \u201cThe diseased have ye not strengthened, neither have\nye healed that which was sick, neither have ye bound up that which was\nbroken, neither have ye brought again that which was driven away, neither\nhave ye sought that which was lost,\u201d Ezek. xxxiv. 4. Simple ones, who have\nsome taste and relish of popish superstition (for many such there be in\nthe land), do suck from the intoxicated drugs of conformity, the softer\nmilk which makes them grow in error. And who can be ignorant what a large\nspread Popery, Arminianism and reconciliation with Rome, have taken among\nthe arch urgers of the ceremonies? What marvel that Papists clap their\nhands! for they see the day coming which they wish for. Woe to thee, O\nland, which bears professed Papists and avouched Atheists, but cannot bear\nthem who desire to \u201cabstain from all appearance of evil,\u201d 1 Thes. v. 22,\nfor truth and equity are fallen in thee, and \u201che that departeth from evil\nmaketh himself a prey,\u201d Isa. lix. 14, 15.\n\nThese are the best wares which the big hulk of conformity, favoured with\nthe prosperous gale of mighty authority, hath imported amongst us, and\nwhilst our opposites so quiverly go about to spread the bad wares of these\nencumbering inconveniences, is it time for as luskishly to sit still and\nto be silent? \u201cWoe unto us, for the day goeth away, for the shadows of the\nevening are stretched out,\u201d Jer. vi. 4.\n\nMoreover, besides the prevailing inconveniency of the controverted\nceremonies, the unlawfulness of them is also plainly evinced in this\nensuing dispute by such convincing arguments, as, being duly pondered in\nthe equal balance of an attentive mind, shall, by God\u2019s grace, afford\nsatisfaction to so many as purpose to buy the truth, and not to sell it.\nWherefore, referring to the dispute the points themselves which are\nquestioned, I am in this place to beseech you all by the mercies of God,\nthat, remembering the words of the Lord, \u201cThem that honour me I will\nhonour, and they that despise me shalt be lightly esteemed,\u201d 1 Sam. ii.\n30, remembering, also, the curse and condemnation of Meroz, which came not\nto help the Lord against the mighty, Judg. v. 23, of the nobles of Tekoa,\nwho put not their necks to the work of the Lord, Neh. iii. 5 and, shortly,\nof all such as have no courage for the truth, Jer. ix. 3, but seek their\nown things, not the things which are Jesus Christ\u2019s, Phil. ii. 21, and,\nfinally, taking to heart how the Lord Jesus, when he cometh in the glory\nof his Father with his holy angels, Mark viii. 38, will be ashamed of\nevery one who hath been ashamed of him and his words in the midst of a\nsinful and crooked generation, you would, with a holy zeal and invincible\ncourage, against all contrary error, superstition, and abuse whatsoever,\nset yourselves both to speak and do, and likewise (having a calling) to\nsuffer for the truth of Christ and for the purity of his worship, being in\nnothing terrified by your adversaries, Phil. i. 28, 1 Pet. iii. 14, which,\nthat ye may the better perform, I commend to your thoughts these wholesome\nadmonitions which follow\u2014\n\nI. When you see so much diversity both of opinion and practice in things\npertaining to religion, the rather ye ought to give all diligence for\ntrying the things which are different, Phil. i. 10. If you judge us before\nyou hear us, then do you contrary to the very law of nature and nations,\nJohn vii. 51, Acts v. 16. Neither will it help you at your reckoning to\nsay, We believed our spiritual guides, our prelates and preachers, whom\nGod had set over us. Nay, what if your guides be blind? then they not only\nfall in the ditch themselves, but you with them, Matth. iv. 14. Our Master\nwould not have the Jews to rest upon the testimony of John Baptist\nhimself, but would have them to search the Scriptures, John v. 33, 34, 39,\nby which touch stone the Bereans tried the Apostle\u2019s own doctrine, and are\ncommended for so doing, Acts xvii. 11. But as we wish you not to condemn\nour cause without examining the same by the Word, so neither do we desire\nyou blindly to follow us in adhering unto it, for what if your seeing\nguides be taken from you? How, then, shall you see to keep out of the\nditch? We would neither have you to fight for us nor against us, like the\nblind sword players, Andabat\u00e6, a people who were said to fight with their\neyes closed. Consider, therefore, what we say, and the Lord give you\nunderstanding in all things, 2 Tim. ii. 7.\n\nII. Since the God of heaven is the greatest king, who is to rule and reign\nover you by his Word, which he hath published to the world, and, _tunc\nvere_, &c., then is God truly said to reign in us when no worldly thing is\nharboured and haunted in our souls, saith Theophylact,(12) since also the\nwisdom of the flesh is enmity against God, Rom. viii. 7, who hath made\nfoolish the wisdom of this world, 1 Cor. i. 20, therefore never shall you\nrightly deprehend the truth of God, nor submit yourselves to be guided by\nthe same, unless, laying aside all the high soaring fancies and\npresumptuous conceits of natural and worldly wisdom, you come in an\nunfeigned humility and babe-like simplicity to be edified by the word of\nrighteousness. And far less shall you ever take up the cross and follow\nChrist (as you are required), except, first of all, you labour and learn\nto deny yourselves, Matth. xvi. 24, that is, to make no reckoning what\ncome of yourselves, and of all that you have in the world, so that God\nhave glory and yourselves a good conscience, in your doings or sufferings.\n\nIII. If you would not be drawn away after the error of the wicked, neither\nfall from your own stedfastness, the apostle Peter teacheth you, that ye\nmust grow both in grace and knowledge, 2 Pet. iii. 18, for, if either your\nminds be darkened through want of knowledge, or your affections frozen\nthrough want of the love of God, then are you naked, and not guarded\nagainst the tentations of the time. Wherefore, as the perverters of the\ntruth and simplicity of religion do daily multiply errors, so must you\n(shunning those shelves and quicksands of deceiving errors which witty\nmake-bates design for you), labour daily for increase of knowledge, and as\nthey to their errors in opinion do add the overplus of a licentious\npractice and lewd conversation, so must you (having so much the more ado\nto flee from their impiety), labour still for a greature measure of the\nlively work of sanctifying grace; in which respects Augustine saith well,\nthat the adversaries of the truth do this good to the true members of the\nchurch, that the fall of those makes these to take better hold upon\nGod.(13)\n\nIV. Be not deceived, to think that they who so eagerly press this course\nof conformity have any such end as God\u2019s glory, or the good of his church\nand profit of religion. When a violent urger of the ceremonies pretendeth\nreligious respects for his proceedings, it may be well answered in\nHillary\u2019s(14) words. _Subrepis nomine blandienti, occidis specie\nreligionis_\u2014Thou privily creepest in with an enticing title, thou killest\nwith the pretence of religion, for, 1. It is most evidently true of these\nceremonies, which our divines(15) say of the gestures and rites used in\nthe mass, \u201cThey are all frivolous and hypocritical, stealing away true\ndevotion from the heart, and making men to rest in the outward gestures of\nthe body.\u201d There is more sound religion among them who refuse, than among\nthem who receive the same, even our enemies themselves being judges, the\nreason whereof let me give in the words of one of our opposites(16)\n_Supervacua hoec occupatio circa traditiones humanas, gignit semper\nignorantiam et contemptum proeceptorum divinorum_\u2014This needless business\nabout human traditions doth ever beget the ignorance and contempt of\ndivine commandments. 2. Where read we that the servants of God have at any\ntime sought to advance religion by such hideous courses of stern violence,\nas are intended and assayed against us by those who press the ceremonies\nupon us? The jirking and nibbling of their unformal huggermugger cometh\nnearer to sycophancy than to sincerity, and is sibber to appeaching\nhostility than fraternal charity, for just so they deal with us as the\nArians did with the catholics of old. _Sinceros_, &c.(17) \u201cThe sincere\nteachers of the churches they delated and accused before magistrates, as\nif they alone did continually perturb the church\u2019s peace and tranquillity,\nand did only labour that the divided churches might never again piously\ngrow together, and by this calumny they persuaded politic and civil men\n(who did not well enough understand this business), that the godly\nteachers of the churches should be cast forth into exile, and the Arian\nwolves should be sent into the sheepfolds of Christ.\u201d Now, forasmuch as\nGod hath said, \u201cThey shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain,\u201d\nIsa. ix. 11, and will not have his flock to be ruled with force and with\ncruelty, Ezek. xxxiv. 4. _Nec potest_ (saith Lactantius(18)) _aut veritas\ncum vi, aut justitia cum crudelitate conjungi_\u2014Neither can either truth be\nconjoined with violence, or righteousness with cruelty therefore, if our\nopposites would make it evident that they are in very deed led by\nreligious aims let them resile from their violent proceedings, and deal\nwith us in the spirit of meekness showing us from God\u2019s word and good\nreason the equity of their cause, and iniquity of ours, wherein we require\nno other thing of them, than that which Lactantius required of the\nadversaries of his profession, even that they would debate the matter\n_verbis pontius quam verberibus_\u2014by words rather than by whips\n_Distringant aciem ingeniorem suorum: siratio eorum vera est, asseratur:\nparati sumus audire, si doceant_\u2014Let them draw out the sharpness of their\nengines; if their reason be true let it be averred, we are ready to hear,\nif they teach us. 3. If their aims were truly for the advancement of\nreligion, how comes it to pass, that whilst they make so much ado and move\nevery stone against us for our modest refusing of obedience to certain\nordinances of men, which in our consciences we are persuaded to be\nunlawful, they manumiss and set free the simony, lying, swearing,\nprofanation of the Sabbath, drunkenness, whoredom, with other gross and\nscandalous vices of some of their own side, by which God\u2019s own\ncommandments are most fearfully violated? This just recrimination we may\nwell use for our own most lawful defence. Neither do we hereby intend any\nman\u2019s shame (God knows), but his reformation rather. We wish from our\nhearts we had no reason to challenge our opposites of that superstition\ntaxed in the Pharisees, _Quod argubant &c._\u2014that they accused the\ndisciples of little things, and themselves were guilty in great things,\nsaith Nicolaus Goranus.(19)\n\nV. Do not account ceremonies to be matters of so small importance that we\nneed not stand much upon them, for, as Hooker(20) observeth, a ceremony,\nthrough custom, worketh very much with people. Dr Burges allegeth(21) for\nhis writing about ceremonies, that the matter is important for the\nconsequence of it. Camero(22) thinketh so much of ceremonies, that he\nholdeth our simplicity to notify that we have the true religion, and that\nthe religion of Papists is superstitious because of their ceremonies. To\nsay the truth, a church is in so far true or hypocritical as it mixeth or\nnot mixeth human inventions with God\u2019s holy worship, and hence the\nMagdeburgians profess,(23) that they write of the ceremonies for making a\ndifference betwixt a true and a hypocritical church. _Vere enim ecclesia,\n&c._\u2014for a true church, as it retains pure doctrine, so also it keeps\nsimplicity of ceremonies, &c., but a hypocritical church, as it departs\nfrom pure doctrine, so for the most part it changeth and augmenteth the\nceremonies instituted of God, and multiplieth its own traditions, &c. And\nas touching our controverted ceremonies in particular, if you consider\nwhat we have written against them, you shall easily perceive that they are\nmatters of no small, but very great consequence. Howbeit these be but the\nbeginnings of evils, and there is a worse gallimaufry gobber-wise\nprepared. It hath been observed of the warring Turks(24) that often they\nused this notable deceit\u2014to send a lying rumour and a vain tumult of war\nto one place, but, in the meanwhile, to address their true forces to\nanother place, that so they might surprise those who have been unwarily\nled by pernicious credulity. So have we manifest (alas too, too manifest)\nreasons to make us conceive, that whilst the chief urgers of the course of\nconformity are skirmishing with us about the trifling ceremonies (as some\nmen count them), they are but labouring to hold our thoughts so bent and\nintent upon those smaller quarrels, that we may forget to distinguish\nbetwixt evils immanent and evils imminent, and that we be not too much\nawake to espy their secret sleight in compassing further aims.\n\nVI. Neither let the pretence of peace and unity cool your fervour, or make\nyou spare to oppose yourselves unto those idle and idolised ceremonies\nagainst which we dispute, for whilst our opposites make a vain show and\npretence of peace, they do like the Romans,(25) who built the Temple of\nConcord just in the place where the seditious outrages of the two Gracchi,\nTiberius and Caius, had been acted, which temple,(26) in the subsequent\ntimes, did not restrain, but, by the contrary, gave further scope unto\nmore bloody seditions, so that they should have built _discord_ a temple\nin that place rather than _concord_, as Augustine pleasantly tickleth\nthem. Do our opposites think that the bane of peace is never in yielding\nto the course of the time, but ever in refusing to yield? Or will they not\nrather acknowledge, that as a man is said to be made drunk by drinking the\nwater of Lyncestus, a river of Macedonia,(27) no less than if he had\nfilled himself with the strongest wine, so one may be inebriate with a\ncontentious humour in standing stiffly for yielding, as well as in\nstanding stedfastly for refusing? Peace is violated by the oppugners of\nthe truth, but established by the possessors of the same, for (as was\nrightly said by Georgius Scolarius in the Council of Florence(28)) the\nchurch\u2019s peace \u201ccan neither stay among men, the truth being unknown,\nneither can it but needs return, the truth being known.\u201d _Nec veritate\nignorata manere inter homines potest, nec illa agnita necessario non\nredire._ We must therefore be mortised together, not by the subscudines of\nerror, but by the bands of truth and unity of faith. And we go the true\nway to regain peace whilst we sue for the removal of those popish\nceremonies which have both occasioned and nourished the discord, we only\nrefuse that peace (falsely so called) which will not permit us to brook\npurity, and that because (as Joseph Hall(29) noteth) St James\u2019 (chap. iii.\n17,) describeth the wisdom which is from above to be \u201cfirst pure, then\npeaceable,\u201d whence it cometh that there can be no concord betwixt Christ\nand antichrist, nor any communion betwixt the temple of God and idols, 2\nCor. vii. 15, 16. _Atque ut coelum_, &c.: \u201cAnd though heaven and earth\nshould happen to be mingled together, yet the sincere worship of God and\nhis sacred truth, wherein eternal salvation is laid up for us, should\nworthily be unto us of more estimation than a hundred worlds,\u201d saith\nCalvin.(30) John Fox(31) judgeth it better to contend against those who\nprefer their own traditions to the commandments of God, than to be at\npeace with them. True it is,\u2014_Pax optima rerum, quas homini novisse datum\nest._\u2014Yet I trust we may use the words of that great adiaphorist, Georgius\nCassander\u2014_Ea __ demion vera_, &c. \u201cThat alone (saith he) is true and\nsolid Christian peace which is conjoined with the glory of God and the\nobedience of his will, and is rejoined from all depravation of the\nheavenly doctrine and divine worship.\u201d\n\nVII. Beware, also, you be not deceived with the pretence of the church\u2019s\nconsent, and of uniformity as well with the ancient church as with the now\nreformed churches, in the forms and customs of both, for, 1. Our opposites\ncannot show that the sign of the cross was received and used in the church\nbefore Tertullian, except they allege either the Montanists or the\nValentian heretics for it. Neither yet can they show, that apparel proper\nfor divine service, and distinguished from the common, is more ancient\nthan the days of Pope C\u0153lestinus, nor lastly, that kneeling in the act of\nreceiving the communion was ever used before the time of Pope Honorious\nIII. They cannot prove any one of the controverted ceremonies to have been\nin the church the first two hundred years after Christ, except the feast\nof Easter (which yet can neither be proved to have been observed in the\napostles\u2019 own age, nor yet to have been established in the after age by\nany law, but only to have crept in by a certain private custom), and for\nsome of them they cannot find any clear testimony for a long time\nthereafter. Now, in the third century,(32) historiographers observe, that\n_Paulatum ceremoni\u00e6 auct\u00e6 sunt, hominum superstitionorum opinionibus: unde\nin baptismo unctionem olei, cruces signaculum, et osculum\naddiderunt_\u2014Ceremonies were by little and little augmented by the opinions\nof superstitious men, whence it was that they added the unction of oil,\nthe sign of the cross, and a kiss in baptism. And in the fourth century\nthey say, _Subinde magis magisque, traditiones human\u00e6 cumulat\u00e6\nsunt_\u2014Forthwith human traditions were more and more augmented. And so from\nthat time forward vain and idle ceremonies were still added to the worship\nof God, till the same was, under Popery, wholly corrupted with\nsuperstitious rites, yes, and Mr Sprint hath told us, even of the first\ntwo hundred years after Christ, that the \u201cdevil, in those days, began to\nsow his tares (as the watchmen began to sleep), both of false doctrine and\ncorrupt ceremonies.\u201d And now, though some of the controverted ceremonies\nhave been kept and reserved in many (not all), the reformed churches, yet\nthey are not therefore to be the better liked of. For the reason of the\nreservation was, because some reverend divines who dealt and laboured in\nthe reformation of those churches, perceiving the occurring lets and\noppositions which were caused by most dangerous schisms and seditions, and\nby the raging of bloody wars, scarcely expected to effectuate so much as\nthe purging of the church from fundamental errors and gross idolatry,\nwhich wrought them to be content, that lesser abuses in discipline and\nchurch policy should be then tolerated, because they saw not how to\novertake them all at that time. In the meanwhile, they were so far from\ndesiring any of the churches to retain these popish ceremonies, which\nmight have convenient occasion of ejecting them (far less to recal them,\nbeing once ejected), that they testified plainly their dislike of the\nsame, and wished that those churches wherein they lived, might have some\nblessed opportunity to be rid of all such rotten relics, riven rags and\nrotten remainders of Popery. All which, since they were once purged away\nfrom the church of Scotland and cast forth as things accursed into the\njakes of eternal detestation, how vile and abominable may we now call the\nresuming of them? Or what a piacular prevarication is it to borrow from\nany other church which was less reformed, a pattern of policy for this\nchurch which was more reformed. But, 2. Though there could be more alleged\nfor the ceremonies than truly there can be, either from the customs of the\nancient or reformed churches, yet do our opposites themselves profess,\nthat they will not justify all the ceremonies either of the ancient or\nreformed churches. And, indeed, who dare take this for a sure rule, that\nwe ought to follow every ancient and universally received custom? For as\nCasaubon showeth, though the church\u2019s consent ought not to be contemned,\nyet we are not always to hold it for a law or a right rule. And do not our\ndivines teach, that _nihil faciendum est ad ahorum exemplum, sed juxta\nverbum_\u2014Nothing is to be done according to the example of others, but\naccording to the word _Ut autem_, &c. \u201cAs the multitude of them who err\n(saith Osiander), so long prescription of time purchaseth no patrociny to\nerror.\u201d\n\nVIII. Moreover, because the foredeck and hind deck of all our opposites\u2019\nprobations do resolve and rest finally into the authority of a law, and\nauthority they use as a sharp knife to cut every Gordian knot which they\ncannot unloose, and as a dreadful peal to sound so loud in all ears that\nreason cannot be heard, therefore we certiorate you with Calvin, that _a\nacquievistis imperio, pessimo laqueo vos in duistis_\u2014If you have\nacquiesced in authority, you have wrapped yourselves in a very evil snare.\nAs touching any ordinance of the church we say with Whittaker, _Obediendum\necclesioe est sed jubents ac docenti recta_\u2014We are to obey the church but\ncommanding and teaching right things. Surely, if we have not proved the\ncontroverted ceremonies to be such things as are not right to be done we\nshall straight obey all the ceremonial laws made thereanent, and as for\nthe civil magistrate\u2019s part, is it not holden that he may not enjoin us\n\u201cto do that whereof we have not good ground to do it of faith?\u201d and that,\n\u201calthough all thy external condition is in the power of the magistrate,\nyet internal things, as the keeping of faith, and obedience, and a good\nconscience, are not in his power.\u201d For every one of us \u201cshall give account\nof himself to God,\u201d Rom. xiv. 12, but until you hear more in the dispute\nof the power which either the church or the magistrate hath to enact laws\nanent things belonging to the worship of God, and of the binding power of\nthe same, let me add here touching human laws in general, that where we\nhave no other reason to warrant unto us the doing of that which a human\nlaw prescribeth, beside the bare will and authority of the law maker, in\nthis case a human law cannot bind us to obedience. Aquinas holdeth with\nIsidore, that a human law (among other conditions of it) must both be\nnecessary for removing of some evil, and likewise profitable for guiding\nus to some good. Gregorius Sayrus following them herein, saith, _Debet lex\nhomines a malo retrahere, et idio dicatur necessaria debet __ etiam\npromovere in bonum, et ideo dicitur utilis_\u2014A law ought to draw back men\nfrom evil, and therefore is called necessary, it ought also to promove\nthem unto good, and therefore is called profitable. Human laws, in Mr\nHooker\u2019s judgment,(33) must teach what is good, and be made for the\nbenefit of men. Demosthenes(34) describeth a law to be such a thing _cui\nconvenit omnibus parere_ which it is convenient for every one to obey.\nCamero(35) not only alloweth us to seek a reason of the church\u2019s laws\n(_Non enim_ saith he, _verae ecclesiae libet leges ferre quarum non reddat\nrationem_\u2014It pleaseth not the true church to make and publish laws,\nwhereof she giveth not a reason), but he(36) will likewise have us, in\nsuch things as concern the glory and honour of God, not to obey the laws\nof any magistrate blindly and without a reason. \u201cThere was one (saith the\nBishop of Winchester(37)), that would not have his will stand for reason,\nand was there none such among the people of God? Yes, we find, 1 Sam. ii,\none of whom it is said, Thus it must be, for Hophni will not have it so,\nbut thus his reason is, For he will not. And God grant none such may be\nfound among Christians.\u201d From Scripture we learn, that neither hath the\nmagistrate any power, but for our good only, Rom. xiii. 4, nor yet hath\nthe church any power, but for our edification only, Ephes. iv. 12. Law\nmakers, therefore, may not enjoin _quod libet_, that which liketh them,\nnay, nor always _quod licet_, that which is in itself lawful, but only\n_quod expedit_, that which is expedient and good to the use of edifying.\nAnd to them we may well say with Tertullian,(38) _Iniquam exercetis\ndominationem si ideo negatis licere quia vultis, non quia debuit non\nlicere_\u2014You exercise an unjust dominion, if, therefore, you deny anything\nto be free, because you will so, not because it ought not to be free.\nBesides all this, there is nothing which any way pertaineth to the worship\nof God left to the determination of human laws, beside the mere\ncircumstances, which neither have any holiness in them, forasmuch as they\nhave no other use and praise in sacred than they have in civil things, nor\nyet were particularly determinable in Scripture, because they are\ninfinite, but sacred, significant ceremonies, such as cross, kneeling,\nsurplice, holidays, bishopping, &c., which have no use and praise except\nin religion only, and which, also, were most easily determinate (yet not\ndetermined) within those bounds which the wisdom of God did set to his\nwritten word, are such things as God never left to the determination of\nany human law. Neither have men any power to burden us with those or such\nlike ordinances, \u201cFor (saith not our Lord himself to the churches), I will\nput upon you none other burden, but that which ye have already, hold fast\ntill I come,\u201d Rev. ii. 24, 25. Wherefore, _pro hac_, &c., for this liberty\nwe ought stoutly to fight against false teachers.(39) Finally, it is to be\nnoted, that though in some things we may and do commendably refuse\nobedience to the laws of them whom God hath set over us, yet are we ever\nobliged (and accordingly intend) still to subject ourselves onto them, for\nto be subject doth signify (as Zanchius showeth(40)), to be placed under,\nto be subordinate, and so to give honour and reverence to him who is\nabove, which may well stand without obedience to every one of his laws.\nYea, and Dr Field(41) also tells us, that \u201csubjection is generally and\nabsolutely required where obedience is not.\u201d\n\nIX. Forasmuch as some ignorant ones are of opinion, that when they\npractise the ceremonies, neither perceiving any unlawfulness in them (but,\nby the contrary, being persuaded in their consciences of the lawfulness of\nthe same), nor yet having any evil meaning (but intending God\u2019s glory and\nthe peace of the church), therefore they practise them with a good\nconscience. Be not ye also deceived, but rather advert unto this, that a\npeaceable conscience, allowing that which a man doth, is not ever a good\nconscience, but oftentimes an erring, bold, presuming, secure, yea,\nperhaps, a seared conscience. A good conscience, the testimony whereof\ngiveth a man true peace in his doings, is, and is only, such a one as is\nrightly informed out of the word of God. Neither doth a good meaning\nexcuse any evil action, or else they who killed the apostles were to be\nexcused, because in so doing they thought they did God good service, John\nxiv. 2. It is the observation even of Papists, that men may commit many a\nsoul-ruining scandal, though they intend no such thing as the ruin of\nsouls.(42)\n\nX. If once you yield to these English ceremonies, think not that\nthereafter you can keep yourselves back from any greater evils, or grosser\ncorruptions which they draw after them; for as it is just with God to give\nsuch men over to strong delusions as have not received the love of the\ntruth, nor taken pleasure in the sincerity of his worship, 2 Thess. ii.\n10, 11; so there is not a more deceitful and dangerous temptation than in\nyielding to the beginnings of evil. \u201cHe that is unjust in the least, is\nalso unjust in much\u201d saith he who could not lie, Luke xvi. 20. When Uriah\nthe priest had once pleased king Ahaz, in making an altar like unto that\nat Damascus, he was afterwards led on to please him in a greater matter,\neven in forsaking the altar of the Lord, and in offering all the\nsacrifices upon the altar of Damascus, 2 Kings xvi. 10-16. All your\nwinning or losing of a good conscience, is in your first buying; for such\nis the deceitfulness of sin, and the cunning conveyance of that old\nserpent, that if his head be once entering in, his whole body will easily\nfollow after; and if he make you handsomely to swallow gnats at first, he\nwill make you swallow camels ere all be done. Oh, happy they who dash the\nlittle ones of Babylon against the stones! Psal. cxxxvii. 9.\n\nXI. Do not reckon it enough to bear within the inclosure of your secret\nthoughts a certain dislike of the ceremonies and other abuses now set\nafoot, except both by profession and action you evidence the same, and so\nshow your faith by your fact. We are constrained to say to some among you,\nwith Elijah, \u201cHow long halt ye between two opinions?\u201d 1 Kings xviii. 21;\nand to call unto you, with Moses, \u201cWho is on the Lord\u2019s side?\u201d Exod.\nxxxii. 26. Who? \u201cBe not deceived; God is not mocked;\u201d Gal. vi. 7; and, \u201cNo\nman can serve two masters,\u201d Mat. vi. 24. However, he that is not against\nus, _pro tanto_, is with us, Mark ix. 40, that is, in so far he so\nobligeth himself unto us as that he cannot speak lightly evil of our\ncause, and we therein rejoice, and will rejoice, Phil. i. 18; yet,\n_simpliciter_, he that is not with us is against us, Matt. xii. 30; that\nis, he who by profession and practice showeth not himself to be on our\nside, is accounted before God to be our enemy.\n\nXII. Think not the wounds which the church hath received by means of these\nnocent ceremonies to be so deadly and desperate, as if there were no balm\nin Gilead; neither suffer your minds so far to miscarry as to think that\nye wish well to the church, and are heartily sorry that matters frame with\nher as they do, whilst, in the meantime, you essay no means, you take no\npains and travail for her help. When king Ahasuerus had given forth a\ndecree for the utter extirpation of the Jews, Mordecai feared not to tell\nEsther, that if she should then hold her peace enlargement and deliverance\nshould arise unto the Jews from another place, but she and her father\u2019s\nhouse should be destroyed; whereupon she, after three days\u2019 humiliation\nand prayer to God, put her very life in hazard by going in to supplicate\nthe king, which was not according to the law, Esth. iv. But now, alas!\nthere are too many professors who detract themselves from undergoing\nlesser hazards for the church\u2019s liberty, yea, from using those very\ndefences which are according to the laws of the kingdom. Yet most certain\nit is, that without giving diligence in the use of the means, you shall\nneither convince your adversaries, nor yet exonerate your own consciences,\nnor, lastly, have such comfort in the day of your suffering as otherwise\nyou should. I know that principally, and, above all, we are to offer up to\nGod prayers and supplications, with strong crying and tears, which are the\nweapons of our spiritual warfare, Heb. v. 7; but as this ought to be done,\nso the achieving of other secondary means ought not to be left undone.\n\nIf you disregard these things whereof, in the name of God, I have\nadmonished you, and draw back your helping hands from the reproached and\nafflicted cause of Christ, for which we plead, then do not put evil far\nfrom you, for wrath is determined against you. And as for you, my dear\nbrethren and countrymen of Scotland, as it is long since first\nChristianity was preached and professed in this land, as also it was\nblessed with a most glorious and much-renowned Reformation:(43) and,\nfurther, as the gospel hath been longer continued in purity and peace with\nus than with any church in Europe: moreover, as the Church of Scotland\nhath treacherously broken her bonds of oath and subscription wherewith\nother churches about us were not so tied; and, finally, as Almighty God,\nthough he hath almost consumed other churches by his dreadful judgments,\nyet hath showed far greater long-suffering kindness towards us, to reclaim\nus to repentance, though, notwithstanding all this, we go on in a most\ndoleful security, induration, blindness, and backsliding: so now, in the\nmost ordinary course of God\u2019s justice, we are certainly to expect, that\nafter so many mercies, so great long-suffering, and such a long day of\ngrace, all despised, he is to send upon us such judgments as should not be\nbelieved though they were told. O Scotland! understand and turn again, or\nelse, as God lives, most terrible judgments are abiding thee.\n\nBut if you lay these things to heart,\u2014if you be humbled before God for the\nprovocation of your defection, and turn back from the same,\u2014if with all\nyour hearts and according to all your power, you bestow your best\nendeavours for making help to the wounded church of Christ, and for\nvindicating the cause of pure religion, yea, though it were with the loss\nof all that you have in the world, (_augetur enim religio Dei, quo magis\npremitur_(_44_)\u2014God\u2019s true religion is enlarged the more it is pressed\ndown), then shall you not only escape the evils which shall come upon this\ngeneration, but likewise be recompensed a hundred fold with the sweet\nconsolations of God\u2019s Spirit here, and with the immortal crown of never\nfading glory hence. Now, our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God, even our\nFather, which hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation and\ngood hope through grace, stablish you and keep you from evil, that ye may\nbe presented before his throne. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with\nyou all, Amen.\n\n\n\n\nPROLOGUE.\n\n\nHow good reason those wise men had for them who did not allow of the\nEnglish popish ceremonies at the first introducing of these novations into\nthe Church of Scotland, foreseeing the bad effects and dangerous evils\nwhich might ensue thereupon, and how greatly the other sort were mistaken\nwho did then yield to the same, apprehending no danger in them, it is this\nday too too apparent to us whose thoughts concerning the event of this\ncourse cannot be holden in suspense betwixt the apprehensions of fear and\nexpectations of hope, because doleful experience hath made us feel that\nwhich the wiser sort before did fear. Since, then, this church, which was\nonce a praise in the earth, is now brought to a most deplorable and daily\nincreasing desolation by the means of these ceremonies, which have been\nboth the sparkles to kindle, and the bellows to blow up, the consuming\nfire of intestine dissensions among us, it concerneth all her children,\nnot only to cry out Ah! and Alas! and to \u201cbewail with the weeping of\nJazer,\u201d Isa. xvi. 9, but also to bethink themselves most seriously how to\nsuccour their dear, though distressed mother, in such a calamitous case.\nOur best endeavours which we are to employ for this end, next unto praying\nearnestly \u201cfor the peace of Jerusalem,\u201d Psal. cxxii. 6, are these: 1. So\nfar as we have attained \u201cto walk by the same rule, to mind the same\nthing,\u201d Phil. iii. 19, and to labour as much as is possible that the\ncourse of the gospel, the doctrine of godliness, the practice of piety lie\nnot behind, because of our differing one from another about the\nceremonies, lest otherwise \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd grow to be \u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd. 2. In such things\nwhereabout we agree not, to make diligent search and inquiry for the\ntruth. For to have our judgments in our heels, and so blindly to follow\nevery opinion which is broached, and squarely to conform unto every custom\nwhich is set afoot, becometh not men who are endued with reason for\ndiscerning of things beseeming from things not beseeming, far less\nChristians, who should have their senses exercised to discern both good\nand evil. Heb. v. 14, and who have received a commandment \u201cto prove all\nthings,\u201d 1 Thess. v. 21, before they hold fast anything; and least of all\ndoth it become us who live in these most dangerous days, wherein error and\ndefection so much abound. 3. When we have attained to the acknowledging of\nthe truth, then to give a testimony unto the same, according to our\nvocation, contending for the truth of God against the errors of men, for\nthe purity of Christ against the corruptions of Antichrist: For to\nunderstand the truth, and yet not contend for it, argueth cowardliness,\nnot courage; fainting, not fervour; lukewarmness, not love; weakness, not\nvalour. Wherefore, since we cannot impetrate from the troublers of our\nIsrael that true peace which derogateth not from the truth, we may not, we\ndare not, leave off to debate with them. Among the laws of Solon, there\nwas one which pronounced him defamed and unhonest who, in a civil uproar\namong the citizens, sitteth still a looker-on and a neuter (_Plut. in\nVita. Solon_); much more deserve they to be so accounted of who shun to\nmeddle with any controversy which disquieted the church, whereas they\nshould labour to win the adversaries of the truth, and, if they prove\nobstinate, to defend and propugn the truth against them. In things of this\nlife (as Calvin noteth in _Epist. ad Protect. Angl._) we may remit so much\nof the right as the love of peace requireth, but as for the regiment of\nthe church which is spiritual, and wherein everything ought to be ordered\naccording to the word of God, it is not in the power of any mortal man\n_quidquam hic aliis dare, aut in illorum gratiam deflectere_. These\nconsiderations have induced me to bestow some time, and to take some pains\nin the study of the controversies which are agitated in this church about\nthe ceremonies, and (after due examination and discussion of the writings\nof such as have played the proctors for them) to compile this ensuing\ndispute against them, both for exonering myself, and for provoking of\nothers to contend yet more for the truth, and for Zion\u2019s sake not to hold\ntheir peace, nor be at rest, until the amiable light of long-wished-for\npeace break forth out of all these confusions, Isa. lxii. 1; which, O\nPrince of Peace! hasten, who \u201cwilt ordain peace for us: for thou also hast\nwrought all our works in us,\u201d Isa. xxvi. 12.\n\n\n\n\nORDER.\n\n\nBecause polemic and eristic discourses must follow the adversaries at the\nheels whithersoever they go, finding them out in all the lurking-places of\ntheir elaborate subterfuges, and conflicting with them wheresoever they\npitch, until not only all their blows be awarded, but themselves also all\nderouted, therefore, perceiving the informality of the Formalists to be\nsuch that sometimes they plead for the controverted ceremonies as\nnecessary, sometimes as expedient, sometimes as lawful, and sometimes as\nindifferent, I resolve to follow the trace, and to evince, by force of\nreason, that there is none of all those respects to justify either the\nurging or the using of them. And albeit the Archbishop of Spalato (_Pref.\nLibror. de Rep. Eccl._) cometh forth like an Olympic champion, stoutly\nbrandishing and bravading, and making his account that no antagonist can\nmatch him except a prelate, albeit likewise the Bishop of Edinburgh\n(_Proc. in Perth, Assembly_, part iii. p. 55) would have us to think that\nwe are not well advised to enter into combat with such Achillean strength\nas they have on their side, yet must our opposites know, that we have more\ndaring minds than to be dashed with the vain flourish of their great\nwords. Wherefore, in all these four ways wherein I am to draw the line of\nmy dispute, I will not shun to encounter and handle strokes with the most\nvaliant champions of that faction, knowing that\u2014_Trophoeum ferre me \u00e0\nforti viro, pulchrum est: sin autem et vincar, vinci \u00e0 tali nullum est\nprobrum_\u2014But what? Shall I speak doubtfully of the victory, or fear the\nfoil? Nay, I consider that there is none of them so strong as he was who\nsaid, \u201cWe can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth,\u201d 2 Cor.\nxxiii. 8. I will therefore boldly adventure to combat with them even where\nthey seem to be strongest, and to discuss their best arguments,\nallegations, answers, assertions, and distinctions. And my dispute shall\nconsist of four parts, according to those four pretences which are given\nout for the ceremonies, which, being so different one from another, must\nbe severally examined. The lawfulness of a thing is in that it may be\ndone; the indifferency of it in that it may either be done or left undone,\nthe expediency of it in that it is done profitably; and the necessity of\nit in that it may not be left undone. I will begin with the last respect\nfirst, as that which is the weightiest.\n\n\n\n\n                             THE FIRST PART.\n\n\nAGAINST THE NECESSITY OF THE CEREMONIES.\n\n\n\n                                CHAPTER I.\n\n\nTHAT OUR OPPOSITES DO URGE THE CEREMONIES AS THINGS NECESSARY.\n\n\n_Sect_. 1. This I prove, 1. From their practice; 2. From their pleading.\nIn their practice, who seeth not that they would tie the people of God to\na necessity of submitting their necks to this heavy yoke of human\nceremonies? which are with more vehemency, forwardness, and strictness\nurged, than the weighty matters of the law of God, and the refusing\nwhereof is far more inhibited, menaced, espied, delated, aggravated,\ncensured, and punished, than idolatry, Popery, blasphemy, swearing,\nprofanation of the Sabbath, murder, adultery, &c. Both preachers and\npeople have been, and are, fined, confined, imprisoned, banished,\ncensured, and punished so severely, that he may well say of them that\nwhich our divines say of the Papists, _Hoec sua inventa Decalago\nanteponunt, et gravius eos-multarent qui ea violarent, quam qui divina\npraecepta transgrederentur._(45) Wherefore, seeing they make not only as\nmuch, but more ado, about the controverted ceremonies than about the most\nnecessary things in religion, their practice herein makes it too, too\napparent what necessity they annex to them.\n\n_Sect_. 2. And if we will hearken to their pleading it tells no less; for\nhowbeit they plead for their ceremonies, as things indifferent in their\nown nature, yet, when the ceremonies are considered as the ordinances of\nthe church, they plead for them as things necessary. M. G. Powel, in the\n_Consideration of the Arguments directed to the High Court of Parliament\nin behalf of the Ministers suspended and deprived_ (ans. 3 to arg. 16),\nhath these words, yea, these particulars: \u201cSubscription, ceremonies, &c.,\nbeing imposed by the church, and commanded by the magistrate, are\nnecessary to be observed under the pain of sin.\u201d The Bishop of Edinburgh\nresolves us concerning the necessity of giving obedience to the laws of\nthe church, enacted anent the ceremonies, thus: \u201cWhere a man hath not a\nlaw, his judgment is the rule of his conscience, but where there is a law,\nthe law must be the rule. As, for example, before that apostolical canon\nthat forbade to eat blood or strangled things, every man might have done\nthat which in his conscience he thought most expedient, &c., but after the\nmaking and the publication of the canon that enjoined abstinence, the same\nwas to rule their consciences. And, therefore, after that time, albeit a\nman had thought in his own private judgment that to abstain from these\nthings was not expedient, &c. yet, in that case, he ought not to have\neaten, because now the will of the law, and not the judgment of his own\nmind, was the rule of his conscience.\u201d(46) The Archbishop of St Andrews,\nto the same purpose saith, \u201cIn things indifferent we must always esteem\nthat to be best and most seemly which seemeth so in the eye of public\nauthority, neither is it for private men to control public judgment, as\nthey cannot make public constitutions, so they may not control nor disobey\nthem, being once made, indeed authority ought to look well to this, that\nit prescribe nothing but rightly, appoint no rights nor orders in the\nchurch but such as may set forward godliness and piety, yet, put the case,\nthat some be otherwise established, they must be obeyed by such as are\nmembers of that church, as long as they have the force of a constitution,\n&c. But thou wilt say, My conscience suffers me not to obey, for I am\npersuaded that such things are not right, nor appointed. I answer thee, In\nmatters of this nature and quality the sentence of thy superiors ought to\ndirect thee, and that is a sufficient ground to thy conscience for\nobeying.\u201d(47) Thus we see that they urge the ceremonies, not only with a\nnecessity of practice upon the outward man, but also with a necessity of\nopinion upon the conscience, and that merely because of the church\u2019s\ndetermination and appointment; yea, Dr Mortoune maketh kneeling in the act\nof receiving the communion to be in some sort necessary in itself, for he\nmaintaineth,(48) that though it be not essentially necessary as food, yet\nit is accidentally necessary as physic. Nay, some of them are yet more\nabsurd, who plainly call the ceremonies necessary in themselves,(49)\nbeside the constitution of the church. Others of them, who confess the\nceremonies to be not only unnecessary,(50) but also inconvenient, do,\nnotwithstanding, plead for them as things necessary. Dr Burges tells\nus,(51) that some of his side think that ceremonies are inconvenient, but\nwithal he discovers to us a strange mystery brought out of the\nunsearchable deepness of his piercing conception, holding that such things\nas not only are not at all necessary in themselves,(52) but are\ninconvenient too, may yet be urged as necessary.\n\n_Sect_. 3. The urging of these ceremonies as necessary, if there were no\nmore, is a sufficient reason for our refusing them. \u201cTo the precepts of\nGod (saith Balduine) nothing is to be added,(53) Deut. xii. Now God hath\ncommanded these things which are necessary. The rites of the church are\nnot necessary, wherefore, if the abrogation or usurpation of any rite be\nurged as necessary, then is an addition made to the commandment of God,\nwhich is forbidden in the word, and, by consequence, it cannot oblige me,\nneither should anything herein be yielded unto.\u201d Who can purge these\nceremonies in controversy among us of gross superstition, since they are\nurged as things necessary? But of this superstition we shall hear\nafterward in its proper place.\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER II.\n\n\nTHE REASON TAKEN OUT OF ACTS XV. TO PROVE THE NECESSITY OF THE CEREMONIES,\nBECAUSE OF THE CHURCH\u2019S APPOINTMENT, CONFUTED.\n\n\nThe Bishop of Edinburgh, to prove that of necessity our consciences must\nbe ruled by the will of the law, and that it is necessary that we give\nobedience to the same, albeit our consciences gainsay, allegeth that\napostolical canon,(54) Acts xv., for an example, just as Bellarmine\nmaintaineth, _Festorum observationem ex se indifferentem esse sed posita\nlege fieri necessariam_(_55_)_._ Hospinian, answering him, will\nacknowledge no necessity of the observation of feasts, except divine law\ncould be showed for it.(56) So say we, that the ceremonies which are\nacknowledged by formalists to be indifferent in themselves, cannot be made\nnecessary by the law of the church, neither doth that example of the\napostolical canon make anything against us, for, according to Mr Sprint\u2019s\nconfession,(57) it was not the force or authority of the canon, but the\nreason and ground whereupon the canon was made, which caused the necessity\nof abstaining, and to abstain was necessary for eschewing of scandal,\nwhether the apostles and elders had enjoined abstinence or not.(58) The\nreason, then, why the things prescribed in that canon are called\nnecessary, ver. 28, is not because, being indifferent before the making\nand publication of the canon, they became necessary by virtue of the canon\nafter it was made, as the Bishop teacheth, but _quia tunc __ charitas\nexigebat, ut illa sua libertate qui ex gentibus conversi erant, propter\nproximi edificationem inter judeos non uterentur, sed ab ea abstinerent,_\nsaith Chemnitius.(59) This law, saith Tilen,(60) was _propter charitatem\net vitandi offendiculi necessitatem ad tempus sancita._ So that these\nthings were necessary before the canon was made. _Necessaria fuerunt,_\nsaith Ames,(61) _antequam Apostoli quidquam de iis statuerant, non\nabsolute, sed quatenus in iis charitas jubebat morem gerere infirmis, ut\ncajetanus notat. Quamobrem,_ saith Tilen,(62) _cum charitas semper sit\ncolenda, semper vitanda sandala._ \u201cCharity is necessary (saith Beza), even\nin things which are in themselves indifferent.\u201d(63) What they can allege\nfor the necessity of the ceremonies, from the authority and obligatory\npower of ecclesiastical laws, shall be answered by and by.\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER III.\n\n\nTHAT THE CEREMONIES THUS IMPOSED AND URGED AS THINGS NECESSARY, DO BEREAVE\nUS OF OUR CHRISTIAN LIBERTY, FIRST, BECAUSE OUR PRACTICE IS ADSTRICTED.\n\n\n_Sect._ 1. Who can blame us for standing to the defence of our Christian\nliberty, which we ought to defend and pretend in _rebus quibusvis?_ saith\nBucer.(64) Shall we bear the name of Christians, and yet make no great\naccount of the liberty which hath been bought to us by the dearest drops\nof the precious blood of the Son of God? _Sumus empti_, saith Parcus:(65)\n_non igitur nostri juris ut nos mancipemus hominum servitio: id enim\nmanifesta cum injuria redemptoris Christi fieret: sumus liberti Christi.\nMagistratui autem,_ saith Tilen,(66) _et ecclesioe proepositis, non nisi\nusque ad aras obtemperandum, neque ullum certamen aut periculum pro\nlibertatis per Christum nobis part\u00e6 defensione defugiendum, siquidem\nmortem ipsius irritam fieri, Paulus asserit, si spiritualis servitutis\njugo, nos implicari patiamur._ Gal. v. 1, \u201cLet us stand fast, therefore,\nin the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and not be entangled\nagain with the yoke of bondage.\u201d But that the urging of the ceremonies as\nnecessary doth take away our Christian liberty, I will make it evident in\nfour points.\n\n_Sect._ 2. First, They are imposed with a necessity of practice. Spotswood\ntells us,(67) that public constitutions must be obeyed, and that private\nmen may not disobey them, and thus is our practice adstricted in the use\nof things which are not at all necessary, and acknowledged _gratis_ by the\nurgers to be indifferent, adstricted (I say) to one part without liberty\nto the other, and that by the mere authority of a human constitution,\nwhereas Christian liberty gives us freedom both for the omission and for\nthe observation of a thing indifferent, except some other reason do\nadstrict and restrain it than a bare human constitution. Chrysostome,\nspeaking of such as are subject to bishops,(68) saith, _In potestate\npositum est obedire vel non._ Liberty in things indifferent,(69) saith\nAmandus Polanus, _est per quam Christiani sunt liberi in usu vel\nabstinentia rerum adiaphorarom._ Calvin, speaking of our liberty in things\nindifferent,(70) saith, We may _eas nunc usurpare nunc omittere\nindifferenter_, and places this liberty,(71) _tam in abstinendo quam in\nutendo._ It is marked of the rites of the ancient church,(72) that\n_liberae fuerunt horum rituum observationes in ecclesia._ And what meaneth\nthe Apostle while he saith, \u201cIf ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments\nof the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to\nordinances, (touch not, taste not, handle not, which all are to perish\nwith the using,) after the commandments and doctrines of men?\u201d Col. ii.\n20-22. Surely he condemneth not only _humana decreta de ritibus_, but also\nsubjection and obedience to such ordinances of men as take from us liberty\nof practice in the use of things indifferent,(73) obedience (I say) for\nconscience of their ordinances merely. What meaneth also that place, 1\nCor. vii. 23, \u201cBe not ye the servants of men?\u201d \u201cIt forbids us, (saith\nPaybody) to be the servants of men, that is, in wicked or superstitious\nactions, according to their perverse commandments or desires.\u201d(74) If he\nmean of actions that are wicked or superstitious in themselves, then it\nfolloweth, that to be subject unto those ordinances, \u201cTouch not, taste\nnot, handle not,\u201d is not to be the servants of men, because these actions\nare not wicked and superstitious in themselves. Not touching, not tasting,\nnot handling, are in themselves indifferent. But if he mean of actions\nwhich are wicked and superstitious, in respect of circumstances, then is\nhis restrictive gloss senseless; for we can never be the servants of men,\nbut in such wicked and superstitious actions, if there were no more but\ngiving obedience to such ordinances as are imposed with a necessity upon\nus, and that merely for conscience of the ordinance, it is enough to\ninfect the actions with superstition, _Sunt hominum servi_, saith\nBullinqer,(75) _qui aliquid in gratiam hominum faciunt_. This is nearer\nthe truth; for to tie ourselves to the doing of anything for the will or\npleasure of men, when our conscience can find no other reason for the\ndoing of it, were indeed to make ourselves the servants of men. Far be it\nthen from us to submit our necks to such a heavy yoke of human precepts,\nas would overload and undo us. Nay, we will stedfastly resist such\nunchristian tyranny as goeth about to spoil us of Christian liberty,\ntaking that for certain which we find in Cyprian,(76) _periculosum est in\ndivinis rebus ut quis cedat jure suo_.\n\n_Sect._ 3. Two things are here replied, 1. That there is reason for\nadstricting of our practice in these things, because we are commanded to\nobey them that have the rule over us, and to submit ourselves, Heb. xiii.\n17,(77) and to submit ourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord\u2019s\nsake, 1 Pet. ii. 16, and that except public constitutions must needs be\nobeyed, there can be no order,(78) but all shall be filled with strife and\ncontention. _Ans._ 1. As touching obedience to those that are set over us,\nif they mean not to tyrannise over the Lord\u2019s inheritance, 1 Pet. v. 3;\nand to make the commandments of God of no effect by their traditions, Mark\nvii. 9, they must give us leave to try their precepts by the sure will of\nGod\u2019s word; and when we find that they require of us anything in the\nworship of God which is either against or beside his written word, then\nmodestly to refuse obedience, which is the only way for order, and\nshunning of strife and contention. It will be said again, that except we\nprove the things commanded by those who are set over us to be unlawful in\nthemselves, we cannot be allowed to refuse obedience to their ordinances.\n_Ans._ This unlawfulness of the ceremonies in themselves hath been proved\nby us already, and shall yet again be proved in this dispute. But put the\ncase, they were lawful in themselves, yet have we good reason for refusing\nthem: \u201cDavid thought the feeding of his body was cause sufficient to break\nthe law of the shew-bread; Christ thought the satisfying of the disciples\u2019\nhunger to be cause sufficient to break the ceremony of the Sabbath. He\nthought, also, that the healing of the lepers\u2019 bodies was a just excuse to\nbreak the law that forbade the touching of them; much more, then, may we\nthink now in our estimation, that the feeding of other men\u2019s souls, the\nsatisfying of our own consciences, together with the consciences of other\nmen, and the healing of men\u2019s superstition and spiritual leprosy, are\ncauses sufficient to break the law of the ceremonies and of the cross,\nwhich are not God\u2019s but men\u2019s,\u201d saith Parker.(79) 2. As touching\nsubmission or subjection, we say with Dr Field,(80) _that subjection is\ngenerally and absolutely required where obedience is not,_ and even when\nour consciences suffer us not to obey, yet still we submit and subject\nourselves, and neither do nor shall (I trust) show any the least contempt\nof authority.\n\n_Sect._ 4. Secondly, It is replied, that our Christian liberty is not\ntaken away when practice is restrained, because conscience is still left\nfree. \u201cThe Christian liberty (saith Paybody(81)), is not taken away by the\nnecessity of doing a thing indifferent, or not doing, but only by that\nnecessity which takes away the opinion or persuasion of its indifferency,\u201d\nSo saith Dr Burges,(82) \u201cThat the ceremonies in question are ordained to\nbe used necessarily, though the judgment concerning them, and immediate\nconscience to God, be left free.\u201d _Ans._ 1. Who doubts of this, that\nliberty of practice may be restrained in the use of things which are in\nthemselves indifferent? But, yet, if the bare authority of an\necclesiastical law, without any other reason than the will and pleasure of\nmen, be made to restrain practice, then is Christian liberty taken away.\nJunius saith,(83) that _externum opus ligatur_ from the use of things\nindifferent, when the conscience is not bound; but in that same place he\nshoweth, that the outward action is bound and restrained only _quo usque\ncircumstantiae ob quas necessitas imperata est, se extendunt_. So that it\nis not the authority of an ecclesiastical law, but the occasion and ground\nof it, which adstricts the practice when the conscience is left free. 2.\nWhen the authority of the church\u2019s constitution is obtruded to bind and\nrestrain the practice of Christians in the use of things indifferent, they\nare bereaved of their liberty, as well as if an opinion of necessity were\nborne in upon their consciences. Therefore we see when the Apostle, 1 Cor.\nvii., gives liberty of marriage, he doth not only leave the conscience\nfree in its judgment of the lawfulness of marriage, but also give liberty\nof practice to marry or not to marry. And Col. ii. 21, when he giveth\ninstances of such human ordinances as take away Christian liberty, he\nsaith not, _you must think that you may not touch_, &c., but \u201ctouch not,\u201d\n&c., telling us, that when the practice is restrained from touching,\ntasting, handling, by the ordinances of men, then is Christian liberty\nspoiled, though the conscience be left free. Camero, speaking of the\nservitude which is opposed to Christian liberty, saith,(84) that it is\neither _animi servitus_, or _corporis servitus_. Then if the outward man\nbe brought in bondage, this makes up spiritual thraldom, though there be\nno more. But, 3. The ceremonies are imposed with an opinion of necessity\nupon the conscience itself, for proof whereof I proceed to the next point.\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER IV.\n\n\nTHAT THE CEREMONIES TAKE AWAY OUR CHRISTIAN LIBERTY PROVED BY A SECOND\nREASON, NAMELY, BECAUSE CONSCIENCE ITSELF IS BOUND AND ADSTRICTED.\n\n\n_Sect._ 1. Bishop Lindsey hath told us,(85) that the will of the law must\nbe the rule of our conscience, so that conscience may not judge other ways\nthan the law determines. Bishop Spotswood will have the sentence of\nsuperiors to direct the conscience,(86) and will have us to esteem that to\nbe best and most seemly which seemeth so to them. Bishop Andrews, speaking\nof ceremonies,(87) not only will have every person inviolably to observe\nthe rites and customs of his own church, but also will have the ordinances\nabout those rites to be urged under pain of the anathema. I know not what\nthe binding of the conscience is, if this be not it: _Apostolus gemendi\npartes relinquit, non cogendi auctoritatem tribuit ministris quibus plebs\nnon auscultat_.(88) And shall they who call themselves the apostles\u2019\nsuccessors, compel, constrain and enthral, the consciences of the people\nof God? Charles V., as popish as he was, did promise to the\nProtestants,(89) _Nullam vim ipsorum conscientiis illatum iri_. And shall\na popish prince speak more reasonable than protestant prelates? But to\nmake it yet more and plentifully to appear how miserably our opposites\nwould enthral our consciences, I will here show, 1. What the binding of\nthe conscience is. 2. How the laws of the church may be said to bind. 3.\nWhat is the judgment of formalists touching the binding-power of\necclesiastical laws.\n\n_Sect._ 2. Concerning the first of these we will hear what Dr Field\nsaith:(90) \u201cTo bind the conscience (saith he) is to bind the soul and\nspirit of man, with the fear of such punishments (to be inflicted by him\nthat so bindeth) as the conscience feareth; that is, as men fear, though\nnone but God and themselves be privy to their doings; now these are only\nsuch as God only inflicteth,\u201d &c. This description is too imperfect, and\ndeserves to be corrected. To bind the conscience is _illam auctoritatem\nhabere, ut conscientia illi subjicere sese debeat, ita ut peccatum sit, si\ncontra illam quidquam fiat_, saith Ames.(91) \u201cThe binder (saith\nPerkins(92)) is that thing whatsoever which hath power and authority over\nconscience to order it. To bind is to urge, cause, and constrain it in\nevery action, either to accuse for sin, or to excuse for well-doing; or to\nsay, this may be done, or it may not be done.\u201d \u201cTo bind the conscience\n(saith Alsted(93)) _est illam urgere et adigere, ut vel excuset et\naccuset, vel indicet quid fieri aut non fieri possit_.\u201d Upon these\ndescriptions, which have more truth and reason in them, I infer that\nwhatsoever urges, or forces conscience to assent to a thing as lawful, or\na thing that ought to be done, or dissent from a thing as unlawful, or a\nthing which ought not to be done, that is a binder of conscience, though\nit did not bind the spirit of a man with the fear of such punishments as\nGod alone inflicteth. For secluding all respect of punishment, and not\nconsidering what will follow, the very obliging of the conscience for the\ntime, _ad assensum_, is a binding of it.(94)\n\n_Sect._ 3. Touching the second, it is certain that human laws, as they\ncome from men, and in respect of any force or authority which men can give\nthem, have no power to bind the conscience. _Neque enim cum hominibus, sed\ncum uno Deo negotium est conscientis nostris_, saith Calvin.(95) Over our\nsouls and consciences, _nemini quicquam juris nisi Deo_, saith Tilen.(96)\nFrom Jerome\u2019s distinction, that a king _praeest nolentibus_ but a bishop\n_volentibus_, Marcus Antonius de Dominis well concludeth: _Volentibus\ngregi praeesso, excludit omnem jurisdictionem et potestatem imperativam ac\ncoactivam et solam significat directivam, ubi, viz., in libertate subditi\nest et parere et non parere, ita ut qui praeest nihil habeat quo nolentem\nparere adigat ad parendum._(97) This point he proveth in that chapter at\nlength, where he disputeth both against temporal and spiritual coactive\njurisdiction in the church. If it be demanded to what purpose serveth then\nthe enacting of ecclesiastical laws, since they have not in them any power\nto bind the conscience, I answer, The use and end for which ecclesiastical\nlaws do serve is, 1. For the plain discovery of such things as the law of\nGod or nature do require of us, so that law which of itself hath power to\nbind, cometh from the priests and ministers of the Lord neither\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03c2 nor \u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03b8\u03b5\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03c2, but _declarativ\u00e8_, Mal. ii. 7. 2. For\ndeclaring to us what is fittest in such things as are, in their own\nnature, indifferent, and neither enforced by the law of God nor nature,\nand which part should be followed in these things as most convenient. The\nlaws of the church, then, are appointed to let us see the necessity of the\nfirst kind of things, and what is expedient in the other kind of things,\nand therefore they are more properly called directions, instructions,\nadmonitions, than laws. For I speak of ecclesiastical laws _qua tales_,\nthat is, as they are the constitutions of men who are set over us; thus\nconsidered, they have only _vim dirigendi et monendi_.(98) It is said of\nthe apostles, that they were constituted _doctrinae Christi testes, non\nnovae doctrinae legist tores_.(99) And the same may be said of all the\nministers of the gospel, when discipline is taken in with doctrine. He is\nno nonconformist who holdeth _ecclesiam in terris agere partes oratoris,\nseu legati obsecrantis et suadentis_.(100) And we may hitherto apply that\nwhich Gerson, the chancellor of Paris, saith:(101) \u201cThe wisest and best\namong the guides of God\u2019s church had not so ill a meaning as to have all\ntheir constitutions and ordinances taken for laws properly so named, much\nless strictly binding the conscience, but for threatenings, admonitions,\ncounsels, and directions only, and when there groweth a general neglect,\nthey seem to consent to the abolishing of them again;\u201d for seeing, _lex\ninstituitur, cum promulgatur, vigorem habet, cum moribus utentium\napprobatur._\n\n_Sect._ 4. But as we have seen in what respect the laws of the church do\nnot bind, let us now see how they may be said to bind. That which bindeth\nis not the authority of the church, nor any force which the church can\ngive to her laws. It must be then somewhat else which maketh them able to\nbind, when they bind at all, and that is _ratio legis_, \u201cthe reason of the\nlaw,\u201d without which the law itself cannot bind, and which hath the\nchiefest and most principal power of binding. An ecclesiastical law, saith\nJunius,(102) \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03be\u03b9\u03c2 _sive depositio, non vere lex est, sed_ \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c0\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2\naut canon, ac proindedirigit quidem ut canon agentem voluntarie: non autem\nnecessitate cogit, ut lex etiam involuntarium quod si forte ante accedit\ncoactio, ea non est de natura canonis sed altunde pervenit. An\necclesiastical canon, saith Tilen,(103) _ducit volentem, non trahit\nnolentem: quod si accedat coactio, ea ecclesiastici canonis natura est\nprorsus aliena_, Calvin\u2019s judgment is,(104) that an ecclesiastical canon\nbinds, when _manifestam utilitatem prae se fert_, and when either _tu\nprepon_ or _charitatis ratio_ doth require, that we impose a necessity on\nour liberty. It binds not, then, by its own authority in his mind. And\nwhat saith the canon law itself?(105) _Sed sciendum est quod\necclesiasticae prohibitiones proprias habent causas quibus cessantibus,\ncessant et ipsae._ Hence Junius saith,(106) that the law binds not _per\nse_, but only _propter ordinem charitatem, et cautionem scandali_. Hence\nAmes,(107) _quamvis ad justas leges humanas, justo modo observandas,\nobligentur homines in conscientiis suis a Deo; ipsae tamen leges humanae,\nqua sunt leges hominum, non obligant conscientiam._ Hence Alsted:(108)\n\u201cLaws made by men of things indifferent, whether they be civil or\necclesiastical, do bind the conscience, in so far as they agree with God\u2019s\nword, serve for the public good, maintain order, and finally, take not\naway liberty of conscience.\u201d Hence the professors of Leyden say,(109) that\nlaws bind not _primo et per se, sed secundario, et per accidens_; that\nis,(110) _quatenus in illis lex aliqua Dei violator_. Hence I may compare\nthe constitutions of the church with _responsa juris consultorum_ among\nthe Romans, which obliged no man, _nisi ex aequo et bono_, saith\nDaneus.(111) Hence it may be said, that the laws of the church do not only\nbind _scandali et contemptus ratione_, as Hospinian,(112) and in case\n_libertas fiat cum scandalo_, as Parcus;(113) for it were scandal not to\ngive obedience to the laws of the church, when they prescribe things\nnecessary or expedient for the eschewing of scandal, and it were contempt\nto refuse obedience to them, when we are not certainly persuaded of the\nunlawfulness or inexpediency of the things prescribed.\n\n_Sect._ 5. But out of the case of scandal or contempt, divines teach that\nconscience is not bound by the canon of the church made about order and\npolicy. _Extra casum scandali et destinatae rebellionis, propter commune\nbonum, non peccat qui contra constitutiones istas fecerit_, saith\nJunius.(114) \u201cIf a law (saith Perkins)(115) concerning some external right\nor thing indifferent, be at some time or upon some occasion omitted, no\noffence given, nor contempt showed to ecclesiastical authority, there is\nno breach made in the conscience.\u201d Alsted\u2019s rule is,(116) _Leges humanae\nnon obligant quando omitti possunt sine impedimento finis ob quem feruntur\nsine scandalo aliorum, et sine contemptu legislatoris._ And Tilen teacheth\nus,(117) that when the church hath determined the mutable circumstances,\nin the worship of God, for public edification, _privatorum conscientiis\nliberum est quandoque ista omittere, modo offendicula vitentur, nihil que\nex contemptu ecclesiae ac ministerii publici petulanti \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b9\u03b1 vel\n\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03be\u03b9\u03b1 facere videantur._\n\n_Sect._ 6. We deny not, then, that the church\u2019s canons about rites, which\nserve for public order and edification, do bind. We say only, that it is\nnot the authority of the church framing the canon that binds, but the\nmatter of the canon chiefly warranted by God\u2019s word.(118) _Scimus enim\nquaecunque ad decorum et ordinem pertinent, non habenda esse pro humanis\nplacitas, quia divinitus approbantur._ Therefore we think concerning such\ncanons, \u201cthat they are necessary to be observed so far forth only, as the\nkeeping of them maintaineth decent order, and preventeth open\noffence.\u201d(119)\n\n_Sect._ 7. If any say that I derogate much from the authority of the\nchurch when I do nothing which she prescribeth, except I see it lawful and\nexpedient, because I should do this much for the exhortation and\nadmonition of a brother. _Ans._ 1. I give far more reverence to the\ndirection of the church than to the admonition of a brother, because that\nis ministerial, this fraternal, that comes from authority, this only from\ncharity, that is public, this private, that is given by many, this by one.\nAnd, finally, the church hath a calling to direct me in some things\nwherein a brother hath not. 2. If it be still instanced that, in the point\nof obedience, I do no more for the church than for any brother, because I\nam bound to do that which is made evident to be lawful and expedient,\nthough a private Christian do but exhort me to it, or whether I be\nexhorted to it or not. For answer to this I say, that I will obey the\ndirections of the church in many things rather than the directions of a\nbrother; for in two things which are in themselves indifferent, and none\nof them inexpedient, I will do that which the church requireth, though my\nbrother should exhort me to the contrary. But always I hold me at this\nsure ground, that I am never bound in conscience to obey the ordinances of\nthe church, except they be evidently lawful and expedient. This is that,\n_sine quo non obligant_, and also that which doth chiefly bind, though it\nbe not the only thing which bindeth. Now, for making the matter more\nplain, we must consider that the constitutions of the church are either\nlawful or unlawful. If unlawful, they bind not at all; if lawful, they are\neither concerning things necessary, as Acts xv. 28, and then the necessity\nof the things doth bind, whether the church ordain them or not; or else\nconcerning things indifferent, as when the church ordaineth, that in great\ntowns there shall be sermon on such a day of the week, and public prayers\nevery day at such an hour. Here it is not the bare authority of the church\nthat bindeth, without respect to the lawfulness or expediency of the thing\nitself which is ordained (else we were bound to do every thing which the\nchurch ordains, were it never so unlawful, for _quod competit alicui qua\ntali, competit omni tali_: we behold the authority of the church making\nlaws, as well in unlawful ordinances as in lawful), nor yet is it the\nlawfulness or expediency of the thing itself, without respect to the\nordinance of the church (for possibly other times and diets were as\nlawful, and expedient too, for such exercises, as those ordained by the\nchurch); but it is the authority of the church prescribing a thing lawful\nor expedient. In such a case, then neither doth the authority of the\nchurch bind, except the thing be lawful and expedient, nor doth the\nlawfulness and expediency of the thing bind, except the church ordain it;\nbut both these jointly do bind.\n\n_Sect._ 8. I come now to examine what is the judgment of formalists\ntouching the binding of the conscience by ecclesiastical laws. Dr Field\nsaith, that the question should not be proposed, whether human laws do\nbind the conscience, but \u201cwhether binding the outward man to the\nperformance of outward things by force and fear of outward punishment to\nbe inflicted by men, the non-performance of such things, or the\nnon-performance of them with such affections as were fit, be not a sin\nagainst God, of which the conscience will accuse us,\u201d(120) &c. Unto this\nquestion thus proposed and understood of human laws, and where no more is\nconsidered as giving them power to bind, but only the authority of those\nwho make them; some formalists do give (as I will show), and all of them\n(being well advised) must give an affirmative answer. And, I pray, what\ndid Bellarmine say more,(121) when, expressing how conscience is subject\nto human authority, he taught that conscience belongeth _ad humanum forum,\nquatenus homo ex praecepto ita obligator ad opus externum faciendum, ut si\nnon faciat, judicat ipse in conscientia sua se male facere, et hoc\nsufficit ad conscientiam obligandam?_ But to proceed particularly.\n\n_Sect._ 9. I begin with Field himself, whose resolution of the question\nproposed is,(122) that we are bound only to give obedience to such human\nlaws as prescribe things profitable, not for that human laws have power to\nbind the conscience, but because the things they command are of that\nnature, that not to perform them is contrary to justice or charity.\nWhereupon he concludeth out of Stapleton, that we are bound to the\nperformance of things prescribed by human laws, in such sort, that the\nnon-performance of them is sin, not _ex sola legislatoris voluntate, sed\nex ipsa legum utilitate_. Let all such as be of this man\u2019s mind not blame\nus for denying of obedience to the constitutions about the ceremonies,\nsince we find (for certain) no utility, but, by the contrary, much\ninconveniency in them. If they say that we must think those laws to be\nprofitable or convenient, which they, who are set over us, think to be so,\nthen they know not what they say. For, exempting conscience from being\nbound by human laws in one thing, they would have it bound by them in\nanother thing. If conscience must needs judge that to be profitable, which\nseemeth so to those that are set over us, then, sure, is power given to\nthem for binding the conscience so straitly, that it may not judge\notherwise than they judge, and force is placed in their bare authority for\nnecessitating and constraining the assenting judgment of conscience.\n\n_Sect._ 10. Some man perhaps will say that we are bound to obey the laws\nmade about the ceremonies, though not for the sole will of the law-makers,\nnor yet for any utility of the laws themselves, yet for this reason, that\nscandal and contempt would follow in case we do otherwise. _Ans._ We know\nthat human laws do bind in the case of scandal or contempt. But that\nnonconformity is neither scandal nor contempt, Parker hath made it most\nevident.(123) For, as touching contempt, he showeth out of fathers,\ncouncils, canon law, schoolmen, and modern divines, that _non obedire_ is\nnot contempt, but _nolle obedire_, or _superbiendo repugnare_. Yea, out of\nFormalists themselves, he showeth the difference betwixt subjection and\nobedience. Thereafter he pleadeth thus, and we with him: \u201cWhat signs see\nmen in us of pride and contempt? What be our _cetera opera_ that bewray\nsuch an humour? Let it be named wherein we go not two miles, when we are\ncommanded to go but one, yea, wherein we go not as many miles as any shoe\nof the preparation of the gospel will bear us. What payment, what pain,\nwhat labour, what taxation made us ever to murmur? Survey our charges\nwhere we have laboured, if they be not found to be of the faithfulest\nsubjects that be in the Lord, we deserve no favour. Nay, there is wherein\nwe stretch our consciences to the utmost to conform and to obey in divers\nmatters. Are we refractory in other things, as Balaam\u2019s ass said to his\nmaster? Have I used to serve thee so at other times?\u201d And as touching\nscandal, he showeth first, that by our not conforming, we do not\nscandalise superiors, but edify them, although it may be we displease\nthem, of which we are sorry, even as Joab displeased David when he\ncontested against the numbering of the people, yet did he not scandalise\nDavid, but edify him. And, secondly, whereas it might be alleged, that\nnonconformity doth scandalise the people, before whom it soundeth as it\nwere an alarm of disobedience, we reply with him, \u201cDaniel will not omit\nthe ceremony of looking out at the window towards Jerusalem. Mordecai\nomitteth the ceremony of bowing the knee to Haman; Christ will not use the\nceremony of washing hands, though a tradition of the elders and governors\nof the church then being. The authority of the magistrate was violated by\nthese, and an incitement to disobedience was in their ceremonial breach,\nas much as there is now in ours.\u201d\n\n_Sect._ 11. But some of our opposites go about to derive the obligatory\npower of the church\u2019s laws, not so much from the utility of the laws\nthemselves, or from any scandal which should follow upon the not obeying\nof them, as from the church\u2019s own authority which maketh them. Camero\nspeaketh of two sorts of ecclesiastical laws:(124) 1. Such as prescribe\nthings frivolous or unjust, meaning such things as (though they neither\ndetract anything from the glory of God, nor cause any damage to our\nneighbour, yet) bring some detriment to ourselves. 2. Such as prescribe\nthings belonging to order and shunning of scandal. Touching the former, he\nteacheth rightly, that conscience is never bound to the obedience of such\nlaws, except only in the case of scandal and contempt, and that if at any\ntime such laws may be neglected and not observed, without scandal given,\nor contempt shown, no man\u2019s conscience is holden with them. But touching\nthe other sort of the church\u2019s laws, he saith, that they bind the\nconscience indirectly, not only _respectu materi\u00e6 pr\u00e6cepti_ (which doth\nnot at all oblige, except in respect of the end whereunto it is referred,\nnamely, the conserving of order, and the not giving of scandal), but also\n_respectu pr\u00e6cipientis_, because God will not have those who are set over\nus in the church to be contemned. He foresaw (belike), that whereas it is\npretended in behalf of those ecclesiastical laws which enjoin the\ncontroverted ceremonies, that the things which they prescribe pertain to\norder and to the shunning of scandal, and so bind the conscience\nindirectly in respect of the end, one might answer, I am persuaded upon\nevident grounds that those prescribed ceremonies pertain not to order, and\nto the shunning of scandal, but to misorder, and to the giving of scandal;\ntherefore he laboured to bind such an one\u2019s conscience with another tie,\nwhich is the authority of the law-makers. And this authority he would have\none to take as ground enough to believe, that that which the church\nprescribeth doth belong to order and the shunning of scandal, and in that\npersuasion to do it. But, 1. How doth this doctrine differ from that which\nhimself setteth down as the opinion of Papists,(125) _Posse los qui\npr\u00e6sunt ecclesi\u00e6, cogere fideles ut id credant vel faciant, quod ipsi\njudicaverint?_ 2. It is well observed by our writers,(126) that the\napostles never made things indifferent to be necessary, except only in\nrespect of scandal, and that out of the case of scandal they still left\nthe consciences of men free, which observation they gather from Acts XV.\nand 1 Cor. x. Camero himself noteth,(127) that though the church\nprescribed abstinence from things sacrificed to idols, yet the Apostle\nwould not have the faithful to abstain for conscience\u2019 sake: why then\nholdeth he, that beside the end of shunning scandal and keeping order,\nconscience is bound even by the church\u2019s own authority? 3. As for the\nreason whereby he would prove that the church\u2019s laws do bind, even\n_respectu pr\u00e6cipientis_, his form of speaking is very bad. _Deus_ (saith\nhe) _non vult contemni pr\u00e6positos ecclesi\u00e6, nisi justa et necessaria de\ncausa._ Where falsely he supposeth, not only that there may occur a just\nand necessary cause of contemning those whom God hath set over us in the\nchurch, but, also, that the not obeying of them inferreth the contemning\nof them. Now, the not obeying of their laws inferreth not the contemning\nof themselves (which were not allowable), but only the contemning of their\nlaws. And as Jerome,(128) speaketh of Daniel, _Et nunc Daniel regis jussa\ncontemnens_, &c.; so we say of all superiors in general, that we may\nsometimes have just reasons for contemning their commandments, yet are we\nnot to contemn, but to honour themselves. But, 4. Let us take Camero\u2019s\nmeaning to be, that God will not have us to refuse obedience unto those\nwho are set over us in the church: none of our opposites dare say, that\nGod will have us to obey those who are set over us in the church in any\nother things than such as may be done both lawfully and conveniently for\nthe shunning of scandal; and if so, then the church\u2019s precept cannot bind,\nexcept as it is grounded upon such or such reasons.\n\n_Sect._ 12. Bishop Spotswood and Bishop Lindsey, in those words which I\nhave heretofore alleged out of them, are likewise of opinion, that the\nsole will and authority of the church doth bind the conscience to\nobedience. Spotswood will have us, without more ado, to esteem that to be\nbest and most seemly, which seemeth so in the eye of public authority. Is\nnot this to bind the conscience by the church\u2019s bare will and authority,\nwhen I must needs constrain the judgment of my conscience to be conformed\nto the church\u2019s judgment, having no other reason to move me hereunto but\nthe sole will and authority of the church? Further, he will have us to\nobey even such things as authority prescribeth not rightly (that is, such\nrites as do not set forward godliness), and that because they have the\nforce of a constitution. He saith that we should be directed by the\nsentence of superiors, and take it as a sufficient ground to our\nconsciences for obeying. Bellarmine speaketh more reasonably:(129) _Leges\u00e6\nhuman non obligant sub p\u0153na mortis \u00e6tern\u00e6, nisi quatenus violatione legis\nhuman\u00e6 offenditur Deus._ Lindsey thinketh that the will of the law must be\nthe rule of our consciences; he saith not the _reason_ of the law, but the\n_will_ of the law. And when we talk with the chief of our opposites, they\nwould bind us by sole authority, because they cannot do it by any reason.\nBut we answer out of Pareus,(130) that the particular laws of the church\nbind not _per se_, or _propter ipsum speciale mandatum ecclesi\u00e6. Ratio:\nquia ecclesia res adiaphoras non jubet facere vel omittere propter suum\nmandatum, sed tantum propter justas mandandi causas, ut sunt conservatio\nordinis, vitatio scandali: qu\u00e6 quamdiu non violantur, conscientias liberas\nrelinquit._\n\n_Sect._ 13. Thus we have found what power they give to their canons about\nthe ceremonies for binding of our consciences, and that a necessity not of\npractice only upon the outward man, but of opinion also upon the\nconscience is imposed by the sole will of the law-makers. Wherefore, we\npray God to open their eyes, that they may see their ceremonial laws to be\nsubstantial tyrannies over the consciences of God\u2019s people. And for\nourselves, we stand to the judgment of sounder divines, and we hold with\nLuther,(131) that _unum Dominum habemus qui animas nostras gubernat._ With\nHemmingius,(132) that we are free _ab omnibus humanis ritibus, quantum\nquidem ad conscientiam attinet._ With the Professors of Leyden,(133) that\nthis is a part of the liberty of all the faithful, that in things\npertaining to God\u2019s worship, _ab omni traditionum humanarum jugo liberas\nhabeant conscientias, cum solius Dei sit, res ad religionem pertinentes\npraescribere_.\n\n\n\n                                CHAPTER V.\n\n\nTHAT THE CEREMONIES TAKE AWAY CHRISTIAN LIBERTY, PROVED BY A THIRD REASON,\nVIZ., BECAUSE THEY ARE URGED UPON SUCH AS, IN THEIR CONSCIENCES, DO\nCONDEMN THEM.\n\n\n_Sect._ 1. If Christian liberty be taken away, by adstricting conscience\nin any, much more by adstricting it in them who are fully persuaded of the\nunlawfulness of the thing enjoined; yet thus are we dealt with. Bishop\nLindsay gives us to understand, that after the making and publication of\nan ecclesiastical canon, about things of this nature, albeit a man in his\nown private judgment think another thing more expedient than that which\nthe canon prescribeth, yet in that case his conscience must be ruled by\nthe will of the law, and not by his own judgment. And Bishop Spotswood, to\nsuch as object, that their conscience will not suffer them to obey,\nbecause they are persuaded that such things are not right, answereth; that\nthe sentence of their superiors ought to direct them, and make their\nconscience yield to obedience. Their words I have before transcribed. By\nwhich it doth manifestly appear, that they would bear dominion over our\nconsciences, not as lords only, by requiring the willing and ready assent\nof our consciences to those things which are urged upon us by their sole\nwill and authority, but even as tyrants, not caring if they get so much as\nconstrained obedience, and if by their authority they can compel\nconscience to that which is contrary to the \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1 and full persuasion\nwhich it hath conceived.\n\n_Sect._ 2. It will be said, that our consciences are in an error, and\ntherefore ought to be corrected by the sentence of superiors, whose\nauthority and will doth bind us to receive and embrace the ceremonies,\nthough our consciences do condemn them. _Ans._ Giving, and not granting,\nthat our consciences do err in condemning the ceremonies, yet, so long as\nthey cannot be otherwise persuaded, the ceremonies ought not to be urged\nupon us; for if we be made to do that which our consciences do condemn, we\nare made to sin, Rom. xiv. 23. It is an audacious contempt, in Calvin\u2019s\njudgment,(134) to do anything _repugnante conscientia_. The learned\nCasuists teach us, that an erring conscience, though _non obligat_, yet\n_ligat_; though we be not obliged to do that which it prescribeth, yet are\nwe bound not to do that which it condemneth. _Quicquid fit repugnante et\nreclamante conscientia, peccatum est, etiamsi repugnantia ista gravem\nerrorem includat_, saith Alsted.(135) _Conscientia erronca obligat, sic\nintelligendo, quod faciens contra peccet_, saith Hemmingius.(136) This\nholds ever true of an erring conscience about matters of fact, and\nespecially about things indifferent. If any say, that hereby a necessity\nof sinning is laid on them whose consciences are in an error, I answer,\nthat so long as a man keeps an erroneous conscience, a necessity of\nsinning lies on him, and that through his own fault. This necessity\nariseth from this supposition, that he retain his erring conscience, and\nso is not absolute, because he should inform his conscience rightly, so\nthat he may both do that which he ought to do, and do it so from the\napprobation of his conscience. If it be said again, What should be done to\nthem who have not laid down the error of conscience, but do still retain\nthe same? I answer, _eligatur id quod tutius et melius est_.(137) If\ntherefore the error of conscience be about weighty and necessary matters,\nthen it is better to urge men to the doing of a necessary duty in the\nservice of God, than to permit them to neglect the same, because their\nerring conscience disapproveth it; for example, it is better to urge a\nprofane man to come and hear God\u2019s word than to suffer him to neglect the\nhearing of the same, because his conscience alloweth him not to hear. But\nif the error of conscience be about unnecessary things, or such as are in\nthemselves indifferent, then it is _pars tutior_, the surest and safest\npart not to urge men to do that which in their consciences they condemn.\nWherefore, since the ceremonies are not among the number of such necessary\nthings as may not be omitted without the peril of salvation, the\ninvincible disallowance of our consciences should make our opposites not\npress them upon us, because by practising them we could not but sin, in\nthat our consciences judge them unlawful. If any of our weak brethren\nthink that he must and should abstain from the eating of flesh upon some\ncertain day, though this thing be in itself indifferent, and not\nnecessary, yet, saith Baldwin,(138) \u201che who is thus persuaded in his\nconscience, if he should do the contrary, sinneth.\u201d\n\n_Sect._ 3. Conscience, then, though erring, doth ever bind in such sort,\nthat he who doth against his conscience sinneth against God. Which is also\nthe doctrine of Thomas.(139) But, without any more ado, it is sufficiently\nconfirmed from Scripture. For, was not their conscience in an error who\nthought they might not lawfully eat all sorts of meat? Yet the Apostle\nshoweth that their conscience, as erring as it was, did so bind, that they\nwere damned if they should eat such meat as they judged to be unclean,\nRom. xiv. 14, 23. The reason wherefore an erring conscience bindeth in\nthis kind is, _quoniam agens_, &c.(140) \u201cBecause he who doth any thing\nagainst his conscience doth it against the will of God, though not\nmaterially and truly, yet formally and by way of interpretation, forsomuch\nas that which conscience counselleth or prescribeth, it counselleth it\nunder the respect and account of the will of God. He who reproacheth some\nprivate man, taking him to be the king, is thought to have hurt not the\nprivate man, but the king himself. So he that contemneth his conscience\ncontemneth God himself, because that which conscience counselleth or\nadviseth is taken to be God\u2019s will.\u201d If I go with certain men upon such a\ncourse as I judge and esteem to be a treasonable conspiracy against the\nking (though it be not so indeed), would not his Majesty (if he knew so\nmuch), and might he not, justly condemn me as a wicked traitor? But how\nmuch more will the King of kings condemn me if I practice the ceremonies\nwhich I judge in my conscience to be contrary to the will of God, and to\nrob him of his royal prerogative?\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER VI.\n\n\nTHAT THE CEREMONIES TAKE AWAY CHRISTIAN LIBERTY PROVED BY A FOURTH REASON,\nVIZ., BECAUSE THEY ARE PRESSED UPON US BY NAKED WILL AND AUTHORITY,\nWITHOUT GIVING ANY REASON TO SATISFY OUR CONSCIENCES.\n\n\n_Sect._ 1. When the Apostle forbiddeth us to be the servants of men, 1\nCor. vii. 23, is it not his meaning that we should do nothing upon the\nmere will and pleasure of men, or _propter hominem et non propter Deum_,\nas Becane the Jesuit expoundeth it,(141) illustrating what he saith by\nanother place, Eph. vi. 6, 7. Christian servants thought it an unworthy\nthing to serve wicked men,(142) neither yet took they well with the\nserving of godly men, for that they were all brethren in Christ. The\nApostle answereth them, that they did not the will of man, because it was\nthe will of man, but because it was the will of God, and so they served\nGod rather than man, importing that it were indeed a grievous yoke for any\nChristian to do the will of man, if he were not sure that it is according\nto the will of God. Should any synod of the church take more upon them\nthan the synod of the apostles did, who enjoined nothing at their own\npleasure, but only what they show to be necessary, because of the law of\ncharity? Acts xv. 28. Or should Christians, who ought not to be children,\ncarried about with every wind, Eph. iv. 14; who should be able to discern\nboth good and evil, Heb. v. 14; in whom the word of God ought to dwell\nplentifully, Col. iii. 16; who are commanded to beware of men, Matt. x.\n17; not to believe every spirit, to prove all things, 1 John iv. 1; and to\njudge of all that is said to them, 1 Thes. v. 21; should they, I say, be\nused as stocks and stones, not capable of reason, and therefore to be\nborne down by naked will and authority? 1 Cor. x. 15. Yet thus it fareth\nwith us. Bishop Lindsey will have the will of the law to rule our\nconsciences,(143) which is by interpretation, _Sic volo, sic jubeo, sit\npro ratione voluntas._ He gives us not the reason or equity of the law,\nbut only the will of it, to be our role. Bishop Spotswood(144) will have\nus to be so directed by the sentence of our superiors, that we take their\nsentence as a sufficient ground to our consciences for obeying. Which is\nso much as to say, you should not examine the reason and utility of the\nlaw, the sentence of it is enough for you: try no more when you hear the\nsentence of superiors, rest your consciences upon this as a sufficient\nground: seek no other, for their sentence must be obeyed. And who among us\nknoweth not how, in the Assembly of Perth, free reasoning was shut to the\ndoor, and all ears were filled with the dreadful pale of authority? There\nis this much chronicled(145) in two relations of the proceedings of the\nsame, howbeit otherwise very different. They who did sue for a reformation\nof church discipline in England, complained that they received no other\nanswer but this:(146) \u201cThere is a law, it must be obeyed;\u201d and after the\nsame manner are we used. Yet is this too hard dealing, in the judgment of\na Formalist, who saith,(147) that the church doth not so deal with them\nwhom Christ hath redeemed: _Ac si non possint capere quid sit religiosum,\nquid minus, itaque quae ab ecclesia proficiscuntur, admonitiones potius et\nhortationes dici debent, quam leges._ And after, he says of ecclesiastical\nauthority, _tenetur reddere paerscripti rationem._ \u201cI grant (saith\nPaybody(148)) it is unlawful to do, in God\u2019s worship, anything upon the\nmere pleasure of man.\u201d Chemnitius(149) taketh the Tridentine fathers for\nnot expounding _rationes decreti._ Junius observeth,(150) that in the\ncouncil of the apostles, mention was made of the reason of their decree.\nAnd a learned historian observeth(151) of the ancient councils, that there\nwere in them, reasonings, colloquies, discussions, disputes, yea, that\nwhatsoever was done or spoken, was called the acts of the council, and all\nwas given unto all. _Caeterum_ (saith Danaeus(152)) _quoniam ut ait\nTertullianus in Apologetico, iniqua lex est quae se examinari non patitur;\nnon tam vi cogere homines ad obsequium quam ratione persuadere debent cae\nleges, quae scribuntur \u00e0 pio nomotheta. Ergo fere sunt duae cujusvis legis\npartes, quemadmodum etiam Plato,_ lib. 4, _de legibus scribit, nimirum\npraefacio __ et lex ipsa,_ _i.e._ _jussio lege comprehensa. Praefatio\ncausam affert, cur hominum negotiis sic prospiciatur._ Ecclesiastical\nauthority should prescribe what it thinks fit, _Magis docendo, quam\njubendo; magis monendo, quam minando,_ as Augustine speaketh.(153) _Non\noportet vi vel necessitate constringere, sed ratione et vitae exemplis\nsuadere,_ saith Gregory Nazianzen,(154) speaking of ecclesiastical\nregiment. They, therefore, who give their will for a law, and their\nauthority for a reason, and answer all the arguments of opponents, by\nbearing them down with the force of a public constitution and the judgment\nof superiors, to which theirs must be conformed, do rule the Lord\u2019s flock\n\u201cwith force and with cruelty,\u201d Ezek. xxxiv. 4; \u201cas lords over God\u2019s\nheritage,\u201d 1 Pet. v. 3.\n\n_Sect._ 2. Always, since men give us no leave to try their decrees and\nconstitutions, that we may hold fast no more than is good, God be thanked\nthat we have a warrant to do it (without their leave) from his own word, 1\nThess. v. 25. _Non numeranda suffragia, sed appendenda_, saith Augustine\nin Psal. xxxix. Our divines hold,(155) that all things which are proposed\nby the ministers of the church, yea, by aecumenical councils,(156) should\nbe proved and examined; and that, when the guides of the church do\ninstitute any ceremonies as necessary for edification, yet _ecclesia\nliberum habet judicium approbandi aut reprobandi eas._(157) Nay, the canon\nlaw,(158) prohibiting to depart or swerve from the rules and discipline of\nthe Roman church, yet excepteth _discretionem justitiae_ and so permitteth\nto do otherwise than the church prescribeth, if it be done _cum\ndiscretione justitiae_. The schoolmen also give liberty to a private man,\nof proving the statutes of the church, and neglecting the same, if he see\ncause for doing so, _Si causa fit evidens, per se ipsum licite potest homo\nstatuti observantiam praeterire._(159) If any be not able to examine and\ntry all such things, _debebant omnes posse, Dei jussu: Deficiunt ergo sua\nculpa_, saith Parcus.(160) _Si recte probandi facultate destitui nos\nsentimus, ab eodem spiritu qui per prophetas suos __ loquitur portenda\nest_, saith Calvin.(161) We will not then call any man rabbi, nor _jurare\nin verba magistri_, nor yet be Pythagorean disciples to the church\nherself, but we will believe her and obey her in so far only as she is the\npillar and ground of truth.\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER VII.\n\n\nTHAT FESTIVAL DAYS TAKE AWAY OUR LIBERTY, WHICH GOD HATH GIVEN US, PROVED;\nAND FIRST OUT OF THE LAW.\n\n\n_Sect._ 1. That which hath been said against all the controverted\nceremonies in general, I will now instance of festival days in particular,\nand prove, both out of the law and gospel, that they take away our liberty\nwhich God hath given us, and which no human power can take from us. Out of\nthe law we frame this argument: If the law of God permit us to work all\nthe six days of the week, the law of man cannot inhibit us. But the law of\nGod doth permit us to work all the six days of the week, therefore our\nopposites deny not the assumption, which is plain from the fourth\ncommandment, \u201cSix days shalt thou labour,\u201d &c. But they would have\nsomewhat to say against the proposition, which we will hear. Hooker tells\nus,(162) that those things that the law of God leaves arbitrary and at\nliberty, are subject to the positive ordinances of men. This, I must say,\nis strange divinity, for if this were true, then might the laws of men\nprohibit marriage, because it is left arbitrary, 1 Cor. vii. 36. Then\nmight they also have discharged the apostle Paul to take wages, because\nherein he was at liberty, 1 Cor. ix. 11-13.\n\n_Sect._ 2. Talen lendeth the cause another lift, and answereth,(163) that\nno sober man will say, _permissionen Dei, principibus suum circa res\nmedias jus imminuere, num enim ob permissum hominibus dominium in volucres\nc\u0153li, in pisces maris, et bestias agrii, impi\u00e6 fuerint leges principum,\nquibus aucupii, piscationes, et venationis libertatem, sebditis aliis\nindulgent, aliis adimunt. Ans._ That case and this are very different. For\nevery particular man hath not dominion and power over all fowls, fishes,\nand beasts (else, beside that princes should have no privilege of\ninhibiting the use of those things, there should be no propriety of\nheritage and possession among subjects); but power over all these is given\nto mankind. Pareus observeth,(164) _hominem collective intelligi_ in that\nplace, Gen. i. 26; and Junius observeth,(165) _nomen Adam de specie esse\nintelligendum._ But each particular man, and not mankind alone, is\npermitted to labour six days. Wherefore it is plain, that man\u2019s liberty is\nnot abridged in the other case as in this, because mankind hath dominion\nover these creatures, when some men only do exercise the same, as well as\nif all men did exercise it.\n\n_Sect._ 3. Bishop Lindsey\u2019s answer is no better,(166) viz., that this\nliberty which God hath given unto men for labour is not absolute, but\nsubject unto order. For, 1. What tyranny is there so great, spoiling men\nwholly of their liberty, but this pretence agreeth to it? For, by order,\nhe understandeth the constitutions of our governors, as is clear from his\npreceding words, so that this may be alleged for a just excuse of any\ntyranny of governors (that men must be subject unto order), no less than\nfor taking away from us the liberty of labouring six days. 2. This answer\nis nothing else but a begging of that which is in question, for the\npresent question is, whether or not the constitutions of our governors may\ninhibit us to labour all the six days of the week, and yet he saith no\nmore, but that this liberty of labour must be subject to order, _i.e._, to\nthe constitutions of governors. 3. Albeit we should most humbly subject\nourselves to our governors, yet we may not submit our liberty to them,\nwhich God hath graciously given us, because we are forbidden to be the\nservants of men, 1 Cor. vii. 23; or to be entangled with the yoke of\nbondage, Gal. v. 1.\n\n_Sect._ 4. Yet we must hear what the Bishop can say against our\nproposition:(167) \u201cIf under the law (saith he) God did not spoil his\npeople of liberty, when he appointed them to rest two days at Pasche, one\nat Whitsunday, &c., how can the king\u2019s majesty and the church be esteemed\nto spoil us of our liberty, that command a cessation from labour on three\ndays?\u201d &c. O horrible blasphemy! O double deceitfulness! Blasphemy,\nbecause so much power is ascribed to the king and the church over us, as\nGod had over his people of old. God did justly command his people, under\nthe law, to rest from labour on other days beside the Sabbath, without\nwronging them; therefore the king and the church may as justly, and with\ndoing as little wrong, command us to rest likewise, because God, by a\nceremonial law, did hinder his people from the use of so much liberty, as\nthe moral law did give them; therefore the king and the church may do so\nalso. Deceitfulness, in that he saith, God did not spoil his people of\nliberty, &c. We know that, by appointing them to rest on those days, God\ndid not take away liberty from his people, simply and absolutely, because\nthey had no more liberty than he did allow to them by his laws, which he\ngave by the hand of Moses, yet he did take away that liberty which one\npart of his laws did permit to them, viz., the fourth commandment of the\nmoral law, which permitted them to labour six days. The Bishop knew that\nthis question in hand hath not to do with liberty, in the general notion\nof it, but with liberty which the moral law doth permit. We say, then,\nthat God took away from his people Israel, some of the liberty which his\nmoral law permitted to them, because he was the Lawgiver and Lord of the\nlaw; and that the king and the church cannot do the like with us, because\nthey are no more lords over God\u2019s law than the people who are set under\nthem.\n\n_Sect._ 5. But he hath yet more to say against us: \u201cIf the king (saith he)\nmay command a cessation from economical and private works, for works civil\nand public, such as the defence of the crown, the liberty of the country,\n&c., what reason have ye why he may not enjoin a day of cessation from all\nkind of bodily labour, for the honour of God and exercise of religion?\u201d\n&c. _Ans._ This kind of reasoning is most vicious, for three respects: 1.\nIt supposeth that he who may command a cessation from one kind of labour,\nupon one of the six days, may also command a cessation from all kind of\nlabour, but there is a difference; for the law of God hath allowed us to\nlabour six days of every week, which liberty no human power can take from\nus. But we cannot say that the law of God alloweth us six days of every\nweek to economical and private works (for then we should never be bound to\nput our hands to a public work), whence it cometh that the magistrate hath\npower left him to command a cessation from some labour, but not from all.\n2. The Bishop reasoneth from a cessation from ordinary labour for\nextraordinary labour, to a cessation from ordinary labour for no labour,\nfor they who use their weapons for the defence of the crown, or liberty of\nthe country, do not cease from labour, but only change ordinary labour\ninto extraordinary, and private labour into public, whereas our opposites\nplead for a cessation from all labour upon their holidays. 3. He skippeth\n_de genere in genus_, because the king may command a cessation for civil\nworks, therefore he may command a holy rest for the exercise of religion,\nas if he had so great power in sacred as in civil things.\n\n_Sect._ 6. The Bishop hath yet a third dart to throw at us: \u201cIf the church\n(saith he)(168) hath power, upon occasional motives, to appoint occasional\nfasts or festivities, may not she, for constant and eternal blessings,\nwhich do infinitely excel all occasional benefits, appoint ordinary times\nof commemoration or thanksgiving?\u201d _Ans._ There are two reasons for which\nthe church may and should appoint fasts or festivities upon occasional\nmotives, and neither of them agreeth with ordinary festivities. 1.\nExtraordinary fasts, either for obtaining some great blessing, or averting\nsome great judgment, are necessary means to be used in such cases,\nlikewise, extraordinary festivities are necessary testifications of our\nthankfulness for the benefits which we have impetrate by our extraordinary\nfasts, but ordinary festivities, for constant and eternal blessings, have\nno necessary use. The celebration of set anniversary days is no necessary\nmean for conserving the commemoration of the benefits of redemption,\nbecause we have occasion, not only every Sabbath day, but every other day,\nto call to mind these benefits, either in hearing, or reading, or\nmeditating upon God\u2019s word. _Dies Christo dicatos tollendos existimo\njudicoque_, saith Danaeus(169) _quotidie nobis in evangelii proedicatione\nnascitur, circumciditur, moritur, resurgit Christus._ God hath given his\nchurch a general precept for extraordinary fasts, Joel i. 14, ii. 15, as\nlikewise for extraordinary festivities to praise God, and to give him\nthanks in the public assembly of his people, upon the occasional motive of\nsome great benefit which, by the means of our fasting and praying, we have\nobtained, Zech. viii. 19 with vii. 3. If it be said that there is a\ngeneral command for set festivities, because there is a command for\npreaching and hearing the word, and for praising God for his benefits; and\nthat there is no precept for particular fasts more than for particular\nfestivities, I answer: Albeit there is a command for preaching and hearing\nthe word, and for praising God for his benefits, yet is there no command\n(no, not in the most general generality) for annexing these exercises of\nreligion to set anniversary days more than to other days; whereas it is\nplain, that there is a general command for fasting and humiliation at some\ntimes more than at other times. And as for particularities, all the\nparticular causes, occasions, and times of fasting, could not be\ndetermined in Scripture, because they are infinite, as Camero saith.(170)\nBut all the particular causes of set festivities, and the number of the\nsame, might have been easily determined in Scripture, since they are not,\nnor may not be infinite; for the Bishop himself acknowledgeth,(171) that\nto appoint a festival day for every week, cannot stand with charity, the\ninseparable companion of piety. And albeit so many were allowable, yet who\nseeth not how easily the Scripture might have comprehended them, because\nthey are set, constant, and anniversary times, observed for permanent and\ncontinuing causes, and not moveable or mutable, as fasts which are\nappointed for occurring causes, and therefore may be infinite. I conclude\nthat, since God\u2019s word hath given us a general command for occasional\nfasts, and likewise particularly determined sundry things anent the\ncauses, occasions, nature, and manner of fastings, we may well say with\nCartwright,(172) that days of fasting are appointed at \u201csuch times, and\nupon such occasions, as the Scripture doth set forth; wherein because the\nchurch commandeth nothing, but that which God commandeth, the religious\nobservation of them, falleth unto the obedience of the fourth commandment,\nas well as of the seventh day itself.\u201d\n\n_Sect._ 7. The Bishop presseth us with a fourth argument,(173) taken from\nthe calling of people in great towns from their ordinary labours to divine\nservice, which argument Tilen also beateth upon.(174) _Ans._ There is huge\ndifference betwixt the rest which is enjoined upon anniversary\nfestivities, and the rest which is required during the time of the weekly\nmeetings for divine worship. For, 1. Upon festival days, rest from labour\nis required all the day over, whereas, upon the days of ordinary and\nweekly meetings, rest is required only during the time of public worship.\n2. Cessation from labour, for prayers or preaching on those appointed days\nof the week, at some occasions may be omitted; but the rest and\ncommemoration appointed by the church, to be precisely observed upon the\nanniversary festival days, must not be omitted, in the Bishop\u2019s\njudgment.(175) 3. Men are straitly commanded and compelled to rest from\nlabour upon holidays; but to leave work to come to the ordinary weekly\nmeetings, they are only exhorted. And here I mark how the Bishop\ncontradicteth himself; for in one place where his antagonist maintaineth\ntruly, that the craftsman cannot be lawfully commanded nor compelled to\nleave his work and to go to public divine service, except on the day that\nthe Lord hath sanctified, he replieth,(176) \u201cIf he may be lawfully\ncommanded to cease from his labour during the time of divine service, he\nmay be as lawfully compelled to obey the command.\u201d Who can give these\nwords any sense, or see anything in them said against his antagonist\u2019s\nposition, except he be taken to say, that the craftsman may be both\ncommanded and compelled to leave his work and go to divine service on the\nweek-days appointed for the same? Nay, he laboureth to prove thus much out\nof the ninth head of the _First Book of Discipline_, which saith, \u201cIn\ngreat towns we think expedient, that every day there be either sermon or\ncommon prayers,\u201d &c., where there is nothing of compulsion, or a forcing\ncommand, only there is an exhortation. But ere the Bishop have said much,\nhe forgetteth himself, and tells us,(177) that it were against equity and\ncharity to adstrict the husbandman to leave his plough so oft as the days\nof weekly preaching do return, but that, on the festival days, reason\nwould, that if he did not leave his plough willingly, by authority he\nshould be forced. Which place confirmeth this difference which we give\nbetwixt rest on the holidays, and rest at the times of weekly meeting.\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER VIII.\n\n\nTHAT FESTIVAL DAYS TAKE AWAY OUR CHRISTIAN LIBERTY, PROVED OUT OF THE\nGOSPEL.\n\n\n_Sect._ 1. My second argument whereby I prove that the imposing of the\nobservation of holidays doth bereave us of our liberty, I take out of two\nplaces of the Apostle, the one, Gal. iv. 10, where he finds fault with the\nGalatians for observing of days, and giveth them two reasons against them;\nthe one, ver. 3, They were a yoke of bondage which neither they nor their\nfathers were able to bear; another, ver, 8, They were weak and beggarly\nrudiments, not beseeming the Christian church, which is liberate from the\npedagogical instruction of the ceremonial law. The other place is Col. ii.\n16, where the Apostle will have the Colossians not to suffer themselves to\nbe judged by any man in respect of an holiday, _i.e._ to be condemned for\nnot observing a holiday, for _judicare hic significat culpae reum\nfacere,_(178) and the meaning is, suffer not yourselves to be condemned by\nthose false apostles, or by any mortal man in the cause of meat, that is,\nfor meat or drink taken, or for any holiday, or any part of an holiday\nneglected.(179) Two other reasons the Apostle giveth in this place against\nfestival days; one, ver. 17, What should we do with the shadow, when we\nhave the body? another, ver. 20, Why should we be subject to human\nordinances, since through Christ we are dead to them, and have nothing ado\nwith them? Now, by the same reasons are all holidays to be condemned, as\ntaking away Christian liberty; and so, that which the Apostle saith doth\nmilitate as well against them as against any other holidays; for whereas\nit might be thought, that the Apostle doth not condemn all holidays,\nbecause both he permitteth others to observe days, Rom. xiv. 5, and he\nhimself also did observe one of the Jewish feasts, Acts xviii. 21: it is\neasily answered, that our holidays have no warrant from these places,\nexcept our opposites will say, that they esteem their festival days holier\nthan other days, and that they observe the Jewish festivities, neither of\nwhich they do acknowledge, and if they did, yet they must consider, that\nthat which the Apostle either said or did hereanent, is to be expounded\nand understood of bearing with the weak Jews, whom he permitted to esteem\none day above another, and for whose cause he did, in his own practice,\nthus far apply himself to their infirmity at that time when they could not\npossibly be as yet fully and thoroughly instructed concerning Christian\nliberty, and the abrogation of the ceremonial law, because the gospel was\nas yet not fully propagated; and when the Mosaical rites were like a dead\nman not yet buried, as Augustine\u2019s simile runs. So that all this can make\nnothing for holidays after the full promulgation of the gospel, and after\nthat the Jewish ceremonies are not only dead, but also buried, and so\ndeadly to be used by us. Hence it is, that the Apostle will not bear with\nthe observation of days in Christian churches, who have known God, as he\nspeaks.\n\n_Sect._ 2. The defenders of holidays answer to these places which we\nallege against them, that the Apostle condemneth the observation of\nJudaical days, not of ecclesiastical days, which the church instituteth\nfor order and policy; which evasion Bishop Lindsey(180) followeth so hard,\nthat he sticketh not to hold, that \u201call the days whereof the Apostle\ncondemneth the observation were Judaical days prescribed in the ceremonial\nlaw,\u201d &c. And this he is not contented to maintain himself, but he will\nneeds father it upon his antagonist by such logic, forsooth, as can infer\n_quidlibet ex quodlibet._ The Apostle comports with the observation of\ndays in the weak Jews, who understood not the fulness of the Christian\nliberty, especially since those days, having had the honour to be once\nappointed by God himself, were to be honourably buried; but the same\nApostle reproves the Galatians who had attained to this liberty, and had\nonce left off the observation of days. What ground of consequence can\nwarrant such an illation from these premises as this which the Bishop\nformeth, namely, that \u201call the days whereof the Apostle condemned the\nobservation were Judaical days,\u201d &c.\n\n_Sect._ 3. Now, for confutation of this forged exposition of those places\nof the Apostle, we say, 1. If all the days whereof the Apostle condemned\nthe observation were Judaical days prescribed in the ceremonial law, then\ndo our divines falsely interpret the Apostle\u2019s words against popish\nholidays, and the Papists do truly allege that their holidays are not\ncondemned by the Apostle. The Rhemists affirm, that the Apostle condemneth\nonly Jewish days,(181) but not Christian days, and that we do falsely\ninterpret his words against their holidays.(182) Cartwright answereth\nthem,(183) that if Paul condemned the observing of feasts which God\nhimself instituted, then much more doth he condemn the observation of\nfeasts of man\u2019s devising. So Bellarmine allegeth,(184) _loqui ibi\nApostolum de judaeorum tantum festis_. Hospinian, answering him, will have\nthe Apostle\u2019s words to condemn the Christian feasts more than the\nJudaical.(185) Conradus Vorstius rejecteth this position, _Apostolus non\nnisi judaicum discremen dierum in_ N.T. _sublatum esse docet_, as a popish\nerror.(186) 2. If the Apostle mean only of Judaical days, either he\ncondemneth the observing of their days _materialiter_, or _formaliter,\ni.e._ either he condemneth the observation of the same feasts which the\nJews observed, or the observing of them with such a meaning, after such a\nmanner, and for such an end as the Jews did. The former our opposites dare\nnot hold, for then they should grant that he condemneth their own Easter\nand Pentecost, because these two feasts were observed by the Jews. Nor yet\ncan they hold them at the latter, for he condemneth that observation of\ndays which had crept into the church of Galatia, which was not Jewish nor\ntypical, seeing the Galatians, believing that Christ was already come,\ncould not keep them as figures of his coming as the Jews did, but rather\nas memorials that he was already come, saith Cartwright.(187) 1. If the\nApostle\u2019s reasons wherewith he impugns the observation of days, hold good\nagainst our holidays so well as against the Jewish or popish days, then\ndoth he condemn those, no less these. But the Apostle\u2019s reasons agree to\nour holidays for, 1. According to that reason, Gal. iv. 3, they bring us\nunder a yoke of bondage. Augustine,(188) complaining of some ceremonies\nwherewith the church in his time was burdened, thought it altogether best\nthat they should be cut off, _Etiamsi fidei non videantur adversari, quia\nreligionem quam Christus liberam esse voluit, servilibus oneribus\npremunt._ Yea, he thought this yoke of servitude greater bondage, and less\ntolerable than the servility of the Jews, because they were subject to the\nburdens of the law of God, and not to the presumptions of men. The yoke of\nbondage of Christians, in respect of feasts, is heavier than the yoke of\nthe Jews, not only for the multitude of them, but because _Christianorum\nfesta, ab hominibus tantum, judaeorum vero a Deo fuerint instituta_, saith\nHospinian.(189) Have not we then reason to exclaim against our holidays,\nas a yoke of bondage, heavier than that of the Jews, for that our holidays\nare men\u2019s inventions, and so were not theirs? The other reason, Gal. iv.\n9, holdeth as good against our holidays. They are rudimental and\npedagogical elements, which beseem not the Christian church, for as\ntouching that which Tilen objecteth,(190) that many in the church of the\nNew Testament are still babes to be fed with milk, it maketh as much\nagainst the Apostle as against us; for by this reason, he may as well\nthrow back the Apostle\u2019s ground of condemning holidays among the\nGalatians, and say, because many of the Galatians were babes, therefore\nthey had the more need of those elements and rudiments. The Apostle, Gal.\niv. 3, compareth the church of the Old Testament to an infant, and\ninsinuateth, that in the days of the New Testament the infancy of the\nchurch hath taken an end. And whereas it might be objected, that in the\nchurch of the New Testament there are many babes, and that the Apostle\nhimself speaketh of the Corinthians and Hebrews as babes: it is answered\nby Pareus,(191) _Non de paucis personis, sed de statu totius ecclesiae\nintelligendum est quod hic dicitur._ There were also some in the church of\nthe Old Testament, _adulti fide heroes_; but in respect of the state of\nthe whole church, he who is least in the kingdom of God, is greater than\nJohn Baptist, Luke vii. 28. _Lex_, saith Beza, _vocatur elementa, quia\nillis velut __ rudimentis, Deus ecclesiam suam erudivit, postea pleno\ncornu effudit Spiritum Sanctum tempore evangelii_.(192) 3. That reason\nalso taken from the opposition of the shadow and the body, Col. ii. 17,\ndoth militate against our holidays; for the Apostle there speaketh in the\npresent time, \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c3\u03ba\u03b9\u03b1: whereas the Judaical rites were abolished,\nwhereupon Zanchius noteth,(193) that the Apostle doth not so much speak of\nthings by-past, as of the very nature of all rites, _Definiens ergo ipsos\nritus in sese, dixit eos nil aliud esse quam umbram_. If all rites, then\nour holidays among the rest, serve only to adumbrate and shadow forth\nsomething, and by consequence are unprofitable and idle, when the\nsubstance itself is clearly set before us. 4. That reason, Col. ii. 20,\ndoth no less irresistibly infringe the ordinances about our holidays than\nabout the Jewish; for if men\u2019s ordinances, about things once appointed by\nGod himself, ought not to be obeyed, how much less should the precepts of\nmen be received about such things in religion as never had this honour to\nbe God\u2019s ordinances, when their mere authority doth limit or adstrict us\nin things which God hath made lawful or free to us.\n\n_Sect_. 4. Thus we see how the Apostle\u2019s reasons hold good against our\nholidays; let us see next what respects of difference the Bishop can\nimagine to evidence wherefore the Judaical days may be thought condemned\nby the Apostle, and not ours. He deviseth a double respect; and first he\ntells us,(194) that the Jewish observation of days was to a typical use.\nAnd whereas it is objected by us, that the converted Jews did not observe\nthem as shadows of things to come, because then they had denied Christ, he\nanswereth thus: \u201cHowbeit the converted Jews did not observe the Jewish\ndays as shadows of things to come, yet they might have observed them as\nmemorials of by-past temporal and typical benefits, and for present\ntemporal blessings, as the benefit of their delivery out of Egypt, and of\nthe fruits of the earth, which use was also typical.\u201d _Ans._ 1. This is\nhis own conjecture only, therefore he himself propoundeth it doubtfully,\nfor he dare not say, they did observe them as memorials, &c., but, they\nmight have observed, to which guessing, if I reply, they might also not\nhave observed them as memorials of those by-past or present benefits, we\nsay as much against him, and as truly, as he hath said against us. 2. His\nform of reasoning is very uncouth, for, to prove that the observation of\ndays by the converted Jews was to a typical use, he allegeth, that they\nmight have observed, &c. Thus proving a position by a supposition. O\nbrave! 3. There is no sense in his conjecture, for he yields that they did\nnot observe those days as shadows of things to come, and yet he saith,\nthey might have observed them as memorials of by-past typical benefits;\nnow they could not observe those days as memorials of types, except they\nobserved them also as shadowing forth the antitypes. Pentecost, saith\nDavenant,(195) _et illa legis datae celebratio. Spiritus Sancti missionem,\net legis in tabulis cordium per eundem Spiritum inscriptionem, adumbravit.\nScenopegiae festum peregrinationem hominis pii per hoc mundi desertum ad\ncaelestem patriam delineabat, &c._ So that the feast of Pentecost, if it\nhad been observed as a memorial of the promulgation of the law, could not\nbut shadow forth the sending of the Holy Spirit into our hearts, to write\nthe law in them. And the feast of tabernacles, if it had been observed as\na memorial of the benefits which God bestowed on his people in the\nwilderness, could not but shadow out God\u2019s conducting of his children,\nthrough the course of their pilgrimage in this world, to the heavenly\nCanaan. 4. If feasts which were memorials of temporal benefits, were for\nthis reason mystical, then he must grant against himself, that much more\nare our feasts mystical, which are memorials of spiritual benefits, and\nconsecrated to be holy signs and symbols, for making us call to mind the\nmysteries of our redemption. 5. Before this dispute take an end, we shall\nsee out of the best learned among our opposites, that they observe the\nholidays as mystical,(196) and more mystical than the Bishop here\ndescribeth the Jewish days to have been, and so we shall see the falsehood\nof that pretence, that they are observed only for order and policy, and\nnot for mystery. 6. If we would know the true reason which made the\nconverted Jews to observe those days, it was not any mystical use, but\nthat which made them think themselves obliged to other Mosaical rites;\neven _propter auctoritatem legis_, saith Junius;(197) for albeit they\ncould not be ignorant, that these rites were shadows of things to come,\nand that the body was of Christ, in whom, and in the virtue of whose death\nthey did stablish their faith, yet they did not at first understand how\nsuch things as were once appointed by God himself, and given to his people\nas ordinances to be kept by him throughout their generations, could be\naltogether abolished, and for this cause, though they did condescend to a\nchange of the use and signification of those ceremonies, as being no more\ntypical of the kingdom of Christ, which they believed to be already come,\nyet still they held themselves bound to the use of the things themselves\nas things commanded by God.\n\nThus much may be collected from Acts xv. 21, where James gives a reason\nwherefore it was expedient that the Gentiles should observe some of the\nJewish rites for a time, as Calvin,(198) Beza,(199) and Junius,(200)\nexpound the place. His reason is, because the Jews, being so long\naccustomed with the hearing of the law of Moses, and such as did preach\nthe same, could not be made at first to understand how the ordinances\nwhich God gave to his people by the hand of Moses, might be cast off and\nnot regarded, which importeth as much as I say, namely, that the reason\nwherefore the converted Jews were so apt to be scandalised by such as\ncared not for the ceremonial law, and held themselves obliged to observe\nthe same, was because they saw not how they could be exempted from the\nordinances and statutes of the law of Moses, with which they had been\neducated and accustomed.\n\n_Sect._ 5. Rests the second respect of difference given by the Bishop:\n\u201cFurther (saith he), they did observe them with opinion of necessity, as\nthings instituted by God for his worship and their salvation, which sort\nof observation was legal.\u201d(201) _Ans._ 1. Be it so; he cannot hereupon\ninfer, that the Apostle doth only condemn the observation of Judaical\ndays, for he seeth nothing of observing days with opinion of necessity,\nbut simply and absolutely he condemneth the observing of days, and his\nreasons reflex on our holidays, as well as the Jewish. 2. Their opinion of\nnecessity he either refers to the institution which these days once had\nfrom God, or else to the use which, at that time, they had for God\u2019s\nworship and their salvation. That they observed them with opinion of\nnecessity, as things which had been instituted by God, it is most likely,\nbut that they observed them with opinion of necessity, as things necessary\nfor God\u2019s worship and their salvation, is more than can be made good, it\nis more probable that they observed them merely and simply for that they\nhad the honour to be instituted by God in his law. For to say that they\nobserved them to the same use and end for which God did institute them, is\nfalse, because then they had observed them as types and shadows of the\ncoming of Christ, and so had denied Christ. 3. If the Apostle condemn the\nobserving of days instituted by God, with opinion of necessity, much more\ndoth he condemn the observing of days instituted by men with such an\nopinion. And such is the observation of days urged upon us. Though the\nBishop pretend that the observing of our holidays is not imposed with\nopinion of necessity, shall we therefore think it is so? Nay, Papists do\nalso pretend that the observation of their ceremonies is not\nnecessary,(202) nor the neglecting of them a mortal sin. I have proved\nheretofore, out of their opposites\u2019 own words, that the ceremonies in\nquestion (and, by consequence, holidays among the rest) are urged upon us\nwith opinion of necessity, and as their words, so their works bewray them,\nfor they urge the ceremonies with so exorbitant vehemency, and punish\nrefusers with so excessive severity, as if they were the weightiest\nmatters of the law of God. Yet they would have us believe, that they have\nbut sober and mean thoughts of these matters, as of circumstances\ndetermined for order and policy only. Just like a man who casts firebrands\nand arrows, and yet saith, Am not I in sport? Prov. xvi. 18, 19. They will\ntell us that they urge not the ceremonies as necessary in themselves, but\nonly as necessary in respect of the church\u2019s determination, and because of\nthe necessity of obeying those who are set over us. But, I pray, is not\nthis as much as the Rhemists say,(203) who place the necessity of their\nrites and observances, not in the nature of the things themselves, but in\nthe church\u2019s precept?\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER IX.\n\n\nSHOWING THE WEAKNESS OF SOME PRETENCES WHICH OUR OPPOSITES USE FOR\nHOLIDAYS.\n\n\n_Sect._ 1. Since it hath been evinced by unanswerable reasons that\nholidays, as now urged upon us, take away our Christian liberty, I will\nnow pull off them the coat of some fig leaves wherewith they are trimmed\nup. And first, I hope it will appear to how small purpose Dr Davenant\nwould conciliate his reader\u2019s mind(204) to allow of the church\u2019s\nordinances about holidays (peradventure because he saw all that he had\nsaid of that purpose to be too invalid proof), by six cautions, whereby\nall superstition and abuse which may ensue upon them may be shunned. For\nwhatsoever doth manifestly endanger men\u2019s souls, being a thing not\nnecessary in itself, at which they take occasion of superstitious abuse,\nshould rather be removed altogether out of the way, than be set about with\na weak and easily-penetrable hedge of some equivocative cautions, which\nthe ruder sort do always, and the learned do too oft, either not\nunderstand or not remember. Now, Bishop Lindsey confesseth,(205) and puts\nit out of all doubt, that when the set times of these solemnities return,\nsuperstitious conceits are most pregnant in the heads of people; therefore\nit must be the safest course to banish those days out of the church, since\nthere is so great hazard, and no necessity, of retaining them.\n\nWhat they can allege for holidays, from our duty to remember the\ninestimable benefits of our redemption, and to praise God for the same,\nhath been already answered.(206) And as touching any expediency which they\nimagine in holidays, we shall see to that afterward.(207)\n\n_Sect._ 2. The Act of Perth Assembly allegeth the practice of the ancient\nchurch for warrant of holidays, and Tilen allegeth the judgment of\nantiquity to the same purpose.(208) _Ans._ The festivities of the ancient\nchurch cannot warrant ours; for, 1. In the purest times of the church\nthere was no law to tie men to the observation of holidays. _Observandum\nest_, say the divines of Magdeburg,(209) _apostolos et apostolicos viros,\nneque de paschate, neque de aliis quibuscunque, festivitatibus legem\naliquam constituisse_. Socrates reporteth,(210) that men did celebrate the\nfeast of Easter, and other festival days, _sicuti voluerunt, ex\nconsuetudine quadam_. Nicephorus saith,(211) that men did celebrate\nfestivities, _sicuti cuique visum erat, in regionibus passim ex\nconsuitudine quadam per traditionem accepta adducti_. In which place, as\nthe reader will plainly perceive, he opposeth tradition to an evangelical\nor apostolical ordinance. Sozomen tells us,(212) that men were left to\ntheir own judgment about the keeping of Easter, Jerome saith of the\nfeasts(213) which the church in his time observed, that they were _pro\nvarietate regionum diversa_. The first who established a law about any\nfestival day,(214) is thought to have been Pius I, bishop of Rome, yet it\nis marked that the Asiatican doctors did not care much for this\nconstitution of Pius. I conclude with Cartwright,(215) that those feasts\nof the primitive church \u201ccame by custom, and not by commandment, by the\nfree choice of men, and not by constraint.\u201d So that from these, no\ncommendation ariseth to our feasts, which are not only established by\nlaws, but also imposed with such necessity and constraint, as spoileth us\nof our liberty.\n\n2. The festival days observed by the ancient church, were not accounted\nmore excellent than other days, for, saith Jerome,(216) _non quod\ncelebrior sit dies illa qua conveniumus, &c._ But our festival days are\nmade _aliis diebus celebriores_, yea, are taken to be holier than other\ndays, as I will afterwards prove.(217)\n\n_Sect._ 3. Moreover, the proctors for holidays among us think to make\nadvantage of the practice of other reformed churches, and the judgment of\nmodern divines. But we are to consider, 1. As they have the example of\nsome churches for them, so we have the example of other churches for us,\nfor the church of Geneva in Savoy, and the church of Strasburg in Germany,\ndid abolish festival days, as Calvin writeth.(218) Yea, _in hac tota\nprovincia aboliti fuerunt dies festi_, saith he. The church of Zurich in\nHelvetia did also banish them all away, as Bullinger writeth to\nCalvin.(219) 2. The practice of the greatest part of the reformed churches\nin observing holidays, cannot commend them in the church of Scotland, 1.\nBecause she did spue them out with so great detestation, that she is more\nbound to abhor them than other churches which did not the like, and I may\nwell apply to them that which Calvin saith(220) of the ceremonies of the\nInterim, to Valentinus Pacaeus, _Ut concedam faetidas illas sordes quibus\npurgatae fuerunt vestrae ecclesiae, inrebus medus posse censeri: earum\ntamen restitutio eritne res media?_ 2. The church of Scotland is tied yet\nwith another bond to hate holidays, of which other churches are free; for,\nby a solemn oath sworn to the God of heaven, she hath abjured all\nantichristian and popish rites, and dedicating of days particularly. When\nTilen would make answer to this argument, he saith,(221) that men\u2019s\nconsciences should not be snared with rash oaths and superstitious vows,\nand if that such bonds be laid on, they should be broken and shaken off.\nWhat! Calls he this a superstitious vow, which abjured all superstition\nand superstitious rites? Or calls he this a rash oath, which, upon so sage\nand due deliberation, so serious advisement, so pious intention, so decent\npreparation, so great humiliation, was religiously, publicly, solemnly\nsworn throughout this land, and that at the straight command of authority?\nWho is ignorant of these things, except he be a stranger in our Israel?\nBut say the oath had been rash and temeratious, shall it not therefore\noblige? His judgment is, it doth not; and so thinks the Bishop of\nWinchester,(222) who teacheth us, that if the oath be made rashly,\n_paenitenda promissio non perficienda praesumptio_, he had said better\nthus, _paenitenda praesumptio, perficienda promissio_; for was not that a\nvery rash oath which the princes of Israel did swear to the Gibeonites,\nnot asking counsel at the mouth of the Lord? Josh. ix. 14-16, yet it bound\nboth them, Josh ix. 19, and their posterity, some hundred years after, 2\nSam. xxi. 1. If the matter then be lawful, the oath binds, were it sworn\never so rashly.\n\n_Sect._ 4. As touching the judgment of divines, we say, 1. Many divines\ndisallow of festival days, and with the church, were free of them. For the\nBelgic churches, in their synod, anno 1578, wished that the six days might\nbe wrought upon, and that the Lord\u2019s day alone might be celebrated. And\nLuther in his book, _de Bonis Operibus_, wished that there were no\nfeast-days among Christians but the Lord\u2019s day. This wish of theirs\ndeclareth plainly, that they allowed of no holiday except the Lord\u2019s day;\nyet Bishop Lindsey must make a fashion of saying something for an answer.\n\u201cThis wish (saith he(223)) Luther and the Belgic churches conceived, out\nof their miscontent at the number, corruptions, and superstitions of the\nfestival days, beside the Lord\u2019s day, as ye do.\u201d _Ans._ 1. Their wish\nimporteth a simple and absolute mistaking of all festival days besides the\nLord\u2019s day, and not of their number and corruptions only. 2. It is well\nthat he acknowledgeth both them and us to have reason of miscontentment at\nholidays, from their corruptions and superstitions. The old Waldenses\nalso,(224) whose doctrine was restored and propagated by John Huss, and\nJerome of Prague, after Wiclif, and that with the congratulation of the\nchurch of Constantinople, held,(225) that they were to rest from labour\nupon no day but upon the Lord\u2019s day, whereby it appeareth, that holidays\nhave had adversaries before us. I find that they pervert some places which\nthey allege against us out of Calvin. Tilen allegeth,(226) _Calvin.\nInst._, lib. 2, cap. 8, sec. 32, acknowledging _alios quoque dies festos\npraeter dominicum_, &c. I marvel how a judicious reader could imagine such\na thing to be in that place, for both in that and the subsequent section,\nhe is speaking of the Lord\u2019s day against the Anabaptists, and if any man\nwill think that in sec. 32 he is speaking of holy assemblies of Christians\nin the general, yet he can see nothing there of any festival days, beside\nthe Lord\u2019s day, dedicated to holy meetings. There is another place of\nCalvin abused by Bishop Spotswood(227) and Bishop Lindsey,(228) taken out\nof one of his Epistles to Hallerus, which I find in the volume before\nquoted, p. 136, 137, that which they grip to in this epistle is, that\nCalvin, speaking of the abrogation of festival days in Geneva, saith, _hoc\ntamen testatum esse volo, si mihi delata optio fuisset, quod nunc\nconstitutum est, non fuisse pro __ sententia dicturum. Ans._ That which\nmade Calvin say so, was not any liking which he had to festival days, for\nhe calls the abolishing of them _ordo bene compositus_;(229) but as\nhimself showeth in the following epistle, which beareth this title, _Cal.\nMinistro Burensi, S.D._, the reason why he durst scarcely have so\ndetermined, if his judgment had been required, was, because, he saw\nneither end nor remedy for the prevailing tumult of contention raised\nabout festival days, and likely to impede the course of reformation;\ntherefore _fovendae pacis studio_, he professeth that he durst not make\nmention of the abrogation of those holidays. Because he would have\ntolerated holidays, because he durst not at that time, and as the case\nthen stood, have spoken of the abolishing them, can it be hereupon\nconcluded that he allowed of them? No, sure. But it is observable how both\nthose prelates pervert Calvin\u2019s words. Bishop Spotswood allegeth his words\nanent the abolishing of these festival days, thus: _Ego neque suasor neque\nimpulsor fui, atque hoc testatum volo, si mihi delata optio_, &c. Whereas\nthe words in that epistle lie thus: _Ego tametsi neque suasor, neque\nimpulsor fui, sic tamen accidisse non moleste fero. Quod si statum nostrae\necclesiae aeque compertum haberes, non dubitares meo judicio subscribere.\nHoc tamen testatum esse volo, si mihi delata optio_, &c. The Bishop would\nhave made his hearers believe that Calvin _was not content with the\nabolishing of the festival days_, whereas his words testify the very\ncontrary. Bishop Lindsey is as gross in perverting the end of that\nepistle. _Nec tamen est cur homines adeo exasperentur, si libertate nostra\nut ecclesiae edificatio postulat utimur_, &c., from which words he\nconcludes, that in Calvin\u2019s judgment, the observation and abrogation of\nthose days is in the power and liberty of the church. But the reader will\nperceive, that Calvin there speaketh only of the church\u2019s liberty to\nabrogate holidays, and nothing of her power to observe them, for he is\nshowing, that howbeit he durst not have given advice to abolish them, if\nthe decision had been referred to him, yet they had no reason for them who\nwere offended at the abolishing of them in Geneva, because that church had\ndone no more than she had power and liberty to do for edification. 3.\nOther testimonies they produce, which cannot help them much. That which\nBishop Lindsey(230) allegeth out of Zanchius\u2019s confession, maketh him but\nsmall advantage; for though Zanchius there alloweth of the sanctification\nof some festival days, yet, writing on the fourth commandment, he\nacknowledgeth that it is more agreeable to the first institution, and to\nthe writings of the apostles, that one day of the week only be sanctified.\nWhat meant the Bishop to say?(231) that this place is falsified and\nmutilated by his antagonist, who quotes it not to prove that Zanchius\ndisalloweth of festival days, but to prove that, in Zanchius\u2019s judgment,\nthe sanctification of the Sabbath only, and no other day in the week,\nagreeth best with divine and apostolical institution? Was there any need\nto allege more of Zanchius\u2019s words than concerned the point which he had\nto prove? The Bishop allegeth also a testimony out of Perkins on Gal. iv.\n10,(232) which makes him but very little help; for albeit Perkins thought\ngood, in some sort, to excuse the observing of days in his own mother\nchurch of England, yet I find in that place, 1. He complaineth that the\ngreatest part respects those holidays more than they should. 2. He\nalloweth only the observing of days for order\u2019s sake, that men may come to\nthe church to hear God\u2019s word, which respect will not be enough to the\nBishop, if there be not a solemnising and celebrating of the memory of\nsome of God\u2019s inestimable benefits, and a dedicating of the day to this\nend and purpose. 3. He saith, that it is the privilege of God to appoint\nan extraordinary day of rest, so that he permitteth not power to the\nchurch for appointing a set, constant, and anniversary day of rest, for\nsuch a day becometh an ordinary day of rest. 4. He preferreth the practice\nof those churches of the Protestants who do not observe holidays, because,\nsaith he, the church, in the apostles\u2019 days, had no holiday besides the\nLord\u2019s day, and the fourth commandment enjoins the labour of six days.\n\n_Sect._ 5. The Bishop meeteth with another answer in his antagonist which\ncrosseth his testimonies, namely, that howsoever foreign divines, in their\nepistles and councils, spake sometimes sparingly against holidays, when\ntheir advice was sought of churches newly risen out of Popery and greatly\ndistressed, yet they never advised a church to resume them where they were\nremoved. The Bishop objecteth against this answer,(233) that Calvin,\nepist. 51, \u201cadviseth the Monbelgardens not to contend against the prince\nfor not resuming (he should have said, for not receiving, if he had\ntranslated Calvin\u2019s words faithfully) of all festival days, but only such\nas served not to edification, and were seen to be superstitious.\u201d _Ans._\n1. Albeit he spake sparingly against holidays, when he gave advice to that\ndistressed and lately reformed church, lest the work of reformation should\nhave been letted, yet he did not allow holidays among them. For in another\nepistle written to them he saith,(234) _De pulsu campanarum et diebus\nfestis ita sentimus, ferendas potius esse vobis has ineptias, quam\nstationem in qua estis a domino collocati deferendum, modo ne approbetis;\nmodo etiam liberum vobis sit reprehendere, quae inde sequentur\nsuperstitiones._ And this he setteth down for one of these superstitions,\n_quod dies a die discernitur_, where also he condemneth both the observing\nof days to the honour of man as superstitious, and the observing of them\nfor the honour of God as Judaical. If holidays, in Calvin\u2019s judgment, be\nfooleries\u2014if he gave advice not to approve them\u2014if he thought them\noccasions of superstition\u2014if he held it superstition to distinguish one\nday from another, or to esteem one above another\u2014if he call them Judaical,\nthough kept to the honour of God, judge then what allowance they had from\nhim. 2. If the Bishop stand to Calvin\u2019s judgment in that place which he\nquoteth, he must allow as to refuse some festival days, though enjoined by\nthe prince. _In festis non recipiendis cuperem vos esse constantiores, sic\ntamen ut non litigetis de quibuslibet._ Then he allowed them to contend\nagainst some holidays, though the prince imposed them. 3. The church of\nScotland did remove festival days in another manner, and bound herself\nnever to receive them by another bond than ever the Monbelgardens did; so\nthat having other bonds lying upon us than other churches have, we are so\nmuch the more straightly obliged neither to receive holidays, nor any\nother antichristian and popish ceremony.\n\n\n\n\n                             THE SECOND PART.\n\n\nAGAINST THE EXPEDIENCY OF THE CEREMONIES.\n\n\n\n                                CHAPTER I.\n\n\nAGAINST SOME OF OUR OPPOSITES, WHO ACKNOWLEDGE THE INCONVENIENCY OF THE\nCEREMONIES, AND YET WOULD HAVE US YIELD TO THEM.\n\n\n_Sect._ 1. The Archbishop of St Andrews, now Lord Chancellor forsooth,\nspeaking of the five articles concluded at the pretended Assembly of\nPerth, saith,(235) \u201cThe conveniency of them for our church is doubted of\nby many, but not without cause, &c.; novations in a church, even in the\nsmallest things, are dangerous, &c.; had it been in our power to have\ndissuaded or declined them, most certainly we would, &c.; but now being\nbrought to a necessity, either of yielding, or disobeying him, whom, for\nmyself, I hold it religion to offend,\u201d &c. Dr Burgess confesseth,(236)\nthat some of his side think and believe, that the ceremonies are\ninconvenient, and yet to be observed for peace and the gospel\u2019s sake; and\nhow many Formalists let us hear their hearty wishes, that the ceremonies\nhad never been brought into our church, because they have troubled our\npeace, and occasioned great strife? When they are demanded why do they\nyield to them, since they acknowledge great inconveniency in them? they\nanswer, lest by their refusal they should cast their coal to the fire, to\nentertain and increase discord, and lest, shunning one inconveniency, they\nshould draw on a great. Mr Sprint saith,(237) \u201cIt may be granted, that\noffence and hinderance to edification do arise from those our\nceremonies.\u201d(238) He confesseth also, that the best divines wished them to\nbe abolished, as being many ways inconvenient; notwithstanding, he hath\nwritten a whole treatise, of the necessity of conformity in case of\ndeprivation.\n\n_Sect._ 2. But let us understand how he proveth(239) that sometimes it is\nexpedient and necessary to conform unto such burdensome and beggarly\nceremonies, as are many ways inconvenient, and occasions of sundry evil\neffects. His principal reason is,(240) That the apostles, by direction of\nthe Holy Ghost, and upon reasons of common and perpetual equity, did\npractise themselves, and caused others to practise, yea, advised and\nenjoined (as matters good and necessary to be done) ceremonies so\ninconvenient and evil in many main and material respects, as the\nceremonies enjoined and prescribed in the church of England are supposed\nto be; whence he would have it to follow, that to suffer deprivation for\nrefusing to conform to the ceremonies of the church of England, is\ncontrary to the doctrine and practice of the apostles. _Ans._ These Jewish\nceremonies in the use and practice of the apostles, were no way evil and\ninconvenient, as himself everywhere confesseth, whereas, therefore, he\ntells us,(241) that those ceremonies were abused to superstition, were of\nmystical signification, imposed and observed as parts of God\u2019s worship,\nswerving from the general rules of God\u2019s word, not profitable for order,\ndecency, and edification, offensive many ways, and infringing Christian\nliberty, he runs at random all the while; for these things agree not to\nthe Jewish ceremonies, as they were rightly used by the apostles\nthemselves, and by others at their advice, but only as they were\nsuperstitiously used with opinion of necessity by the obstinate Jews, and\nby the false teachers, who impugned Christian liberty. So that all that\ncan follow upon Mr Sprint\u2019s argument is this: That notwithstanding of the\nevils and inconveniences which follow upon certain ceremonies in the\nsuperstitious abuse of them by others, yet if, in our practice, they have\na necessary or expedient use, then (after the example of the apostles) we\nmay well conform unto them. Now, all this cometh not near the point which\nMr Sprint undertaketh to prove, namely, that granting the controverted\nceremonies to be, in our use and practice of the same, many ways evil and\ninconvenient, yet to suffer deprivation for refusing to conform to the\nsame is contrary to the doctrine and practice of the apostles. And as\ntouching the comparison instituted betwixt our controverted ceremonies,\nand these antiquated ceremonies of the Jews, practised and prescribed by\nthe apostles after the ascension of Christ, and before the full\npromulgation of the gospel, many evils there be in ours, which could not\nbe found in theirs. For, 1. Ours have no necessary use, and might well be\nspared; theirs had a necessary use for avoiding of scandal, Acts xv. 28.\n2. Ours produce manifold inconveniences (whereof we are to speak\nhereafter) in over use and practice of the same, which is prescribed,\ntheirs in the use and practice of the same, which was enjoined by the\napostles, were most expedient for winning of the obstinate Jews, 1 Cor.\nix. 20; and for keeping of the weak, 1 Cor. ix. 22; and for teaching the\nright use of Christian liberty to such as were strong in the faith, both\namong the believing Jews and converted Gentiles, Rom. iv. &c.; 1 Cor.\nviii.; x. 3. Ours are proved to be, in their nature unlawful; theirs were\n(during the foresaid space) in their nature indifferent, Rom. xiv. 6; Gal.\nvi. 15. 4. Ours are imposed and observed as parts of God\u2019s worship (which\nwe will prove afterward);(242) theirs not so, for where read we, that\n(during the foresaid space) any holiness was placed in them by the\napostles? 5. Ours have certain mystical significations; theirs not so: for\nit is no where to be read, that the apostles either practised or\nprescribed them as significative resemblances of any mystery of the\nkingdom of God. 6. Ours make us (though unnecessarily) like unto\nidolaters, in their idolatrous actions; theirs not so. 7. Ours are imposed\nwith a necessity both of practice and opinion, even out of the case of\nscandal; theirs not so. 8. Ours are pressed by naked will and authority;\ntheirs, by such special grounds of momentaneous reason, as made the\npractice of the same necessary for a certain time, whether the apostles\nhad enjoined it or not. 9. Ours are urged even upon such as, in their\nconsciences, judge them to be unlawful; theirs not so. 10. Ours have no\nbetter original than human and antichristian invention; theirs had their\noriginal from God\u2019s own institution. 11. Ours are the accursed monuments\nof popish idolatry, to be ejected with detestation; theirs were the\nmemorials of Mosaical policy, to be buried with honour. 12. Ours are\npressed by such pretended reasons, as make them ever and everywhere\nnecessary; theirs, by such reasons as did only conclude a necessity of\nusing them at some times, and in some places. 13. Ours are urged after the\nfull promulgation of the gospel and acknowledgment of Christian liberty;\ntheirs, before the same. 14. Ours are urged with the careless neglect of\npressing more necessary duties; theirs not so. These and other differences\nbetwixt the controverted and Jewish ceremonies, do so break the back of Mr\nSprint\u2019s argument, that there is no healing of it again.\n\n_Sect._ 3. His second reason whereby he goeth about to prove the necessity\nof conforming to inconvenient ceremonies, in the case of deprivation, he\ntaketh from this ground:(243) That when two duties commanded of God, do\nmeet in one practice, so as we cannot do them both, in this case we must\nperform the greater duty, and neglect the lesser. Now, whereas he saith,\nwhen two duties do meet, &c., he means not, that both may be duties at\nonce, for then a man shall be so straitened that he must needs commit a\nsin, in that he must needs omit one of the duties. But (as he explaineth\nhimself) he calleth them duties, being considered apart: as, to hear a\nsermon at the church on the Sabbath, and to tend a sick person ready to\ndie at home, at the same time, both are duties, being considered apart,\nbut meeting together in our practice at one time, there is but one duty,\nbecause the lesser work binds not for that present. Now, he assumes that\nthe doctrine and practice of suffering deprivation for refusing to conform\nto inconvenient ceremonies, doth cause men to neglect greater duties to\nperform the lesser, for proof whereof he enlargeth a needless discourse,\ntending to prove that preaching is a greater duty and of higher bond than\nthe duty of labouring unto fit ceremonies, or of refusing inconvenient\nceremonies, which cannot help his cause. That which he had to prove was,\nthat not to suffer deprivation for refusing of inconvenient ceremonies, is\na greater duty than the refusing of inconvenient ceremonies. But it will\nbe said, that to suffer deprivation for the refusing of inconvenient\nceremonies, doth cause men to neglect the preaching of the word, and that\nis a greater duty than the refusing of inconvenient ceremonies. _Ans_ 1.\nMr Sprint himself layeth down one ground, which proveth the refusing of\ninconvenient ceremonies to be a greater duty than the preaching of the\nword, for he holdeth(244) that the substantials of the second table do\noverrule the ceremonials of the first table, according to that which God\nsaith, \u201cI will have mercy and not sacrifice,\u201d Matt. xii. 7. And elsewhere\nhe teacheth,(245) that to tend a sick person ready to die is a greater\nduty than the hearing of the word. Now, to practice inconvenient and\nscandalous ceremonies, is to commit soul-murder, and so to break one of\nthe most substantial duties of the second table. Therefore, according to\nMr Sprint\u2019s own ground, the refusing of inconvenient and scandalous\nceremonies is a greater duty than the preaching of the word, which is but\na ceremonial of the first table, and if the neglect of tending a sick\nperson\u2019s body be a greater sin than to omit the hearing of many sermons,\nmuch more to murder the souls of men, by practising inconvenient and\nscandalous ceremonies, is a greater sin than to omit the preaching of many\nsermons, which is all the omission (if there be any) of those who suffer\ndeprivation for refusing to conform unto inconvenient ceremonies. But, 2.\nWe deny that the suffering of deprivation for refusing to conform unto\ninconvenient ceremonies, causeth men to neglect or omit the duty of\npreaching. Neither hath Mr Sprint alleged anything for proof hereof,\nexcept that this duty of preaching cannot be done with us ordinarily, as\nthings do stand, if ministers do not conform, for, by order, they are to\nbe deprived of their ministry. Now, what of all this? For though, by the\noppressing power of proud prelates, many are hindered from continuing in\npreaching, because of their refusing inconvenient ceremonies, yet they\nthemselves who suffered deprivation for this cause cannot be said to\nneglect or omit the duty of preaching: most gladly would they preach, but\nare not permitted. And how can a man be said to omit or neglect that which\nhe would fain do but it lieth not in his power to get it done? All the\nstrength of Mr Sprint\u2019s argument lieth in this: That forasmuch as\nministers are hindered from preaching, if they do not conform, therefore,\ntheir suffering of deprivation for refusing conformity, doth cause them\nneglect the duty of preaching. Which argument, that I may destroy it with\nhis own weapons, let us note,(246) that he alloweth a man (though not to\nsuffer deprivation, yet) to suffer any civil penalty or external loss, for\nrefusing of inconvenient ceremonies commanded and enjoined by the\nmagistrate. Now, put the case, that for refusing inconvenient ceremonies,\nI be so fined, spoiled, and oppressed, that I cannot have sufficient\nworldly means for myself and them of my household, hence I argue thus (if\nMr Sprint\u2019s argument hold good): That forasmuch as I am, by strong\nviolence, hindered from providing for myself and them of my household, if\nI do not conform, therefore, my suffering of those losses for refusing of\nconformity, doth cause me to neglect the duty of providing for myself and\nfor them of my family, which neglect should make me worse than an infidel.\n\n_Sect._ 4. Mr Sprint now addeth a third, proving, that to suffer\ndeprivation for refusing to conform to the prescribed ceremonies(247)\n(howbeit many ways inconvenient,) is contrary to the royal law of love,\nwhich he labours to evidence three ways. _First_, he saith, that to suffer\ndeprivation for refusing to conform, doth, by abstaining from a thing in\nnature indifferent (such as our ceremonies, saith he, are proved to be),\nneedlessly deprive men of the ordinary means of their salvation, which is\nthe preaching ministry of the word, &c. _Ans._ 1. That the controverted\nceremonies are in nature indifferent, neither he, nor any of his side,\nhath yet proven; they suppose that they are indifferent, but they prove it\nnot. 2. We deny that the suffering of deprivation for refusing to conform\nto the prescribed ceremonies, doth deprive men of the preaching of the\nword. Neither saith Mr Sprint aught for proof hereof but that which we\nhave already confuted, viz., that as things do stand, all such as do not\nconform are to be deprived, whence it followeth only, that the injury and\nviolence of prelates (not the suffering of deprivation for refusing to\nconform) depriveth men of the preaching of the word. _Secondly_, he\nsaith,(248) that the doctrine and practice of suffering deprivation for\ninconvenient ceremonies, condemneth both the apostolical churches, and all\nchurches since their times, because there hath been no church which hath\nnot practised inconvenient ceremonies. _Ans._ It is most false which he\nsaith of the apostolical churches; for those Jewish ceremonies practised\nby them were most convenient, as we have said before. And as for other\nchurches in after ages, so many of them as have practised inconvenient\nceremonies, are not herein to be followed by us. Better go right with a\nfew than err with a multitude. Thirdly, he saith,(249) that the suffering\nof deprivation for refusing to conform, breedeth and produceth sundry\nscandals. First, saith he, it is the occasion of fraternal discord. O\negregious impudency! who seeth not that the ceremonies are the incendiary\nsparkles, from which the fire of contention hath its being and burning; so\nthat conforming (not refusing) is the furnishing of fuel and casting of\nfaggots to the fire. Secondly, He allegeth that the suffering of\ndeprivation for refusing to conform, twofold more scandaliseth the Papist\nthan conformity; for he doth far more insult to see a godly minister\nthrust out, and with him all the truth of God pressed, than to see him\nwear a surplice, &c. _Thirdly_, he saith, It twofold more scandaliseth the\nAtheist, libertine, and Epicure, who, by the painful minister\u2019s deprival,\nwill triumph to see a door opened for him without resistance, to live in\ndrunkenness, whoredom, swearing, &c. Now, for answer to his second and\nthird pretences, we say, 1. Mr Sprint implieth indirectly, that when\nnon-conforming ministers are thrust out, Papists, Atheists, libertines,\nand Epicures, expect but small opposition from those conforming ministers\nwho come in their rooms. Our opposites have a skilful proctor (forsooth)\nof Mr Sprint. And, indeed, if Papists and Atheists were so afraid of\nConformists as of Nonconformists, they would not thus insult. 2. We must\ndistinguish betwixt deprivation and the suffering of deprivation. Papists\ninsult indeed, that their assured friends, the prelates, are so powerful,\nas to thrust out from the public ministry the greatest enemies of Popery.\nBut as for the ministers\u2019 suffering of themselves to be thrust out, and\ndeprived for refusing of conformity, it is so far from giving to Papists\nany matter of insulting, that it will rather grieve them and gall them to\nthe heart, to understand that sundry powerful, painful, and learned\nministers are so averse from Popery, that before they conform to any\nceremony of the same, they will suffer for refusal; and that their\nconstancy and courage, in suffering for such a cause, will confirm many\nprofessors in the persuasion of the truth of their doctrine, which they\ntaught against conforming unto popish ceremonies. But to go on.\n_Fourthly_, saith he, It twofold more scandaliseth such an one as doth\ntruly fear the name of God, who could be more contented to enjoy the means\nof his faith and salvation, with a small inconveniency of some ceremonies\nwhich he grieveth at, than to lose his pastor, the gospel, and the\nordinary means of his faith and salvation. _Ans._ 1. Mr Sprint supposeth\nthat such an one, as for no respect whatsoever would be contented with the\npractice of some inconvenient ceremonies, doth not truly fear the name of\nGod. And who is the Puritan now? Is not Mr Sprint, who standeth in such a\nhuge distance from all who are of our mind, and so far preferreth himself\nand his followers to us as if we did not truly fear the name of God?\nSecondly, He supposeth that, when non-conforming ministers are thrust out,\nthe ordinary means of faith and salvation are not dispensed (to the\ncomfort and contentment of such as truly fear the name of God) by those\nconforming ministers, who are surrogate in their stead which, how his\nfellows will take with, let them look to it. 3. Forasmuch as the fear of\nGod is to depart from evil, therefore such an one as doth truly fear the\nname of God, in so far as he doth fear the name of God, and _quatenus_, he\nis such an one, will never take well with the practice of inconvenient\nceremonies, which is not a parting from, but a cleaving unto evil. 4. They\nwho truly fear the name of God, are indeed scandalised by the prelates\u2019\ndepriving of ministers for refusing to conform; but by the ministers\u2019\nsuffering of deprivation for this cause, they are not scandalised but\nedified. But, _Fifthly_, saith Mr Sprint, it offendeth the magistrate, by\nprovoking him (persuaded and resolved as he is) to disgrace these\notherwise well-deserving ministers, and to strike them with the sword of\nauthority. _Ans._ Our refusal to conform to inconvenient ceremonies being\na necessary duty, if the magistrate be provoked therewith, we are\nblameless; neither can it any otherwise provoke him to disgrace those\nwell-deserving ministers, than Moses\u2019 seeking of liberty for Israel to go\nand serve God according to his will, provoked Pharaoh the more to oppress\nthem; or than Christ\u2019s preaching of the truth, and his abstaining from the\nsuperstitious ceremonies of the Pharisees, provoked them to disgrace him,\nand plot his hurt. Howbeit we are not ignorant that the magistrate is not\nprovoked by our refusing to conform, except as it is misreported,\nmisdeemed, and misconstructed to him by the false calumnies of our\nadversaries, which being so, he is not incited by our deed, but by theirs.\n\n_Sect._ 5. Now, _Sixthly_, saith Mr Sprint, it unjustly condemneth the\nharmony of all true churches that ever were primitive and reformed, and\nall sound teachers of all times and places, whose universal doctrine it\nhath been, that conformity to inconvenient ceremonies is necessary, in\ncase of deprivation. _Ans._ That the ceremonies practised by the apostles\nand apostolic churches were not inconvenient, it hath been already showed;\nthat since their times, sundry churches, both ancient and reformed, have\npractised inconvenient ceremonies, we deny not: yet Mr Sprint himself(250)\nwill not defend all the practices of those churches, whose practice he\nallegeth against us. But that all sound teachers, of all times and places,\nhave taught the necessity of conformity to inconvenient ceremonies, in\ncase of deprivation, he neither doth, neither can make good; it is but a\nbare and a bold affirmation to deceive the minds of the simple. Did not\nthe good old Waldenses,(251) notwithstanding of all the hot persecutions\nraised against them, constantly refuse to conform unto any of those\nceremonies of the church of Rome, which they perceived to have no\nnecessary use in religion, and to occasion superstition rather than to\nserve for edification? And we verily rejoice to be ranked with those\nWaldenses, of whom a popish historiographer speaketh thus:(252) _Alius in\nlibris cathari dicuntur, quibus respondent qui hodie in Anglia puriorum\ndoctrinam __ pr\u00e6 se ferunt_. Moreover, it cannot be unknown to such as are\nacquainted with the history of the Reformation, how that not Flacius\nIlliricus only, but many others,(253) among whom was Calvin,(254) and the\nMagdeburgian doctors,(255) and all the churches of Nether Saxony subject\nto Maurice,(256) opposed themselves to those inconvenient and hurtful\nceremonies of the Interim, urged by the Adiaphorists. And howsoever they\nperceived many great and grievous dangers ensuing upon their refusing to\nconform to the same, yet they constantly refused, and many ministers\nsuffered deprivation for their refusal.(257) Besides, do not our divines\nrequire, that the church\u2019s canons, even in matters of rite, be \u201cprofitable\nto the edification of the church,\u201d(258) and that the observation of the\nsame must carry before it a manifest utility,(259) that in rites and\nceremonies the church hath no power to destruction, but only to\nedification?(260) Do they not put this clause in the very definition of\necclesiastical rites,(261) that they be profitably ordained; considering,\nthat otherwise they are but intolerable misorders and abuses? Do they not\nteach,(262) that no idle ceremony which serveth not unto edifying is to be\nsuffered in the church; and that godly brethren are not holden to subject\nthemselves unto such things as they perceive neither to be right nor\nprofitable?(263) That whatsoever either would scandalise our brother,(264)\nor not be profitable to him for his edification, Christians for no respect\nmust dare to meddle with it? Do they not stand so much upon expediency,\nthat this tenet is received with them: That the negative precepts of the\nlaw, do bind, not only at all times, but likewise to all times (whereupon\nit followeth, that we may never do that which is inconvenient or\nscandalous), and that the affirmative precepts though they bind at all\ntimes, yet not to all times, but only _quando expedit_, whereupon it\nfolloweth, that we are never bound to the practice of any duty commanded\nin the law of God, except only when it is expedient to be done; but Mr\nSprint excepteth against this rule,(265) that it is not generally true;\nfor evidence whereof he allegeth many things, partly false, partly\nimpertinent, upon which I hold it not needful here to insist. As for such\nexamples, objected by him, as carry some show of making against this rule,\nwhich he dare not admit, I will make some answer thereto. He saith, that\nsometimes even negative precepts have been lawfully violated; for these\nprecepts were negative,\u2014none but priests must eat shew-bread, yet David\ndid lawfully violate it; thou shalt do no work upon the Sabbath, yet the\npriests brake this, and are blameless; let nothing of God\u2019s good creatures\nbe lost, yet Paul and his company did lawfully cast away their goods in\nthe ship, to save their lives, &c. _Ans._ Mr Sprint might easily have\nunderstood, that when divines say, the affirmative precepts bind at all\ntimes, but not to all times,\u2014the negative precepts both at all times and\nto all times, they ever mean, _specie actionis manente cadem_; so long as\nan action forbidden in a negative precept ceaseth not to be evil, as long\nthe negative precept bindeth to all times: whereas even whilst an action\ncommanded in an affirmative precept, ceaseth not to be good, yet the\naffirmative precept bindeth not to all times. So that the rule is not\ncrossed by the alleged examples; for David\u2019s eating of the shew-bread; the\npriests\u2019 labour upon the Sabbath; and Paul\u2019s casting of the goods into the\nsea, were not evil, but good actions (the kind of the action being changed\nby the circumstances). In the meantime, the foresaid rule still crosseth\nMr Sprint\u2019s tenet; for he holdeth that even whilst certain ceremonies\nremain evil in their use, and cease not to be scandalous and inconvenient,\nyet we are not ever bound to abstain from them, but may in the case of\ndeprivation practice them, which directly contradicteth the rule.\n\n_Sect._ 6. The position therefore which we maintain against Mr Sprint, and\nfrom which we will not depart the breadth of one nail, is this, that we\ncan never lawfully conform (no not in the case of deprivation) unto any\nceremony which is scandalous and inconvenient in the use of it. For\nfurther confirmation whereof, we say, 1. Every negative precept of the law\nof God bindeth to all times, in such sort, that the action which it\nforbiddeth (so long as it remaineth evil, and the kind of it is not\nchanged) can never lawfully be done. Therefore, forasmuch as to abstain\nfrom things scandalous and inconvenient, is one of the negative precepts\nof the law of God, and the ceremonies whereunto Mr Sprint would have us to\nconform in the case of deprivation, are, and remain scandalous and\ninconvenient in our practice and use of them according to his own\npresupposal; it followeth, that the use and practice of the same is\naltogether unlawful unto us. 2. That which is lawful in the nature of it\nis never lawful in the use of it, except only when it is expedient for\nedification, as teacheth the Apostle, 1 Cor. vi. 12; x. 23. The\nCorinthians objected that all indifferent things were lawful. The Apostle\naddeth a limitation,(266) _esse licita quatenus conducunt_, they are\nlawful to be used in so far as they are expedient. 3. It is the Apostle\u2019s\ncommandment, let all things be done unto edifying, 1 Cor. xiv. 26.\nTherefore whatsoever is not done unto edifying ought not to be done. 4.\nThe Apostle saith, 1 Cor. viii. 13, \u201cIf meat make my brother to offend, I\nwill eat no flesh while the world standeth.\u201d Now, put the case, the\nApostle had been hindered from preaching the gospel for his precise\nabstaining from those meats whereat his brother would be offended, would\nhe in that case have eaten? Nay, he saith peremptorily, that whilst the\nworld standeth he would not eat. 5. Say not our writers,(267) that we must\nflee and abstain from every thing which is not expedient for the\nedification of our brother? And doth not the Bishop of Winchester\nteach,(268) that in our going out, and coming in, and in all our actions,\nwe must look to the rule of expediency? And saith not Bishop\nSpotswood,(269) \u201cIt is not to be denied, but they are ceremonies, which\nfor the inconveniency they bring, ought to be resisted?\u201d 6. Dare Mr Sprint\ndeny that which Ames saith he heard once defended in Cambridge,(270) viz.,\nthat _quicquid non expedit, quatenus non expedit, non licet_: Whatsoever\nis not expedient, in so far as it is not expedient, it is not lawful. Doth\nnot Pareus likewise show out of Augustine,(271) that such things as are\nnot expedient but scandalous, and do not edify but hurt our brother,\n_Fiunt ex accidenti illicita et peccata, proinde vitanda_? 7. To conform\nunto inconvenient and scandalous ceremonies, in the case of deprivation,\nis at the best, to do evil that good may come of it; which was the\npretence of those councillors of Pope Pius V. who advised him to suffer\nstews at Rome, for preventing a greater evil of abusing chaste women and\nhonest matrons. So the pseudo-Nicodemites allege for their abstaining from\nflesh upon the days forbidden by the church, that this they do for\nshunning a greater evil, which is the scandal of Papists. Our divines\nanswer them,(272) that evil ought not to be done that good may come of it.\nBut, saith Mr Sprint,(273) this rule of the Apostle (Rom. iii. 8) must be\nlimited,(274) and in some cases holdeth not; for a man may, for doing of\ngood, do that which is evil in use, circumstance, and by accident, so it\nbe not simply and in nature evil. _Ans._ 1. He begs the thing in question,\nfor that rule is alleged against him to prove that nothing which is evil\nin the use of it may be done for any good whatsoever. 2. The difference\nbetwixt that which is simply evil, and that which is evil in use and by\naccident, is in that the one may never be done, the other is unlawful only\n_pro tempore_; but in this they agree, that both are unlawful; for that\nwhich is evil by accident,(275) whilst it is such, is unlawful to be done,\nno less than that which is in nature evil. 3. Divines hold\nabsolutely,(276) that _Inter duo vel plura mala culp\u00e6_ (such as things\nscandalous and inconvenient) _nullum est eligendum_; that though in evils\nof punishment we may choose a lesser to shun a greater, yet in evils of\nfault, election hath no place, neither may we do a lesser fault to shun a\ngreater,(277) _nec ullum admittendum malum, ut eveniat aliquod bonum, sive\nper se sive per accidens_. But let us hear what Mr Sprint can say to the\ncontrary. He allegeth, the priests\u2019 breaking of the Sabbath, David\u2019s\neating of the shewbread, and the apostles\u2019 practising of very hurtful\nceremonies; all which things being unlawful were done lawfully, to further\ngreater duties.\n\nWe have answered already, that the priests\u2019 killing of the sacrifices on\nthe Sabbath, and David\u2019s eating of the shew-bread, were not unlawful,\nbecause the circumstances changed the kind of the actions. Also, that the\nJewish ceremonies used by the apostles were in their practice no way\nhurtful, but very profitable. Mr Sprint allegeth another example out of 2\nChron. xxx. 18-21: To perform God\u2019s worship not as it was written, was a\nsin, saith he, yet to further God\u2019s substantial worships, which was a good\nthing, was not regarded of God. _Ans._ One cannot guess from his words how\nhe thought here to frame an argument, which might conclude the lawfulness\nof doing some evil, that some good may come of it. Howsoever, that we may\nhave some light in this matter, let us distinguish betwixt these two\nthings: 1. The people\u2019s legal uncleanness, when they came to eat the\npassover. 2. Their adventuring to eat it, notwithstanding their\nuncleanness. That they were at that time unclean, it was a sin. But whilst\nthey prepared their hearts truly to seek God, and repented of their\nuncleanness; that in this case they adventured to eat the passover, was no\nsin, because it is the will of God, that such as prepare their hearts\nunfeignedly to seek him, lament their wants, and repent for that they are\nnot so prepared and sanctified for his worship as they ought (there being\nno other thing to hold them back beside some defect of sanctity in\nthemselves), notwithstanding of any defect which is in them, draw near to\nhim in the use of his holy ordinances. As touching the former, no man will\nsay, that they chose to be unclean, that they might further God\u2019s worship.\nBut as for the latter, repenting of their uncleanness, they chose to keep\nthe passover, this did they to further God\u2019s worship, and this was no sin,\nespecially if we observe with Tremellius, that it is said, ver. 20, the\nLord healed the people, that is, by the virtue of his Spirit purified and\ncleansed them, so that, that which was lame was not turned out of the way,\nbut rather made straight and healed.\n\n_Sect._ 7. And now we leave Mr Sprint, who hath not only conformed to the\ncontroverted ceremonies, even upon presupposal of their inconveniency, but\nhath also made it very questionable,(278) whether in the case of\ndeprivation he ought to conform to sundry other popish ceremonies, such as\nshaven crown, holy water, cream, spittle, salt, and I know not how many\nmore which he comprehendeth under &c., all his pretences of greater\ninconveniences following upon not conforming than do upon conforming, we\nhave hitherto examined. Yet what saith Bishop Spotswood(279) to the cause?\nHe also allegeth there is a great inconveniency in the refusing of the\nceremonies, namely, the offending of the king. But for answer unto this,\nlook what the largest extent of the prince\u2019s power and privilege in\nmatters belonging unto God\u2019s worship, which either God\u2019s word or the\njudgment of sound divines doth allow to him, none shall be found more\nwillingly obsequious to his commandments than we. But as touching these\nceremonies in question, we are upon evident grounds persuaded in our\nconsciences, that they are both unlawful, and inexpedient for our church,\nand though they were lawful in themselves, yet we may answer as the\noppugners of the Interim replied to those who urged yielding to the\nceremonies of the same,(280) surplice, holidays, tapers, &c., because of\nthe emperor\u2019s commandment. That the question is not about things\nindifferent, but about a main article of faith, namely, Christian liberty,\nwhich admitteth not any yoke to be imposed upon the conscience, no not in\nthings indifferent. Our gracious prince who now, by the blessing of God,\nhappily reigns over us, will not (we assure ourselves) be offended at us,\nfor having regard to our consciences, God\u2019s own deputies placed in our\nsouls, so far, that for all the world we dare not hazard their peace and\nquiet, by doing anything with their repugnance and aversation. Wherefore,\nwe are more than confident that his Majesty will graciously accept from us\nsuch a reasonable apology, as they of Strasburg used to Charles V.(281)\n_Quantum omnino fieri potest, parati sumus tibi giatificari, non solum\ncivilibus verum etiam in rebus sacris. Veruntamen oramus invicem, ut\ncogites, quoniam sui facti rationem oportet unumquemque Deo reddere,\nmerito nos de salute nostra solicitos esse, et providere nequid contra\nconscientiam a nobis fiat._ And as the Estates of Germany to\nFerdinand,(282) when they besought him only not to grieve nor burden their\nconsciences. _Te quidem summum, et \u00e0 Deo nobis datum magistrum agnoscimus,\net libentissime quidem, ac nihil est omnium rerum, quod non possis aut\ndebeas \u00e0 nobis expectare, sed in hac unare propitium te nobis esse\nflagitamus._ If these hoped that popish princes would accept such answers\nfrom them, shall not we? O, shall we not be persuaded that the Defender of\nthe Faith will not refuse to take them from us! especially seeing his\nMajesty shall ever find, that he hath none more loyal and true subjects,\nwho will more gladly employ and bestow their lives, lands, houses, holds,\ngoods, gear, rents, revenues, places, privileges, means, moities, and all\nin his Highness\u2019 service, and maintenance of his royal crown, and\nmoreover, have so deeply conceived a strong and full persuasion of his\nMajesty\u2019s princely virtues, and much renowned propension to piety and\nequity, that they will urge their consciences by all good and lawful\nmeans, to assent unto every thing which he enjoins as right and\nconvenient, and when the just aversation of conscience upon evident\nreasons is invincible, will notwithstanding be more willing to all other\nduties of subjection, and more averse from the least show of contempt.\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER II.\n\n\nAGAINST THOSE OF OUR OPPOSITES WHO PLEAD FOR THE CEREMONIES AS THINGS\nEXPEDIENT.\n\n\n_Sect._ 1. As for those who allege some conveniency in the ceremonies,\nthey say more than can abide the proof of reason, which the induction of\nsome particulars shall demonstrate. Dr Mortoune(283) allegeth for the\nsurplice, that the difference of outward garments cannot but be held\nconvenient for the distinguishing of ministers from laics in the discharge\nof their function. _Ans._ This conveniency is as well seen to without the\nsurplice. If a man having a black gown upon him be seen exercising the\nfunction of a minister, it is very strange if any man think it not\nsufficiently distinguished from laics. The Act of Perth, anent\nconfirmation and bishoping of children, would make it appear, that this\nceremony is most profitable to cause young children in their tender years\ndrink in the knowledge of God and his religion. _Ans._ 1. If this rite be\nso profitable for the instruction of children, then why do prelates\nappropriate it to themselves, who use to be employed in higher affairs,\nthat permit them not to have leisure for exact catechising of children?\nOr, 2. Though they might attend the discharging of this duty; why should\nit be made their peculiar? Is not the parish minister able to catechise\nthem? Or, 3. If it must depend upon prelates, and wait upon their leisure;\nwhat hath imposition of hands ado with catechising? 4. How comes it, that\nchildren who are not bishopped are as well catechised as they who are\nbishopped.\n\n_Sect._ 2. Tilen(284) setteth out the expediency of holidays, for\nimprinting in the minds of people the sense and knowledge of the benefits\nof redemption. _Ans._ 1. There is no mean so good for this purpose as\ncatechising and preaching, out of season and in season. 2. What could he\nsay unto them who have attained his end without his mean? I find people\nbetter instructed, and made more sensible of those benefits, where the\nfeasts are not kept than where they are. 3. Think they their people\nsufficiently instructed in the grounds of religion, when they hear of the\nnativity, passion, &c.\u2014what course will they take for instructing them in\nother principles of faith? Why do they not keep one way, and institute an\nholiday for every particular head of catechise?\n\nBut Bishop Lindsey thinks yet to let us see a greater expediency for\nobserving holidays. \u201cCertainly (saith he)(285) nothing is so powerful to\nabolish profaneness, and to root out superstition out of men\u2019s hearts, as\nthe exercise of divine worship, in preaching, praying and thanksgiving,\nchiefly then when the superstitious conceits of merit and necessity are\nmost pregnant in the heads of people,\u2014as doubtless they are when the set\ntimes of solemnities return,\u2014for then it is meet to lance the aposteme\nwhen it is ripe.\u201d _Ans._ This is a very bad cure; and is not only to heal\nthe wound of the people slightly, but to make it the more inveterate and\nfestered. I might object, that little or nothing is preached or spoken by\nhim and his companions at the revolution of those festivities against the\nsuperstitious keeping of them; but though they should speak as much as can\nbe against this superstition, their lancing being in word only, and not in\ndeed, the recidivation will prove worse than the disease. The best lancing\nof the aposteme were not to observe them at all, or to preach against\nthem, which are tried to work this effect more powerfully than the\nBishop\u2019s cure hath done; for all know that there is none so free of this\nsuperstition as those who observe not the holidays.\n\n_Sect._ 3. The same prelate pleadeth(286) for the expediency of giving the\ncommunion to the sick in private houses, because he thinks they should not\nwant this mean of comfort, as if the wanting of the sacramental signs, not\nprocured by a man\u2019s own negligence or contempt, could stop or stay the\ncomforts of the Holy Spirit. Nay, it is not so. We have seen some who\nreceived not the communion in time of their sickness, end more gloriously\nand comfortably than ever we heard of any who received the sacrament for\ntheir _viaticum_ when they were a-dying. Paybody(287) thinks kneeling, in\nthe act of receiving the communion, to be expedient for the reverend using\nand handling of that holy sacrament, and that much reverence ariseth to\nthe sacrament from it. _Ans._ I verily believe that more reverence ariseth\nto the sacrament from kneeling than is due to it; but I am sure there is\nno less true reverence of that holy sacrament among such as kneel not in\nthe receiving of it, than among such as do kneel. I hope it is not unknown\nhow humbly and reverently many sincere Christians, with fear and\ntrembling, do address themselves to that most holy sacrament, who yet for\nall the world would not kneel in receiving it. Thus we see that these\nexpediences, pretended for the ceremonies, are attained unto as well and\nbetter without them than by them. But I will go forward to show some\nparticular inconveniences found in them.\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER III.\n\n\nTHAT THE CEREMONIES ARE INEXPEDIENT, BECAUSE THEY ARE PREPARATIVES FOR\nGREATER EVILS.\n\n\nFirst, then, the ceremonies are inexpedient, because our most holy faith,\nfor which we should earnestly contend, received no small harm and\nprejudice, and is like to receive still more and more, by their means. Our\ncase is not much different from the estate of the churches in Germany,\nwhen Charles V. caused the book called _Interim_ to be published:(288)\nexpediency then was pretended of settling the peace of Germany by this as\nthe best way; but it produced a very great inconveniency, and instead of\neffectuating peace, it brought forth a hotter contention, as well between\nthe Protestants themselves, as between them and Papists. Expediency is now\nno less pretended for the ceremonies, yet no more truly. But before the\nbad effects of the _Interim_ were seen, the wiser sort of Protestants(289)\nwrote against it, and warned men, _ut ab eo tanquam a praesentissima peste\nsibi caverent_. Notwithstanding that the emperor did straitly inhibit all\nimpugning of it. And Sleidane tells us,(290) the reason which made them so\nmistake it was, because they thought such as were upon that course, were\nopening a way to the popish religion, _per adiaphora seu res medias_, and\nbecause(291) they wished to retain the saving doctrine _puram et salvam a\ntechnis illorum, qui nunc dum ceremonias restaurare videri volunt,\ncolluviem totam doctrinae pontificiae rursus introducunt_. The like reason\nhave we to mistake conformity with antichrist in these ceremonies which\nare obtruded upon our church, for may we not justly fear that hereby we\nshall be drawn on to conform with him also in dogmatical and fundamental\npoints of faith. Nay, what talk I of fear? We have already seen this bad\nconsequence in a great part, for it is well enough known how many\nheterodox doctrines are maintained by Formalists, who are most zealous for\nthe ceremonies anent universal grace, free-will, perseverance,\njustification, images, antichrist, the church of Rome, penance, Christ\u2019s\npassion and descending into hell, necessity of the sacraments, apocrypha\nbooks, Christ\u2019s presence in the eucharist, assurance of salvation, &c.\nTheir errors about those heads we will demonstrate, if need be, to such as\ndoubt of their mind. In the meantime it hath been preached from pulpits\namong ourselves, that Christ died for all alike, that the faithful may\nfall away from grace, that justification is a successive action, that none\ncan be assured of salvation in this life, that images in churches are not\nto be condemned, that Christ descended locally unto the place of the\ndamned, that the Pope is not antichrist, that Rome is not Babylon the\nwhore, that the government and discipline of the church must alter like\nthe French fashion, at the will of superiors, that we should not run so\nfar away from Papists, but come as near to them as we can, that abstinence\nand alms are satisfactions or compensations for sin. These, and sundry\nsuch like tenets, have not been spoken in a corner.\n\n_Sect._ 2. How far conformity to the ceremonies of the church of Rome hath\ndrawn Conformists, of greatest note, to conform to her faith also, I may\ngive instance in the Archbishop of Spalato.(292) He holds, that many rites\nof the Roman church are ancient and approvable, that others, though\nneither ancient nor universal, yet, because of custom, should be\ntolerated, and that few only are either to be abolished, or, by some\nprudent and easy way, purged and refined. Now, will we know how far this\nunity in ceremonies drew him to unity in substance, then let us hear what\nis his verdict of Protestants as well as of Papists, who suffer for their\nreligion.(293) _Certe potius martyres mundi, quam Dei sunt, qui ex utraque\nparte sub titulo conscientiae sanguinem frustra fundunt: quasi vero fides\net religio Romana, et fides ac religio protestantium sunt duae fides et\nduae religiones_, &c. He tells us,(294) moreover, that if the Protestants\nwill not have peace with those whom they call Papists, and communicate\nwith them, then are they schismatics, and are not in the true church. And\nin the declaration of the motives whereupon he undertook his departure out\nof the territory of Venice, he expresseth his judgment of such books as\nare framed against the doctrine of the church of Rome, that he held them\nabove measure detestable. Neither doth he stand alone in this pitch, for\namong the sect of Formalists, is swarming a sect of Reconcilers, who\npreach and profess unity with the church of Rome in matters of faith. For\nexample, they say, that that which the learned Papists hold concerning\njustification, is orthodox, and therefore they will not contend against\nthem, except it be for their contending with us, who do agree with\nthem.(295)\n\n_Sect._ 3. These Reconcilers are too far on in the way to Popery already;\nbut if they will be fully reconciled with Papists, they must transport\nthemselves altogether into their tents, because Papists will not come\nforth to meet them midway. The _Interim_ of Germany tended to\nreconciliation, yet the Papists wrote against it.(296) Cassander sought\nthis reconciliation, but Bellarmine confuteth his opinion.(297) The\nArchbishop of Spalato was upon the same course of reconciliation, but his\nbooks were condemned as heretical, in the decree given at Rome, anno 1616,\nby the congregation of cardinals deputed by Pope Paul V., for the making\nand renewing of the index of prohibited books. The Rhemists tell us,(298)\nthat they will avoid not only our opinions, but our very words which we\nuse. Our adversaries profess that they reject some expositions of certain\nplaces of Scripture, against which they have no other reason but because\nthey are our expositions. Are their minds so aliened from us? And must we\nbe altogether drawn overstays to them? Are they so unwilling to be\nreconciled to the prejudice of their errors? And shall we be so willing to\nbe reconciled with them to the prejudice of the truth? O strange and\nmonstrous invention! that would reconcile Christ with antichrist,\u2014agree\nthe temple of God and idols,\u2014mix light and darkness together. He had good\nreason for him who objected to the Archbishop of Spalato,(299) that _qui\nubique est, nusquam est_; for instead of reconciling Protestants and\nPapists, they make themselves a third party, and raise more controversy.\n_O bellua multorum capitum!_\n\n_Sect._ 4. Thus we perceive what prejudice hath arisen, and yet ariseth to\nthe true and saving doctrine, by the means of symbolising with the church\nof Rome in these ceremonies. But because some Formalists approve not of\nthis course of reconciliation, they (I know) would purge the ceremonies of\nthe blame of it. I will therefore show, that Reconcilers are set forward\nin their course of reconciliation, by means of the Roman rites remaining\nin reformed churches.\n\nG. Cassander, in his book _de Officio pii Viri_, relates unto us how he\nwas entered into this course, and conceived this purpose of\nreconciliation, and tells, that from his youthhood, he was most observant\nof ecclesiastical ceremonies, yet so, that he abhorred all superstition.\nAnd when he had read the writers of that age, who promised some\nreformation and repurgation of superstitious worships and absurd opinions,\nhe saith, _Mire illorum institutum placuit: qui tamen ita superstitiones\net abusiones, quae nonnullis ceremoniis ecclesiasticis admixtae erant,\nexosas haberem ut ipsum ecclesiasticam politiam, quae his ceremoniis fere\nconstant, non sublatum et eversam, sed repurgatam et emendatam esse\nvellum_. We see the first thing which induced him to a reconciliation, was\nhis liking which he had to popish ceremonies, and their remaining in\nprotestant churches, and as this course hath been attempted, so is it also\nadvanced by the ceremonies, for thereby people are induced to say, as they\nsaid once, when popish ceremonies did re-enter in Germany.(300) \u201cWe\nperceive now, that the Pope is not so black as Luther made him.\u201d And as\nfor the Reconcilers themselves, may they not conceive strong hopes to\ncompass their end? May they not confidently embark in this business? May\nthey not with great expectation of prosperous success achieve their\nproject? When once they have footing upon our union with Rome in\nceremonies and church policy, they cannot but hereupon conceive no small\nanimosity to work out their intended purpose.\n\nDo I talk of a chimera, and imagine now that which is not? Nay, I will\nreally exemplify that which I say, in that Proteus and Versipelles, the\nArchbishop of Spalato, for, in the narration of the passages which were\nbetwixt his Majesty and him, collected by the Bishop of Durham, we\nfind,(301) that he thought the procuring of concord betwixt the church of\nEngland and the church of Rome to be easy. And his reasons were,(302)\nbecause he was verily persuaded, that the Pope would approve the English\nliturgy and the public use of it, as he professed in his colloquy with the\nBishops of London and Durham, and the Dean of Winchester. And\nfurther,(303) he told he was of opinion, that the churches of Rome and of\nEngland, excluding Puritans, were radically one church. This made him\nsay,(304) \u201cI do find here why to commend this church, as a church\nabhorring from Puritanism, reformed with moderation, and worthy to be\nreceived into the communion of the Catholic church.\u201d In the following\nwords, he tells, that he could carry something out of the church of\nEngland which should comfort all them who hate puritan strictness, and\ndesire the peace of the church (meaning them who desired the same\nreconciliation with himself). What is more clear, than that the English\nceremonies were that which made him prosecute, and gave him hope to\neffectuate a reconciliation betwixt the church of England and that of\nRome.\n\n_Sect._ 5. But put the case, that as yet we had seen no greater evils\nfollowing upon the ceremonies, yet must they be acknowledged to be\ninconvenient, because they are dangerous preparatives for many worse\nthings than we are aware of, and may draw after them sundry evil\nconsequences which are not feared. We have heard before from Spotswood,\nthat novations in a church, even in the smallest things, are dangerous.\nWho can then blame us to shun a danger, and, fearing the worst, to resist\nevil beginnings,\u2014to give no place to the devil,\u2014to crush the viper while\nit is in the shell,\u2014to abstain from all appearance of evil, 1 Thes. v.\n22,\u2014and to take the little ones of Babylon whilst they are young, and dash\ntheir heads against the stones?\n\nIt matters not that many will judge us too precise for doing so. What? Do\nthey think this preciseness any other than that which the law of God\nrequireth, even observing of the commandment of God, without adding to it,\nor diminishing from it, Deut. xii. 32; and keeping the straight path,\nwithout declining to the right hand or the left? Deut. xxviii. 14; or, do\nthey think us more precise than Mordecai, who would do no reverence to\nHaman, because he was an Amalekite, Esth. iii. 2, and so not to be\ncountenanced nor honoured by an Israelite? Deut. xxv. 19. Are we more\nprecise than Daniel, who would not close his window when he was praying,\nno, not for the king\u2019s edict, knowing, that because he had used to do so\naforetime, his doing otherwise had been both a denying of his former\nprofession, and an ensnaring of himself by yielding in small things, to\nyield in greater, and after an inch to take an ell? Dan. vi. 10. Are we\nmore precise than the Apostle Paul who gave no place to the adversaries of\nChristian liberty, no, not for an hour? Gal. ii. 5. Are we more precise\nthan David, who would not do so much as take up the names of idols into\nhis lips, least from speaking of them he should be led to a liking of\nthem? Psal. xvi. 4; or, may not the sad and doleful examples of so many\nand so great abuses and corruptions which have crept into the church from\nso small and scarcely observable originals, make us loath at our hearts to\nadmit a change in the policy and discipline of a well constitute church,\nand rightly ordered before the change, and especially in such things as\nare not at all necessary?\n\nO! from how small beginnings did the mystery of iniquity advance its\nprogression? How little motes have accressed to mountains! Wherefore(305)\n_simplicitatem Christi nos opportet colere, \u00e0 qua ubi primum extulit pedem\nvanitas, vanitatem sequitur superstitio, superstitionem error, errorem\npresumptio presumptionem impietas, idololatrica_. We have cause to fear,\nthat if with Israel we come to the sacrifices of idols, and eat of\nidolothites, and bow down or use any of superstitious and idolatrous\nrites, thereafter we be made to join ourselves to these idols, and so the\nfierce anger of the Lord be kindled against us, as it was against them,\nNum. xxv. 2, 3.\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER IV.\n\n\nTHAT THE CEREMONIES ARE INEXPEDIENT, BECAUSE THEY HINDER EDIFICATION.\n\n\n_Sect._ 1. That the ceremonies are a great hinderance to edification,\nappeareth, First, In that they obscure the substance of religion, and\nweaken the life of godliness by outward glory and splendour, which draws\naway the minds of people so far after it, that they forget the substance\nof the service which they are about. The heathenish priests laboured,(306)\n_per varietatem ceremoniarum, rem in precio retinere_. The use for which\nPapists appoint their ceremonies,(307) is, _ut externam quandam majestatem\nsensibus objiciant_; and so are the ceremonies urged upon us,(308) though\nto conciliate reverence and due regard to divine worship, and to stir up\ndevotion. In the meanwhile it is not considered,(309) that _mentes humanae\nmirificae capiuntur et facinantur, ceremoniarum splendore et pompa.\nVidemus siquidem_, saith Bucer,(310) _vulgus delectari actionibus\nscaenicis, et multis uti signis_. Chemnitius marks of the cumulating of\nceremonies in the ancient church,(311) that it drew to this, _ut tandem in\ntheatricum ferme apparatum ceremoniae illae abierint_. Musculus reprehends\nbishops for departing from the apostolical and most ancient\nsimplicity,(312) and for adding ceremonies unto ceremonies in a worldly\nsplendour and respectability, whereas the worship of God ought to be pure\nand simple.\n\nThe policy, then, which in most simple and single, and least lustred with\nthe pomp and bravery of ceremonies, cannot but be most expedient for\nedification. The king\u2019s daughter is most like herself when she is all\nglorious within, not without, Psal. xlv. 13, and the kingdom of God\nappeareth best what it is, when it cometh not with observation, Luke xvii.\n20, 21. But \u201csuperstition (saith Camero),(313) the mother of ceremonies,\nis lavish and prodigal; spiritual whoredom, as it is, it hath this common\nwith the bodily; both of them must have their paintings, their trinkets,\ntheir inveiglements.\u201d\n\n_Sect._ 2. Secondly, The ceremonies are impediments to the inward and\nspiritual worship, because they are fleshly and external. In the second\ncommandment are forbidden _omnes ritus, qui \u00e0 spirituali Dei cultu\ndiscrepant_.(314) \u201cThe kingdom of God is within you,\u201d saith Christ, Luke\nxvii. 21. Now, if the Apostle, 1 Tim. iv. 8, say, that bodily exercise,\nsuch as fasting, watching, &c., which are requisite as helps and\nfurtherances to the humiliation of the soul, do but profit a little, then\nmay we say of our unnecessary and unprofitable ceremonies, that they are\nexceedingly nocent and harmful to true and spiritual worship. The Apostle\nis not speaking of plays and pastimes, as Bellarmine would have us to\nthink. Who can believe that Timothy was so much addicted to play, that the\nApostle had need to admonish him, that such exercise profiteth little? He\nis speaking, then, of such bodily exercises as in those primitive times\nwere used religiously, as fasting, watching, lying on the ground, and such\nlike; and he would have Timothy rather to exercise himself to the life and\npower of godliness, and to substantial worship, than to any of these\noutward things. Neither doth the Apostle condemn only the superstitious\nuse of these exercises, as Calvin well observeth,(315) _alioqui in totum\ndamnaret_: whereas he doth only extenuate and derogate from them, saying,\nthat they profit little. Therefore (saith he), _ut maxime integer sit\nanimus, et rectus finis, tamen in externis actionibus nihil reperit Paulus\nquod magnifaciat. Valde necessaria admonitio, nam semper propendet mundus\nin illam partem, uti Deum externis obsequiis velit colere._ But what will\nsome say? Do we allow of no external rites and ceremonies in divine\nworship?\n\nSaravia tells us,(316) that _dum vitia vitant stulti, in contraria ruunt_,\nand that he is no less in the fault, _qui nullas in externo Dei cultu\nceremonias admittit, quae tantum decori serviunt, hominesque sui admoneant\nofficii, quam qui quasvis citra, delectum recipiunt, &c._ Wherefore,\nbecause a transition from idolatry and superstition is more easy to\nAtheism and the profanation of holy things, than to the golden mediocrity,\nhe saith, he could have wished that Beza had not generally condemned all\nceremonies without making any difference.\n\n_Ans._ Neither Beza, nor any other, who dislike the English ceremonies,\ncondemneth such rites and circumstances in the external worship of God as\nserve only for decency, but those sacred and significant ceremonies which\nadmonish men of their duty are not of this sort. What shall we say then of\nsuch a conjunction as this, _quae tantum decori serviunt, hominesque sui\nadmoneant officii_? Why would not Saravin write a chronology; I say not\n_magnarum_ (as others), but _mirandarum conjunctionum_, and record that at\nsuch a time he found out the conjunction and compatibility of two things\nwhich were ever thought incompatible in former ages, namely, rites serving\nonly for decency, and holy significant ceremonies admonishing men of their\nduty in God\u2019s worship? Had there been no moralist (trow we) then to note,\nthat decency and things serving only for decency, have place in civility\nand all moral actions, in which notwithstanding there is no significant\nnor admonitory sacred signs of men\u2019s duty in God\u2019s worship? And thus\nshould these two things be severed, which he hath conjoined and\nconfounded.\n\nTo conclude, we condemn the English controverted ceremonies which are\nregarded as holy and significant, as most inexpedient, because they\nderogate from the true inward and spiritual worship; for man\u2019s nature,\nsaith Camero,(317) \u201cis delighted in that which is fleshly and outward,\nneglecting that which is spiritual and inward.\u201d And this is the reason why\nleast spiritual, lively, and holy disposition hath followed upon the\naddition of unnecessary ceremonies; and why there was never so much zeal,\nlife, and power of religion inwardly, in the church of Christ, as then,\nwhen she was freest of ceremonies. This much(318) a Formalist of great\nnote is forced to acknowledge. Let us consider, saith he, \u201cthe primitive\nchurch, flourishing more in times of the apostles than ever it did\nafterwards. Who will not admire her great simplicity in all points, and\nespecially in ceremonies? for excepting the celebration of baptism by\nwashing of water, and of the holy supper, according to the Lord\u2019s\ninstitution, in taking the bread and wine, and distributing them after\nthanksgiving; excepting also the imposition of hands upon those who\nextraordinarily received the Holy Ghost, whether it were in a general\ncalling or a particular, to a charge in the church, and availing for a\nmiraculous effect of healing the sick; I say, these excepted, there will\nnot be found any other ceremony in those primitive times, so admirable was\ntheir simplicity.\u201d\n\n_Sect._ 3. Thirdly, the ceremonies are a great hinderance to edification,\nbecause they make much time and pains to be spent about them, which might\nbe, and (if they were removed) should be spent more profitably for godly\nedifying. That which is said of the ceremonies which crept into the\nancient church, agreeth well to them.(319) _Ista ceremoniarum accumulatio,\ntum ipsos doctores, __ tum etiam ipsos auditores, a studio docendi atque\ndiscendi verbum Dei abstraxit, atque impedivit necessarias et utiles\ndivini eloquii institutiones._\n\nPulpits sound oftentimes with declamations for the ceremonies, when there\nis need of pressing the power of godliness upon the consciences of people,\nand when there are many more necessary things to be urged. The press also\nsends forth idle discourses and defences of the ceremonies which might be\nemployed more profitably.\n\nAnd, moreover, faithful men whose labours might be very profitable to the\nchurch in the holy ministry, have neither a door of entrance nor a door of\nutterance licentiated to them, and that because they will not consent nor\nyield themselves to be the unhappy instruments of imposing this yoke of\nceremonial bondage upon the necks of God\u2019s people. Others who have\nentered, and have been both faithful and painful labourers in the Lord\u2019s\nvineyard, are thrust from their changes for no other quarrel, but that of\nnon-conformity. O unhappy ceremonies! woe unto you, you mischievous lets\nand prejudices to the edification of the church.\n\n\n\n                                CHAPTER V.\n\n\nTHAT THE CEREMONIES ARE INEXPEDIENT, BECAUSE THEY ARE OCCASIONS OF INJURY\nAND CRUELTY.\n\n\n_Sect._ 1. The ceremonies serve to be instruments of cruelty against the\nsincere servants of Christ, they are used as Absalom\u2019s sacrifice, to be\ncloaks of wicked malice, they occasion the fining, confining, depriving,\nimprisoning, and banishing of very worthy and good men.\n\nSuch instruments of cruelty brought into the habitation, not of the sons\nof Jacob, Gen. xlix. 5, but of the God of Jacob, are to be accursed by all\nwho love the peace of Jerusalem, or bear the bowels of Christian\ncompassion within them, because they are not of Christ the meek Lamb of\nGod, who did not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the\nstreet, who did not break the bruised reed, nor quench the smoking flax,\nIsa. xlii. 2, 3; but they are of antichrist, to whom it is given to make\nwar with the saints.(320)\n\nSurely those bowels of mercies, kindness, and forbearance, which the\nApostle requireth, as they should be in every Christian, Col. iii. 12, 13,\nso chiefly _in iis qui praesunt_, as Melancthon noteth,(321) in them\ntowards all, but chiefly towards these who are both good Christians and\ngood subjects; towards these in all things, but chiefly in matters of\nceremony and indifferency. In such matters always, but chiefly when there\nis no contempt nor refractory disposition, but only a modest and Christian\ndesire to conserve the peace of a pure conscience, by forbearing to do\nthat which it is persuaded is not right. Let magistrates remember well,\n\n\u201cParcere subjectis et debellare superbos.\u201d\n\n_Sect._ 2. If there were no more but such a doleful and woeful effect as\nthe cruel dealing with the faithful ministers of Jesus Christ, occasioned\nby the ceremonies, this is too much for evincing the inconveniency of\nthem.\n\nDr Burges, in a sermon preached before King James, related a speech of the\nemperor Augustus, who commanded that all the glasses should be broken,\nthat no man might incur such a fright as one Pollio was put into, for\nbreaking one of his master\u2019s glasses. Whereby (as he expounds\nhimself)(322) he meant to intimate unto that wise king, that it were\nbetter to take away the ceremonies than to throw out the ministers for\nthem. Yet it is the verdict of some,(323) that the blame lieth not upon\nthe ceremonies, but upon ministers themselves, who leave their places and\ndraw all this evil upon themselves. This is even as Nabal blamed David for\nbreaking away from his master, when he was chased away against his will, 1\nSam. xxv. 10, and as Julian,(324) when he had impoverished the Christians,\nlaughed them to scorn, as if they had impoverished themselves to get that\nblessing which Christ had promised to the poor.\n\nThe canon law speaketh for the Lord\u2019s bishops, which are persecuted from\ncity to city:(325) _Nec ipsi in hoc peccant, quoniam non sponte sed coacte\nhoc agunt: sed illi __ qui eos persequuntur, nec ipsis episcopis hoc\nimputari potest, sed illis qui eos hoc agere cogunt_. How is it that they\nare not ashamed, who say, that ministers have their own places and\ncallings, when they would fain abide in them, and with heavy hearts are\nthrust from them.\n\n_Sect. 3._ Neither is this all the injury which is occasioned by the\nceremonies, they make godly and zealous Christians to be mocked and\nnick-named Puritans, except they can swallow the camel of conformity. Our\nconsciences bear us witness, how without all reason we are branded with\nthe name of those ancient heretics, from whose opinions and manners, O,\nhow far are we!(326) And as for ourselves, notwithstanding all this, we\nshrink not to be reproached for the cause of Christ. We know the old\nWaldenses before us,(327) were also named by their adversaries, Cathares\nor Puritans, and that, without cause, hath this name been given both to\nthem and us. But we are most sorry that such as are walking humbly with\ntheir God, seeking eagerly after the means of grace and salvation, and\nmaking good conscience of all their ways, should be made odious, and that\npiety, humility, repentance, zeal, conscience, &c., should be mocked, and\nall by occasion of the ceremonies.\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER VI.\n\n\nTHAT THE CEREMONIES ARE INEXPEDIENT, BECAUSE THEY HARDEN AND CONFIRM THE\nPAPISTS.\n\n\nThe Papists make advantage of the ceremonies, and thereby confirm\nthemselves in Popery. First, in that they use them as the bellows to blow\nup the fire of contention among us, remembering the old rule, _divide et\nimpera_. They set us by the ears among ourselves, that they may be in\npeace, and that intestine discord may make us forget the common\nadversary.(328) Calvin wrote to the Earl of Somerset, _Fieri non posse qum\nPapist\u00e6 superbius insolescerent, nisi mature compositum esset dissidium de\nceremonus_. Dr White saith,(329) that our strife about ceremonies is\nkindled and nourished by Papists. If we were liberate from the ceremonies,\nthen might we do more against the Papists, and they should not insult as\nthey do.\n\n_Sect._ 2. But they have yet more advantage from our Formalists, for they\nlike very well the course of conformity, as the way of returning to\nPopery, and some of them tell us in broad terms, that they hope we are\ncoming fast home to them. They perceive us receiving and retaining their\nRoman rites and popish policy, which makes them resolve to stay where they\nare, promising, that themselves are in the surest hold, and looking for\nour returning back to them. This was ere now both foreseen and foretold by\nthe wiser sort.\n\nZanchius told,(330) that he seemed to himself to hear the monks and\nJesuits saying among themselves, _Ipsa quoque Regina Angli\u00e6 doctissima et\nprudentissima, paulatim incipit ad Sanct\u00e6 Roman\u00e6 ecclesi\u00e6 redire\nreligionem, resumptis jam sanctissimus et sacratissimis clericorum\nvestibus, sperandum est fore ut reliqua etiam omnia_, &c. Papists count\nall to be _Calvino Papist\u00e6_, _i.e._, half Papists, who are not Puritans,\nand daily invite them to an association with them against the Puritans, as\nParker(331) showeth out of a treatise entitled, _Concertatio Ecclesi\u00e6\nCatholic\u00e6 in Anglia contra Calvino Papistos et Puritanos_. And we may\nperceive out of Franciscus a Sancta Clara,(332) that they despair of any\nagreement with Puritans, yet hoping that Formalists will agree with them.\nIn these hopes they are still more and more confirmed whilst they observe\nthis conformity in ceremonies to be yet prevailing and proceeding, and not\nlike to take a stand. Whereupon they (poor souls) delight to stay still in\nBabylon, finding us so fast turning back thither, as if we repented we\ncome out from thence.\n\n_Sect._ 3. Some would here defend the ceremonies, as being most expedient\nto gain the Papists, who otherwise should be the more aliened from us. O\nwhat a fiction! As if, forsooth, hardening of them in Popery were to win\nthem, and fostering of them in the same were to wean them from it. Woeful\nproof hath taught us, that they are but more and more hardened, and\nresolutely continued in Popery by these Roman remainders among us, neither\nwill they, whilst they expect that we are turning back to them, do so much\nas meet us midway; but they flee from us,(333) _quam longissime_; their\nover-passing and over-reaching Pharisaical zeal, makes them hold fast the\nleast point of their religion, and adhere to the whole entire fabric of\nthe Roman both doctrine and discipline.\n\nOf the gaining of the adversaries, Augustine speaketh better,(334) for if\nyou demand, _Unde vincantur pagani, unde illuminentur, unde ad salutem\nvocentur?_ He maketh this answer, _Deserite omnes solennitates ipsorum,\ndeserite nugas eorum: et si non consentiunt veritati nostra, saltem pudeat\npaucitatis su\u00e6. Nulla est concedenda gratia adversariis_ (say the divines\nof Germany(335)), _in mutatione ceremoniarum, nisi prius nobiscum\nconsentiant in fundamento hoc est, in vera doctrina et usu sacramentorum._\nThey that yield to the adversaries in matters of rite, _cos hoc ipso in\nimpietate sua confirmant_; and the adversaries _cessione ista non parum\nadjuvantur_, saith Balduin. Bellarmine,(336) rejecteth Cassander\u2019s\nreconciliation,(337) for this reason among others, because, according to\nthe judgment of the fathers, we should not change nor innovate the\nsmallest matters for gratifying of heretics.\n\nThe best way, then, which we can use for winning of the Papists, is to\nshine as lights in the world, Phil. ii. 15, 16, holding forth the word of\nlife by a pure and plain profession, to be blameless and harmless, the\nsons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse\nnation, that so the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed, 1 Tim.\nvi. 1. If thus we hold fast the profession of the truth, and walk in all\nhonest conversation according to the truth, so many as are ordained to\neternal life shall be converted, and made to glorify God in the day of\nvisitation, 1 Pet. ii. 12.\n\n_Sect. 4._ If it be said, that the Apostle observed some Jewish ceremonies\nfor winning of the Jews, as we read, Acts xviii. 21; xx. 16; xxi. 26; and\nthat it appeareth, we may by the same reason yield to some popish\nceremonies for winning of the Papists. _Ans._ 1. There is not a like\nreason of the weak Jews, who then could not have been fully instructed\nconcerning Christian liberty, and obstinate Papists who might have been,\nand yet may be instructed, but will not. Nor, 2. Is the same to be done in\nthe bright shining meridian light of the gospel, which was done before the\nfull promulgation of the same? Nor, 3. Is so much honour to be given,(338)\nand so great respect to be had to popish and antichristian rites, as to\nthe ceremonies which were ordained by God himself. These were to be\nsuffered awhile, that they might be honourably buried; to those we are to\nsay with detestation, \u201cGet you hence.\u201d Nor, 4. Can the same things be done\nat Antioch which are done at Jerusalem. At Antioch Peter sinned by using\nJewish rites, because there the greatest part were Gentiles, who had both\nheard his preaching and seen his practice against the ceremonies of the\nJews. But at Jerusalem Paul had to do with the weak Jews, who had heard\nlittle or no preaching against those ceremonies, and had seen as little\npractice contrary unto them. Now Scotland must not be likened to\nJerusalem, no not to Antioch; for Scotland hath been filled both with\npreaching and practice contrary to the ceremonies of the Papists, yea,\nhath moreover spewed them out openly and solemnly, with a religious and\nstrict oath never to lick them up again.\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER VII.\n\n\nTHAT THE CEREMONIES ARE INEXPEDIENT, BECAUSE THEY DISTURB THE PEACE OF THE\nCHURCH.\n\n\n_Sect._ 1. The great evils which have befallen to many famous churches,\nthrough the means of intestine dissensions, should teach us not to admit\nthe occasions of the like inconveniences among ourselves; for as by\nconcord _minima crescunt_, so by discord _maxima dilabuntur_.\n\nNow, the ceremonies are the bane of our church\u2019s peace, and the unhappy\ninstruments of lamentable discord among brethren who should dwell together\nin unity. I know that the refusers of the ceremonies are blamed, as if\nthey were the troublers of the peace of the church, and the tumultuating\ncontentious spirits who make so much ado about matters of rite and\nceremony. But I know also that none have been more ordinarily and commonly\nblamed for troubling the peace of the church than they who least deserved\nto be blamed for it. So was Elijah himself(339) thought to be he that\ntroubled Israel, when he contended against the corruptions of the church\nin his time, 1 Kings xviii. 17. I will therefore observe four marks\nwhereby it may be known when contentions are in a church, which side is\nreprehensible, and also who are to be blamed as the troublers of our\nIsrael.\n\n_Sect._ 2. In contentions raised in the church, we are to consider the\nmotive, the measure, the matter, the manner. And, 1st. Touching the\nmotive: They who contend in a church reprehensibly, are moved and induced\nto the course which they follow, by some worldly respect, Acts xix. 26; 1\nTim. vi. 5. Now, as for those in our church who contend for the\nceremonies, many of them are led by such _argumenta inartificialia_, as\nwealth, preferment, &c., and if conscience be at all looked to by them,\nyet they only throw and extort an assent and allowance from it, when\nworldly respects have made them to propend and incline to an anterior\nliking of the ceremonies. We do not judge them when we say so, but by\ntheir fruits we know them. As Pope Innocent VII., while he was yet a\ncardinal, used to reprehend the negligence and timidity of the former\npopes, who had not removed the schism and trouble of the church of Rome,\nyet when himself was advanced to the popedom, he followed the footsteps of\nhis predecessors, governing all things tumultuously, and making the schism\nworse; so among our opposites, not a few have been overcome with ease,\npleasure, riches, favour, pre-eminence, &c., to like well of the\nceremonies which never had their first love, when they had both spoken and\ndisputed against them. What drew them overstays to contend for them,\nexcept (I say not the seeking of, lest I be thought uncharitable, but)\ntheir being sought by some worldly benefit? And how could such an one\nexcuse himself but by Paris\u2019s apology, _Ingentibus ardent, judicium domis\nsolicitare meum._ And what marvel that Balak\u2019s promotion, Num. xxii. 17;\nand Saul\u2019s fields and vineyards, 1 Sam. xxii. prevail with such as love\nthis present world, 2 Tim. iv. 10.\n\nThe popish oil and chrism were defended by Islebius and Sidonius, _ut ipsi\nnimirum __ discederent unctiores_.(340) How like to them have we known\nmany Formalists! The best respect which Bishop Lindsey nameth for kneeling\nat the communion is,(341) the eschewing the prince\u2019s offence; but, as for\nus, let it be told, who hath ever of a Conformist become a Non-Conformist,\nfor any worldly benefit which he might expect by his non-conformity? What\nworldly respect have we to move us to refuse the ceremonies? What wealth?\nWhat preferment? What ease? What pleasure? What favour? Do we not expose\nourselves to the hazard of all these things? Only our consciences suffer\nus not to consent to such things as we see to be unlawful and hurtful for\nthe church.\n\n_Sect._ 3. 2d. Let it be considered which side exceeds in contending they\nare in the fault, 1 Tim. vi. 4. Now, our opposites do far overmatch us and\noverstride us in contention; for, 1. They harbour an inveterate dislike of\nevery course and custom which we like well of, and they carp at many\ndeeds, words, writings, opinions, fashions, &c. in us, which they let pass\nin others of their own mind. Whereas we (God knows) are glad to allow in\nthem anything which we allow in others, and are so far from _nitimur in\nvetitum, semper cupimusque negata_, that most heartily we condescend to\napply ourselves, by all possible means, to observe them, please them, and\nentertain peace with them, who impose and urge upon us an unconscionable\nobservation of certain ceremonies, and to do as much for them as any\nground of conscience or reason can warrant. So far as we have attained, we\nwalk by the same rule with them, Phil. iii. 16, and so exceed not in the\nmeasure. 2. It may be seen that they exceed in contending with us, if we\nbe compared with the Papists; against them they contend more remissly,\nagainst us more intensively. Saravia professeth(342) that he thinketh\nworse of us than of Papists. He hath reason who complaineth of Formalists\u2019\ndesire not to stir and contend against the Papists, and their fierceness\nagainst their own brethren.(343) \u201cThis (saith he) is ill provided for, and\ncan have no excuse, that some, not to contend with Papists, should contend\nwith their brethren, and displease the sons of their own mother, to please\nthe enemies of their father, and beat not the dog before the lion, but the\nlion for favour of the dog, and make the natural child to weep, while the\nson of the bondwoman doth triumph.\u201d 3. That they exceed, appeareth from\nthe effects of their contending; hurt and damage is a main effect of\ncontention. Calvin, Perkins, and Pareus, observe upon Gal. v. 15, that\ncontentions breed hurtful and pernicious effects, which tend to\nconsumption and destruction. Now, wherein do we injure or harm our\nopposites in their persons, callings, places, &c.? Yet in all these, and\nmany other things, do they wrong us, by defamation, deprivation,\nspoliation, incarceration, &c.? How much better were it to remove the\nBabylonian baggage of antichristian ceremonies, which are the mischievous\nmeans, both of the strife and of all the evil which ariseth out of it! Put\naway the ceremonies, cast out this Jonas, and, behold, the storm will\ncease. A wise pilot will, in an urgent storm, cast out even some precious\nwares, that the rest may be safe. \u201cAnd shall we then (saith Parker(344))\ncast out the pilots of the ship themselves, and all to spare the wares of\nRome, which are no lawful traffic?\u201d\n\n_Sect._ 4. 3d. Let the matter be looked to for which each side contendeth.\n\u201cBrethren (saith the Archbishop of St Andrews),(345) to contend is not be\ncontentious in a light business, this is faulty.\u201d Now, I wish it may\nplease him to understand that when we contend about the removal of the\nceremonies, we content for a very weighty matter; for we prove the removal\nof them to be necessary, in respect of their inconvenience and\nunlawfulness. They who urge the ceremonies, contend for things which are\nnot necessary; and we who refuse them, contend for things which are most\nnecessary, even for the doctrine and discipline warranted by God\u2019s word,\nagainst all corruptions of idolatry and superstition. That the ceremonies\ncan neither be purged of superstition nor idolatry I have proved in the\nthird part of this dispute.\n\n_Sect._ 5. 4th. If the manner of contending be observed, our opposites\nwill be found reprovable, not we. We contend by the grounds of truth and\nreason; but they use to answer all objections, and resolve all questions,\nby the sentence of superiors and the will of the law; we contend from\nGod\u2019s word and good reason, they from man\u2019s will and no reason. This was\nclearly seen at the first conclusion of the five Articles at Perth\nAssembly.\n\nBishop Lindsey himself, relating the proceedings of the same, tells\nus,(346) that Mr John Carmichell and Mr William Scot alleged, that if any\nwould press to abolish the order which had been long kept in this church,\nand draw in things not received yet, they should be holden to prove either\nthat the things urged were necessary and expedient for our church, or the\norder hitherto kept not meet to be retained. This was denied, upon this\nground, that it was the prince (who by himself had power to reform such\nthings as were amiss in the outward policy of the church) that required to\nhave the change made. Well, since they must needs take the opponent\u2019s\npart, they desired this question to be reasoned, \u201cWhether kneeling or\nsitting at the communion were the fitter gesture?\u201d This also was refused,\nand the question was propounded thus: \u201cHis Majesty desires our gesture of\nsitting at the communion to be changed into kneeling, why ought not the\nsame to be done?\u201d At length, when Mr John Carmichell brought an argument\nfrom the custom and practice of the church of Scotland, it was\nanswered,(347) That albeit the argument held good against the motions of\nprivate men, yet his Majesty requiring the practice to be changed, matters\nbehoved to admit a new consideration, and that because it was the prince\u2019s\nprivilege, &c.\n\nI must say, the Bishop was not well advised to insert this passage, which\n(if there were no more) lets the world see that free reasoning was denied;\nfor his Majesty\u2019s authority did both exeem the affirmers from the pains of\nprobation (contrary to the laws of disputation), and state the question,\nand also answer arguments.\n\nAnd, moreover, when the Articles were put in voting, the Archbishop, in\ncalling on the names, did inculcate these and the like words: \u201cHave the\nking in your mind\u2014remember on the king\u2014look to the king.\u201d This Bishop\nLindsey passeth over in deep silence, though it be challenged by his\nantagonist. Plinius proveth,(348) that _animalia insecta_ do sometimes\nsleep, because sometimes when light is holden near them, yet they stir\nnot. And may not we conclude that the Bishop was sleeping, when, though\nboth in this and divers other places, such convincing light was holden out\nbefore them, yet hath he said nothing, nor stirred himself at all for the\nmatter? Yet, farther, we find that Bishop Spotswood, in his sermon at that\npretended Assembly, answereth all such as cannot yield to the ceremonies\nwith the peace of their consciences, that without any more ado, they may\nnot control public judgment, but must always esteem that to be best and\nmost seemly which seemeth so in the eye of public authority,\u2014that even\nsuch rites and orders as are not rightly established must be obeyed so\nlong as they have the force of a constitution,\u2014that the sentence of\nsuperiors ought to direct us, and be a sufficient ground to our conscience\nfor obeying. This is the best of their reasoning, and before all fail. The\nBishop of Winchester reasoneth from bare custom.(349) Have we not cause to\nrenew the complaint which John Lascus made in behalf of the Protestants in\nGermany,(350) _nulla cognitione causae per colloquium aut amicam\nsuffragiorum collationem habita, sed praejudicio tantum ipsorum sententiam\ndamnari_.\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER VIII.\n\n\nTHAT THE INEXPEDIENCY OF THE CEREMONIES, IN RESPECT OF THE SCANDAL OF THE\nWEAK, MAY BE PLAINLY PERCEIVED. TWELVE PROPOSITIONS TOUCHING SCANDAL ARE\nPREMITTED.\n\n\n_Sect._ 1. There remaineth yet another inconveniency found in the\nceremonies, which is scandal. They hinder our spiritual edification and\ngrowth in faith and plerophory, and make us stumble instead of going\nforward. The best members of the body should be cut off when they offend,\nmuch more the superfluous humours, such as the popish ceremonies must be\nreckoned to be, Matt. v. 29, 30. And what if some wide consciences think\nthe ceremonies no stumbling-blocks? Nay, what if some pretend that they\nedify? _Ferulae asinis gratissimae sunt in pabulo, caeteris vero jumentis\npraesentaneo veneno._(_351_) It is enough to evince the inconveniency of\nthe ceremonies, that some are scandalised, yea, many tender consciences\nare made to stumble by their means. We learn from our Master, that the\nscandal of one is to be cared for, much more the scandal of many,\nespecially if those many be of the number of the little ones which believe\nin him, Matt. xviii. 6. But for our clearer proceeding in this argument I\nwill premit these propositions, of which we are to make use.\n\n_Sect_ 2. 1st. \u03a3\u03ba\u03ac\u03bd\u03b4\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u1f40\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bc\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1, Scandal or offence is not the\ngrieving or displeasing of my brother, for peradventure when I grieve him\nor displease him, I do edify him. Now edification and scandal are not\ncompatible, but scandal is a word or deed proceeding from me, which is, or\nmay be, the occasion of another man\u2019s halting, or falling, or swerving\nfrom the straight way of righteousness. _Scandalum_ (saith Jerome(352))\n_nos offendiculum, vel j uinam et impactionem pedis possumus dcac quando\nergo legimus, quieunque de minimus istis scandalizavenit quempiam hoc\nintelligimus quieunque dicto factove occasionem j uinoe cuiquam dederit\nScandalum_ (saith Almandus Polanus(353)) _est dictum vel factum, quo alius\ndetenor redditum_.\n\n2d. This occasion of halting, stumbling, or swerving, which we call\nscandal, is some times only given on the part of the offender, sometimes\nonly taken on the part of the offended, sometimes both given on the one\npart, and taken on the other. The first sort is _scandal given and not\ntaken_, the second is _scandal taken and not given_, the third is _scandal\nboth taken and given_.\n\n3d. All these three kinds of scandal are sinful. The first is the sin of\nthe offender, for it is a fault to give my brother occasion of stumbling,\nthough he stumble not. The second is the sin of the offended, who should\nnot take offence where he hath no cause. The third is a sin on both sides,\nfor as it is a fault to lay an occasion of falling before another, so it\nis a fault in him to fall, though he have occasion.\n\n_Sect._ 3. 4th. A scandal given, or active, is not only such a word or\ndeed whereby we intend the fall of our brother, but also such a word or\ndeed(354), _quod de sui ratione habet, quod sit inductivum ad peccandum,\nputa __ cum aliquis publice facit peccatum, vel quod habet similitudinem\npeccati_, John xvi. 2. Put the case: A man staying away from the Christian\nassemblies and public worship of God, intending to employ his studies all\nthis time for the good of the church by writing, such a man doth not only\nnot intend the fall of others, but, by the contrary, he intendeth\nedification; yet doth he scandalise them, because _ratio et conditio\noperis_ is scandalous and inductive to sin.\n\n5th. An active scandal is given (and so is faulty) many ways. If it be in\na thing lawful, then it makes our brother condemn our lawful deed, yea,\nanimates him by our example to that which in his conscience he condemneth,\nboth which are sin. If it be in a thing unlawful, then is the scandal\ngiven and peccant, it, 1. Either our brother be made to fall into the\noutward act of sin; or, 2. If he be made to stumble in his conscience, and\nto call in question the way of truth; or, 3. If it do so much as to make\nhim halt, or weaken his plerophory or full assurance; or, 4. If it hinder\nhis growth and going forward, and make him, though neither to fall, nor to\nstumble, nor to halt, yet to have a smaller progress; or, 5. If none of\nthese evils be produced in our brother, yet when, either through our\nintention and the condition of the deed together, or through the condition\nof the deed alone, occasion is given him of sinning any one of these ways.\n_Opus nostrum_ (saith a great proctor for popish ceremonies(355)) _quoties\nsive natura sua, sive superaddito accidente alicujus circumstantiae, est\ninductivum proximi ad peccatum, sive causativum magni mali, sive\nturbativum boni spiritualis; sive impeditivum fidei, &c., quamvis etiam\neffectus non sequeretur, malum est et peccatum._\n\n_Sect._ 4. 6th. A passive scandal, which is taken and not given, is not\nonly faulty when it proceedeth of malice, but also when it proceedeth of\nignorance and infirmity; and _scandalum pusillorum_ may be _scandalum\nacceptum_, on the part of the offended faulty, as well as _scandalum\nPharisaeorum_. When weak ones are offended at me for the use of a lawful\nthing, before I know of their weakness, and their taking of offence, the\nscandal is only passive; and so we see that weak ones may take offence\nwhere none is given, as well as the malicious. Now, their taking of\noffence, though it proceed of weakness, yet is sinful; for their weakness\nand ignorance is a fault, and doth not excuse them.\n\n7th. A scandal may be at first only passive, and yet afterward become\nactive. For example, Gideon\u2019s ephod and the brazen serpent were monuments\nof God\u2019s mercies, and were neither evil nor appearances of evil; so that\nwhen people were first scandalised by them the scandal was merely passive,\nbut the keeping and retaining of them, after that scandal rose out of\nthem, made the scandal to become active also, because the reserving of\nthem after that time was not without appearance of evil.\n\n_Sect._ 5. 8th. The occasion of a scandal which is only passive should be\nremoved, if it be not some necessary thing, and we are not only to shun\nthat which giveth scandal, but also that whereupon followeth a scandal\ntaken, whatsoever it be, if it be not necessary. This is so evident, that\nPapists themselves subscribe to it; for both Cardinal Cajetan(356) and\nDominicus Bannes say, that we should abstain even _a spiritualibus non\nnecessariis_ when scandal riseth out of them.\n\n9th. Neither can the indifferency or lawfulness of the thing done, nor the\nordinance of authority commanding the use of it, make the scandal\nfollowing upon it to be only passive, which otherwise, _i.e._, in case the\nthing were neither lawful nor ordained by authority, should be active. Not\nthe former; for our divines teach,(357) that _scandalum datum_ riseth\nsometimes, _ex facto in se adiaphoro_, when it is done _intempestive,\ncontra charitatis regulam_. Not the latter; for no human authority can\ntake away the condition of scandal from that which otherwise should be\nscandal, because _nullus homo potest vel charitati, vel conscientiis\nnostris imperare, vel periculum scandali dati prestare_, saith a learned\nCasuist.(358)\n\n10th. A scandal is passive and taken by the scandalised without the fault\nof the doer, only in this case,(359) _cum factum unius est alteri occasio\npeccandi praeter intentionem facientis, et conditionem facti_, so that to\nthe making of the doer blameless, is not only required that he intend not\nhis brother\u2019s fall, but also that the deed be neither evil in itself, nor\nyet done inordinately, and with appearance of evil.\n\n_Sect._ 6. 11th. The scandal not to be cared for is only in necessary\nthings, such as the hearing of the word, prayer, &c., from which we may\nnot abstain, though all the world should be offended at us. In these, I\nsay, and these only, _scandalum quod oritur ex rebus per se bonis et\nnecessariis, non licet evitare, &c., at rerum legitimarum sed non\nnecessariarum dispar est ratio, &c.,_ saith a great Formalist.(360)\n\n12th. We ought, for the scandal of the malicious, to abstain from all\nthings from which we ought to abstain for the scandal of the weak; for we\nought not to abstain from necessary things for the scandal of the weak, no\nmore than for the scandal of the malicious, and from things that are not\nnecessary, we ought to abstain for the scandal of the malicious as well as\nfor the scandal of the weak. So that weakness and malice in the offended\n_non variant speciem scandali_, but only _gradum ejusdem speciei_. Both\nhis fault who is offended through malice, is greater than his fault who is\noffended through weakness, and likewise his fault who offends the weak in\nthe faith, is greater than his fault who offends those who are malicious\nagainst the faith, because as we ought to do good to all men, so chiefly\nto those of the household of faith. Nevertheless, the kind of scandal\nremains the same, whether we have to do with the malicious or the weak.\n\nThey are, therefore, greatly mistaken, who conclude from Paul\u2019s not\ncircumcising of Titus, Gal. ii. 4, 5, that he cared not for the scandal of\nthe malicious. The argument were good if those false brethren had been\nscandalised by his not circumcising of Titus; but they were only\ndispleased hereby, not scandalised. The Apostle saw that they were to be\nscandalised by his circumcising of Titus; therefore, of very purpose, he\ncircumcised him not, because he foresaw _statim fore ut illi traherent in\ncalumniam_, saith Calvin.(361) _Ne eo circumciso gloriarentur evangelicam\nlibertatem quam Paulus praedicabat sublatam_, saith Bullinger.(362) If\nthey had compelled him to circumcise Titus, _falsis fratribus parata erat\ncalumniandi ansa adversus Paulum_, saith Pareus,(363) who also inferreth\nwell from this place, that we are taught to beware of two extremes, to\nwit, the scandal of the weak on the one part, and the pervicacy of false\nbrethren on the other part: _Si enim_, saith he, _usu rerum mediarum\nvidemus, vel illos offendi, hoc est, in fide labefactari vel istos in\nfalsa opinione obfirmari omittendae potius sunt, quia tunc per accidens\nfiunt illicitae._ Whereupon I throw back the argument, and prove from this\nplace, that Paul cared to shun the scandal of the malicious, which should\nhave followed upon his circumcising of Titus, as well as he cared to shun\nthe offence of the weak, which should have followed upon his not\ncircumcising of Timothy; and that Paul cared for the scandal of the\nmalicious is further confirmed by his not taking wages at Corinth. They\nwho would have been offended at his taking wages there were malicious, and\ndid but seek occasion against him, 2 Cor. xi. 12, yet his taking wages\nthere not being necessary (as appeareth from 2 Cor. xi. 9), he abstained.\n\nChrist\u2019s not caring for the scandal of the Pharisees is also objected, to\nprove that if the thing be lawful or indifferent, we are not to care for\nthe offence of the malicious. But Parker answereth well:(364) \u201cThe scandal\nthere not cared for is, when the Pharisees are offended at his abstaining\nfrom their washings and his preaching of true doctrine,\u2014both of which were\nnecessary duties for him to do. And when he defendeth his healing on\nSabbaths, Luke xiii. 15, and his disciples\u2019 plucking ears, Matt. xii. 7,\nupon this reason they are duties of necessity and charity, he plainly\ninsinuateth, there is no defence for deeds unnecessary when the malicious\nare scandalised. When the thing was indifferent, doth he not forego his\nliberty for to please them, as when he paid tribute, lest he should offend\nthem, although he knew they were malicious?\u201d Matt. xvii. 27.\n\nThus have I evinced a main point, namely, that when scandal is known to\nfollow upon anything, if it be not necessary, there is no respect\nwhatsoever which can justify it.\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER IX.\n\n\nALL THE DEFENCES OF THE CEREMONIES, USED TO JUSTIFY THEM AGAINST THE\nSCANDAL IMPUTED TO THEM, ARE CONFUTED.\n\n\n_Sect._ 1. From that which hath been said it followeth inevitably, that\nsince scandal riseth out of the controverted ceremonies, and since they\nare not things necessary, they are to be condemned and removed as most\ninconvenient. But that the inconveniency of them, in respect of the\nscandal which they cause, may be particularly and plainly evinced, I come\nto discuss all the defences which our opposites use against our argument\nof scandal. These Formalists, who acknowledge the inconveniency of the\nceremonies in respect of scandal, and yet conform themselves to the same,\nare brought in by Hooker(365) making their apology on this wise: \u201cTouching\nthe offence of the weak, we must adventure it; if they perish, they\nperish, &c. Our pastoral charge is God\u2019s absolute commandment, rather than\nthat shall be taken from us,\u201d &c. The opinion of such, beside that it will\nbe hateful and accursed to every one who considereth it, I have said\nenough against it heretofore.(366)\n\n_Sect._ 2. Wherefore I will here meddle only with such as go about to\npurge the ceremonies from the inconveniency of scandal. And first, they\ncommonly answer us, that the scandal which followeth upon the ceremonies\nis passive and taken only, not active and given, which answer I find both\nimpertinent and false. It is impertinent, because, put the case: the\nscandal were only passive and taken, yet the occasion of it should be\nremoved out of the way when it is not a thing necessary, according to my\n8th, 11th, and 12th propositions; and if any of our opposites will deny\nthis, let them blush for shame. A Jesuit shall correct them,(367) and\nteach them from Matt. xvii. 27, that Christ shunned a scandal which would\nhave been merely passive, and therefore that this is not to be taken for a\nsure and perpetual rule, _scandalum datum, not acceptum esse vitandum_.\nOne of our own writers upon this same place noteth,(368) that this scandal\nwhich Christ eschewed, had been a scandal taken only, because the exactors\nof the tribute-money ought not to have been ignorant of Christ\u2019s immunity\nand dignity; yet because they were ignorant of the same, lest he should\nseem to give a scandal, _cedere potius sua libertate voluit. Ideo non\ntantum dicit: ne scandalizentur: sed ne scandalizemus eos, hoc est, ne\nscandali materiam eis demus_.\n\n_Sect_. 3. Their answer is also false: 1. There is no scandal taken but\n(if it be known to be taken, and the thing at which it is taken be not\nnecessary) it is also given. The scandal of the weak, in the apostles\u2019\ntimes, who were offended with the liberty of eating all sorts of meats,\nwas passive and taken, as Zanchius observeth,(369) yet was that scandal\ngiven and peccant upon their part, who used their liberty of eating all\nsorts of meats, and so cared not for the offence of the weak. Think they\nthen that our taking of offence can excuse their giving of offence? Nay,\nsince the things whereby they offend us are no necessary things, they are\ngreatly to be blamed.\n\nThat the ceremonies are not necessary in themselves our opposites\nacknowledge, and that they are not necessary in respect of the church\u2019s\ndetermination, I have proved in the first part of my dispute. Wherefore,\nhaving no necessity in them, they ought to be abolished, when scandal is\nknown to arise out of them.\n\n2. Giving and not granting that the scandal of them who were first\noffended at the ceremonies was only passive, yet the using of them after\nscandal is known to rise out of them, must be an active scandal, because\nthe keeping of a thing which is not necessary, after scandal riseth out of\nit, is an active scandal, though the scandal which at first rose out of it\nhad been only passive, as I show in my seventh proposition.\n\n3. The truth is, that both first and last the scandal of the ceremonies is\nactive and given; for an active scandal is _dictum vel factum vere malum,\naut mali speciem habens, quo auctor aliis peccandi occasionem praebet_,\nsay our divines.(370) An active scandal is ever a sin in him who\noffendeth, _quia vel ipsum opus quod facit est peccatum, vel etiam si\nhabeat speciem peccati_, &c., say the schoolmen.(371) A scandal given and\nfaulty, _id opus aut ex se malum, aut apparentur_, say Formalists\nthemselves.(372)\n\n_Sect._ 4. Now to say the least that can be said, the ceremonies have a\nvery great appearance of evil, and so the scandal which followeth them\nshall be proved to be active. The divines of Magdeburg(373) infer from 1\nThess. v. 22, _speciem mali etiam scandala conficere_. Junius\nteacheth,(374) that scandal is given, _sive exemplo malo, sive speciem\nhabente mali_. M. Ant. de Dominis maketh(375) the scandal sin, _Ubi quis\nopere suo aliquo, vel de se malo vel indifferenti, aut bono, sed cum\nspecie apparentis mali, proximum inducit ad peccandum, etiamsi intentio\nipsius ad hoc non feratur._\n\nBut to discover the appearance of evil which is in the ceremonies, let us\nconsider with Zanchius,(376) that the appearance of evil from which the\nApostle exhorteth to abstain may be expounded two ways. First, It may be\nreferred to the preceding words, and so meant of prophecy and trying the\ndoctrine of prophets or preachers, for we should beware in this matter of\nall which hath any appearance of evil, that is, from all things, _quae ab\nhaereticis in suam sententiam, malamque consequentiam trahi possunt_. For\nexample, saith Zanchius, Nestorius said, that we are saved by the blood,\nnot of the Son of God, but of the Son of man. Now if any, suppressing that\nnegative, should say, we are saved by the blood of the Son of man, though\nthis might receive a right explication, yet it hath an appearance of evil,\nbecause from it Nestorius might confirm his heresy. Appearance of evil\nthus expounded will be found in the ceremonies in question. If a phrase or\nform of speaking from which heretics may draw bad consequences, and\nconfirm their errors, though not truly, yet in show, be an appearance of\nevil, then much more are visible ceremonies and received customs, from\nwhich heretics get occasion to confirm their heretical errors, and\ndamnable superstitions, very plain and undeniable appearances of much\nevil.\n\nNow Papists confirm many of their superstitions by the English ceremonies.\nParker(377) giveth too many clear instances, namely, that by the English\ncross Martial justifieth the popish cross, and Saunders the popish images.\nThat the English service-book is drawn by Parsons and Bristowe, to a\ncountenancing of their mass-book; that Rainold draweth private baptism to\na proof of the necessity which they put in that sacrament; that the\nRhemists draw the absolution of the sick, prescribed in the\ncommunion-book, to an approbation of their absolution, auricular\nconfession, and sacrament of penance. To these instances I add, that the\nRhemists(378) confirm the least of their assumption of Mary for the other\nfeasts which the church of England observeth. And so doth J. Hart.(379)\n\n_Sect._ 5. It will be said, that Papists have no ground nor reason to\nconfirm any of their superstitions by the English ceremonies. But I\nanswer: 1. If it were so, yet forasmuch as Papists draw them to a\nconfirmation of their superstitions, we should abstain from them as\nappearances of evil. Eating (at a private banquet) of that which was\nsacrificed to idols, did confirm an idolator and infidel in his religion,\nas Pareus(380) noteth; yet from this the idolator had no reason to confirm\nhimself in his idolatry; but because the idolator, seeing it, might draw\nit to a confirmation, the Apostle will have it for that respect forborne.\nWhen the Arians abused trin-immersion in baptism, to signify three natures\nof the three persons, Pope Gregory,(381) and the fourth council of Toledo\nordained,(382) that in Spain, thrice washing should no longer be used in\nbaptism, but once only. The Arians had no just reason to draw such a\nsignification from the ceremony of trin-immersion, yet was it abolished\nwhen those heretics did so abuse it. If any say, that we are saved by the\nblood of the Son of man, the phrase is orthodox, because of the\ncommunication, or rather communion of properties, and the Nestorians\ncannot with good reason by it confirm their heresy, yet are we to abstain\nfrom this form of speech, in Zanchius\u2019s judgment, when it is drawn to the\nconfirmation of that error.\n\nI conclude with that which Parker(383) allegeth out of the _Harmony of\nConfessions: Cum adiaphora rapiuntur ad confessionem, libera esse\ndesinunt_. Mark _rapiuntur_. 2. The ceremonies do indeed greatly\ncountenance those superstitions of Papists, because _communio rituum est\nquasi symbolum communionis in religione_;(384) so that Papists get\noccasion from the ceremonies, of confirming, not only those popish rites\nwhich we have not yet received, but also the whole popish religion,\nespecially since they see Conformists so siding with them against\nNon-Conformists, and making both their opinions and practices to be better\nthan we reckon them to be.\n\nSaravia,(385) perceiving how much the popish sacrament of confirmation is\ncountenanced and confirmed by our bishoping, thinks it best to put the\nfairest face he can upon the Papists\u2019 judgment of that bastard sacrament.\nHe would have us believe, that the Papists do not extol the dignity of the\nsacrament of confirmation above baptism. But he should have considered\nthat which Cartwright(386) marketh out of the first tome of the councils,\nthat in the epistle which is ascribed to Eusebius and Melciades, bishops\nof Rome, it is plainly affirmed, that the sacrament of confirmation \u201cis\nmore to be reverenced than the sacrament of baptism.\u201d\n\n_Sect._ 6. Zanchius hath another exposition of the appearance of evil,\nwhich doth also agree to the ceremonies. The appearance of evil which\nmaketh scandal, and from which the Apostle would have us to abstain, may\nbe taken generally of all sorts of sin, and all evil things whatsoever;\nfor so we should abstain from all that which hath any appearance of evil;\n_nullam proebentes occasionem proximo nostro aliquid mali de nobis\nsuspicandi_. He instanceth for example, the eating of idolothites in\nPaul\u2019s time, 1 Cor. x. Now if the eating of idolothite meats was an\nappearance of evil, and so scandalous, because it gave the weak occasion\nto suspect some evil of such as did eat them, much more idolothite rites\nwhich have not only been dedicated and consecrated to the honour of idols,\nbut also publicly and commonly used and employed in idolatrous worship;\nsurely whosoever useth such idolothites, gives great occasion to his\nbrother to suspect some evil of him, because of such evil-favoured\nappearances. And thus we see how great appearance of evil is more than\nmanifest in the ceremonies, which maketh the scandal active, if there were\nno more; but afterwards we shall see the ceremonies to be evil and\nunlawful in themselves, and so to be in the worst kind of active scandal.\n\n_Sect._ 7. Two things are objected here by our adversaries, to make it\nappear that the scandal of conformity is not active nor faulty upon their\npart. 1. They say they are blameless, because they render a reason of that\nwhich they do, so that we may know the lawfulness of it. To this\nsufficient answer hath been made already by one whose answers I may well\nproduce to provoke Conformists therewith, because no reply hath ever been\nmade to them. \u201cThis (saith he(387)), if it be true, then see we an end of\nall the duty of bearing with the weak; of forbearing our own liberty,\npower, and authority in things indifferent, for their supportance; yea, an\nend of all the care to prevent their offence, by giving them occasion _aut\ncondemnandi factum nostrum, aut illud imitandi contra conscientiam_,(388)\nwhich we have so often,(389) so seriously, with so many reasons,\nobtestations, yea, woes and threatenings, commanded to us throughout the\nword. What needed Paul to write so much against the scandal of meats, and\nagainst the scandal of idolothious meats? This one precept might have\nsufficed, let the strong give a reason for his eating, &c. Though he hath\ngiven many reasons to them of Corinth for the lawfulness of taking wages;\nthough he hath given divers reasons for the lawfulness of all sorts of\nmeats to them of Rome, yet neither will take wages himself, nor suffer\nothers to eat all sorts of meats, when others are offended. And what is\nthat which he writeth Rom. x.? Take and receive the weak for their\nsupportance, and not for controversy and disputation,\u201d &c.\n\nIt will be said that they are to be thought obstinate, who, after a reason\ngiven, are still scandalised. But the answer is in readiness: _Fieri\npotest ut quidam nondum sint capaces rationis reddit\u00e6, qui idcirco quamvis\nratio sit illis reddita, habendi sunt adhuc propusillis_.(390) They are\nrather to be thought obstinate in scandalising, who, perceiving the\nscandal to remain, notwithstanding of their reason given, yet for all that\ntake not away the occasion of the scandal. But say some,(391) whoever\nought to be esteemed weak, or not capable of reason, ministers must not be\nso thought of. Whereunto I answer with Didoclavius:(392) _Infirmitatem in\ndoctiores cadere posse, neminem negaturum puto, et superiorum temporum\nhistoria de dimicatione inter doctores ecclesi\u00e6, ob ceremonias, idipsum\nprobat. Parati etiam sunt coram Deo testari se non posse acquiescere __ in\nFormalistarum foliis ficulneis_. The reason which they give us commonly is\nwill and authority; or if at any time they give another reason, it is such\nan one as cannot clear nor resolve our consciences. But let their reasons\nbe so good as any can be, shall we be thought obstinate for being\noffended, notwithstanding of their reason? Dare they say that those who\ncontended so much of old about the celebration of Easter, and about the\nfeast of the Sabbath, were not weak, but obstinate and malicious, after a\nreason was given? Why consider they not, that \u201cmen may, for their\nscience,(393) be profitable ministers, and yet fail of that measure of\nprudence whereby to judge of a particular use of indifferent things?\u201d\n\n_Sect._ 8. 2d. They say they give no scandal by the ceremonies, because\nthey have no such intent as to draw any into sin by them. _Ans._ A\nscandalous and inordinate quality or condition of an action, any way\ninductive to sin, maketh an active scandal, though the doer have no\nintention to draw into sin. This I made good in my fourth proposition; and\nit is further confirmed by that great scandal whereby Peter compelled the\nGentiles to Judaise, Gal. ii. 14. \u201cHe constrained them (saith\nPerkins(394)) by the authority of his example, whereby he caused them to\nthink that the observation of the ceremonial law was necessary.\u201d It was\nthen the quality of his action which made the scandal active, because that\nwhich he did was inductive to sin, but we are not to think that Peter had\nan intention to draw the Gentiles to sin. Cardinal Baronius(395) laboureth\nto make Peter blameless, and his fact free of all fault; _quia pr\u00e6ter\nipsius spem id acciderat_, and it fell forth only _ex accidenti et\ninopinato, ac pr\u00e6ter intentionem ipsius_. M. Ant. de Dominis(396)\nconfuteth him well: _Est scandalum et cum peccato, quando quis licet non\nintendat peccatum alterius, facit autem opus aut ex se malum aut\napparenter, ex quo scit, aut scire debet, consequuturum alterius peccatum,\naut quodeunque malum: nam etiam dicitur illud voluntarium interpretative._\n\n_Sect._ 9. I will yet descend more particularly to confute our opposites\u2019\nseveral answers and defences, which they have used against our argument of\nscandal. And I begin with our Lord Chancellor: \u201cAs for the godly amongst\nus (saith he(397)), we are sorry they should be grieved; but it is their\nown fault, for if the things be in themselves lawful, what is it that\nshould offend them?\u201d\n\n_Ans._ 1. He does not well express scandal (whereof he is there speaking)\nby grief; for I may be grieved, yet not scandalised, and scandalised, yet\nnot grieved, according to my first proposition touching scandal.\n\n2. To what purpose tells he it is their own fault? Thinks he that there\nare any offended without their own fault? To be offended is ever a\nfault,(398) as I show in my third and sixth propositions; so that if a\nscandal be not removed where it is men\u2019s own fault that they are offended,\nthen no scandal shall ever be removed, because all who are scandalised\ncommit a fault in being scandalised. _Nihil potest esse homini causa\nsufficiens peccati, quod est spiritualis ruina, nisi propria voluntas; et\nideo dicta vel facta alterius hominis possunt esse solum causa imperfecta\naliqualiter inducens ad ruinam_, saith Aquinas,(399) giving a reason why,\nin the definition of scandals, he saith not that it giveth cause, but that\nit giveth occasion of ruin.\n\n3. Why thinks he that if the things be in themselves lawful, they are\npurged of scandal? What if they edify not? 1 Cor. xx. 23. What if they be\nnot expedient? Are they not therefore scandalous, because in themselves\nlawful? This shift is destroyed by my ninth proposition. And, I pray, were\nnot all meats lawful for the Gentiles in the apostles\u2019 times? Yet this\ncould not excuse their eating all sorts of meats, when the Jews were\nthereby offended.\n\n4. Whereas he demandeth, if the things be in themselves lawful, what is it\nthat should offend them? I demand again, though adultery, murder, &c., be\nin themselves unlawful, what is it that should offend us? Should we offend\nor be scandalised for anything? Nay, then, we should sin; for to be\noffended is a sin.\n\n5. He had said to better purpose, What is it that may offend them, or doth\noffend them, that it may be voided? Whereunto I answer, that there is a\ntwofold scandal which may be and hath been given by things lawful in\nthemselves (as I touched in my fifth proposition), viz, the giving of\noccasion to the weak to condemn our lawful deeds, and the animating of\nthem to follow our example against their own consciences\u2014both ways we may\nmake them to sin. The Apostle, 1 Cor. x. 29, where he is speaking of a\ncertain kind of idolothites which are in themselves lawful, and only evil\nin the case of scandal, showeth, that if the weak, in a private banquet,\nsee the strong eating such meats as have been offered to idols,\nnotwithstanding of warning given, then is the weak one scandalised,\nbecause, would the Apostle say, _Vel ipse etiam edet tuo exemplo,\nvacillante conseientia, vel tacite factum tuum damnabit._(400) Behold what\nscandal may arise even out of things which are in themselves lawful, which\nalso ariseth out of the ceremonies (let them be as lawful as can be). 1.\nWe art provoked to disallow of lawful things, and to condemn the doers as\nsuperstitious and popishly affected. 2. We are animated by the example of\nFormalists to practise conformity, which in our consciences we condemn,\nand by consequence do sin, because he that doubteth is damned, and\nwhatsoever is not of faith is sin.\n\n_Sect._ 10. Let us see next how the Bishop of Edinburgh can help the\ncause. He will have us not to respect scandal, because it is removed by\nthe law. \u201cFor (saith he(401)) by obedience to a lawful ordinance, no man\ngives scandal, and if any take offence, both the cause and occasion\nthereof is the perverseness only of the person offended.\u201d Tertullian saith\nwell, _Res bona neminem offendit nisi malam mentem_.\n\n_Ans._ 1. I show in my ninth proposition, that the ordinance of superiors\ncannot make that to be no scandal which otherwise should be scandal. If\nthis be not taken well from us, let one of our opposites speak for us, who\nacknowledgeth that human power cannot make us do that which we cannot do\nwithout giving of scandal, and that, in this case, the pretext of\nobedience to superiors shall not excuse us at the hands of the Supreme\nJudge.\n\n2. I would learn of him what makes a lawful ordinance about matters of\nfact or things to be done? Not the will of superiors, else there shall be\nno unlawful ordinances (for every ordinance hath the will of the\nordainer), not the lawfulness of the thing in itself which is ordained\nneither, for then every ordinance which prescribeth a thing lawful in\nitself, were it never so inexpedient in respect of supervenient\ncircumstances, should be lawful. To a lawful ordinance then is required,\nnot only that the thing ordained be lawful in itself, but also that it be\nnot inexpedient, so that a thing may be lawful in itself, yet not lawfully\nordained, because the ordinance commandeth the doing of it, whereas there\nare many things lawful which ought not to be done, because they are not\nexpedient, 1 Cor. vi. 12.\n\n3. Since it cannot be a lawful ordinance which ordaineth a thing\ninexpedient, it cannot be a lawful obedience which is yielded to such an\nordinance.\n\n4. If by a lawful ordinance he mean (as it seems he doth) an ordinance\nprescribing that which is lawful in itself, then his answer is false. What\nif an ordinance of superiors had ordained the Corinthians to eat freely of\nall meats which were in themselves clean? Durst the Bishop say that this\nordinance of superiors had been of greater weight and superior reason than\nthe law of charity, which is God\u2019s law? Had no man given scandal by\nobedience to this ordinance? And would not the Apostle for all that have\nforbidden, as he did, the using of this liberty with the offence of\nothers?\n\n5. When any man is offended at a thing lawful, prescribed by an ordinance,\nthe cause thereof is indeed in himself (yet it is not always his\nperverseness, but oftimes weakness), but the occasion of it is the thing\nat which he offendeth, which occasion should ever be removed when it is\nnot a thing necessary, as I showed already.\n\n6. As for that sentence of Tertullian, it must admit the exception of a\nreverend divine. He signifieth, saith Pareus,(402) scandal not to be\nproperly committed, save in things evil in themselves, or else indifferent\n_quanquam interdum cuma bonas intempestive factas, etiam committi possit_.\n\n_Sect._ 11. In the third place, we will look what weapons of war Dr\nForbesse produceth in his _Irenicum_,(403) falsely so called. And first,\nhe will not hear us touching scandal, except we first acknowledge the\nceremonies not to be evil in themselves otherwise he thinks we debate in\nvain about scandal, since we have a more convenient way to exterminate the\nceremonies, by proving them to be evil in themselves, and also because,\nwhen we are pressed with the weight of arguments, we will still run back\nto this point, that nothing which in itself is unlawful can be done\nwithout scandal.\n\n_Ans._ 1. The argument of scandal is not vainly or idly debated, for\nthough we prove the ceremonies to be evil in themselves, yet fitly we\nargument also from the scandal of them, because this maketh yet more. 1.\n_Ad rem_, for the scandal of a thing is more than the unlawfulness of it;\nevery unlawful thing is not scandalous, but that only which is done to the\nknowledge of another. 2. _Ad hominem_, for that we may either content or\nconvince our opposites, we argument _ex ipsorum concessis_, to this\npurpose,\u2014that since they yield the ceremonies to be in themselves\nindifferent, therefore they must acknowledge that they are to be forborne,\nbecause scandal followeth upon them, and they should abstain from things\nindifferent, in the case of scandal.\n\n2. Whereas he thinks we will still turn back to the unlawfulness of the\nceremonies in themselves, albeit we may justly make use of this answer,\nwhen they go about to purge the ceremonies from scandal by the lawfulness\nof them in themselves, (because the argument of scandal doth not\npresuppose our concession of the lawfulness of the ceremonies, but\ntheirs,) yet he deceives himself in thinking that we cannot handle this\nargument without it, for were they never so lawful in themselves, we\nevince the scandal of them from the appearance of evil which is in\nthem,(404) so that, without respecting the unlawfulness of the ceremonies\nin themselves, we can and do make good our argument of scandal, so far as\nconcerneth the ceremonies considered by themselves.\n\nBut when our opposites object, that many are scandalised by us who refuse\nthe ceremonies, we here compare the scandal of non-conformity, if there be\nany such (for though some be displeased at it, I see not how they are\nscandalised by it), with the scandal of conformity, and show them that the\nscandal of non-conformity is not to be cared for, because it is necessary,\nand that by reason of the unlawfulness of the ceremonies. I will make all\nthis plain by a simile.\n\nA pastor dealing with a fornicator, layeth before him both his sin and the\nscandal of it too. Now, as touching the scandal, the fornicator careth not\nfor it, because he is in the opinion that fornication is indifferent.\nWhereupon the pastor thus proceedeth, If it were indifferent, as you say,\nyet because scandal riseth out of it, you should abstain. And so, amongst\nmany arguments against fornication, the pastor useth this argument taken\nfrom the scandal of it, both for aggravating the sin in itself, and for\nconvincing the sinner, and this argument of scandal the pastor can make\ngood against the fornicator out of his own ultroneous and unrequired\nconcession of the indifferency of fornication (because things indifferent,\nand in the case of scandal, and when they are done with the appearance of\nevil, should be forborne), without ever mentioning the unlawfulness of it.\nBut if in a froward tergiversation, the fornicator begin to reply, that he\nalso is scandalised and provoked to go on in his fornication obstinately,\nby the pastor rebuking him for so light a matter, and that the pastor\u2019s\nreproof to him hath appearance of evil, as much as his fornication hath to\nthe pastor, albeit here it may be answered, that the pastor\u2019s reproof is\nnot done inordinate, neither hath any appearance of evil, except in the\nfornicator\u2019s perverse interpretation, yet for stopping the fornicator\u2019s\nmouth, as well more forceably as more quickly, the pastor rejoineth, that\nif any scandal follow upon his reproof, it is not to be regarded, because\nthe thing is necessary, and that because fornication being a great sin, he\nmay not but reprove it.\n\nSo, albeit our argument of scandal holdeth out against the ceremonies\nconsidered by themselves, without making mention of the unlawfulness of\nthem in themselves albeit also when the scandal of non-conformity (if\nthere be any such) is compared with the scandal of conformity, we say\ntruly that this hath appearance of evil in its own condition, and that\nhath none, except in the false interpretation of those who glory in\ngainsaying.\n\nYet for further convincing of our opposites, and darting through their\nmost subtile subterfuges with a mortal stroke, we send them away with this\nfinal answer,\u2014You should abstain from the ceremonies when scandal riseth\nout of them, because you confess them to be in themselves indifferent. But\nwe do avouch and prove them to be unlawful, wherefore it is necessary for\nus to abstain, though all the world should be offended.\n\n_Sect._ 12. The Doctor(405) proceedeth to throw back the argument of\nscandal upon our own heads, and to charge us with scandalising both the\nchurch and commonwealth by our refusing the ceremonies. But what? should a\ndoctor be a dictator? or a proctor a prater? Why, then, doth he ventilate\nwords for reason? That some are displeased at our non-conformity, we\nunderstand to our great grief; but that thereby any are scandalised, we\nunderstand not; and if we did, yet that which is necessary, such as\nnon-conformity is, can be taken away by no scandal.\n\nBut the Doctor(406) goeth forward, denying that there is in the ceremonies\nso much as any appearance of evil, to make them scandalous. Where I\nobserve, that he dare not adventure to describe how a thing is said to\nhave appearance of evil, and consequently a scandalous condition. The man\nis cautelous, and perceiveth, peradventure, that the appearance of evil\ncan be made to appear no other thing than that which doth more than appear\nin the ceremonies. And this I have heretofore evinced out of Zanchius.\n\nThe Doctor(407) holdeth him upon kneeling in receiving the sacramental\nelements, and denieth that it is scandalous, or any way inductive to\nspiritual ruin. But (if he will) he may consider that the ruder sort, who\ncannot distinguish betwixt worshipping the bread, and worshipping before\nthe bread, nor discern how to make Christ the passive object of that\nworship and the bread the active, and how to worship Christ in the bread,\nand make the worship relative from the bread to Christ, are, by his\nexample, induced to bread-worship, when they perceive bowing down before\nthe consecrated bread in the very same form and fashion wherein Papists\nare seen to worship it, but cannot conceive the nice distinctions which he\nand his companions use to purge their kneeling in that act from idolatry.\nAs for others who have more knowledge, they are also induced to ruin,\nbeing animated by his example to do that which their consciences do\ncondemn.\n\nThere occurreth next an objection, taken from Paul\u2019s not taking wages at\nCorinth (though he might lawfully), for shunning the offence both of the\nmalicious and the weak; in the solution whereof the Doctor(408) spendeth\nsome words. The substance of his answer is this, that Paul taught it was\nlawful to take wages, and that they should not be offended at it; and if\nwe do as he did, we must teach that the ceremonies are lawful in\nthemselves, yet not using our power for the time, lest the weak be\noffended, or lest the malicious glory: but for all that, not denying our\nright and liberty, nor suffering a yoke of bondage to be imposed upon us\nby contumacious men. And, besides, that the Apostle was commanded by no\necclesiastical decree to take wages from the Corinthians, as we are\ncommanded by the decree of Perth to receive the five Articles; so that\nPaul might, without contempt of ecclesiastical authority, abstain from\ntaking of wages, but we cannot, without contempt of the church, reject the\nArticles.\n\n_Ans._ 1. This importeth, that if the question were not _de jure_, and if\nwe disliked the ceremonies, and were offended at them, for some other\nreason than their unlawfulness, for this offence they would abstain. It\nmay be his reverend fathers return him small thanks for this device. For\nlet some men be brought forth, acknowledging the ceremonies to be in\nthemselves indifferent, yet offended at them for their inexpediency,\nwhether they be weak or malicious, the Doctor thinks he should abstain for\ntheir cause.\n\n2. How knows he that they who were offended at Paul\u2019s taking of wages at\nCorinth, thought not his taking of wages there unlawful, even as we think\nthe ceremonies unlawful?\n\n3. Why judgeth he that we are not scandalised through weakness, but\nthrough malice and contumacy? So he giveth it forth both in this place and\nelsewhere.(409) Who art thou that judgest another man\u2019s servant?\n\nBut, 4. If we were malicious in offending at the ceremonies as things\nunlawful, and in urging of non-conformity as necessary, should they\ntherefore contemn our being scandalised? Those that would have Titus\ncircumcised, were they not malicious? Did they not urge circumcision as\nnecessary? Held they it not unlawful not to circumcise Titus? Yet did the\nApostle abstain because they were to be scandalised, that is, made worse\nand more wicked calumniators by the circumcising of Titus, as I have\nshowed;(410) so that albeit we know not to take care for the displeasing\nof men that maliciously (as necessary) abstaining from that which is\nlawful to be done, yet must we take care for scandalising them and making\nthem worse; rather, ere that be, we ought to abstain from the use of our\nliberty.\n\n5. If an ecclesiastical decree had commanded Paul at that time to take\nwages at Corinth, the Doctor thinks he had contemned ecclesiastical\nauthority in not taking wages, though some should be offended at his\ntaking wages. What! could an ecclesiastical decree command Paul to take\nwages in the case of scandal? or could he have obeyed such a decree in the\ncase of scandal? We have seen before that no human authority can make that\nno scandal which otherwise were scandal, so that Paul had not contemned\necclesiastical authority by not obeying their command in this case of\nscandal which had followed by his obeying, for he had not been bound to\nobey, nay, he had been bound not to obey in such a case, yea, further,\nalbeit scandal had not been to follow by his taking wages, yet he had no\nmore contemned the church by not obeying a command to take wages than he\nhad done by living unmarried, if the church had commanded him to marry.\nThe bare authority of the church could neither restrain his liberty nor\nours in things indifferent, when there is no more to bind but the\nauthority of an ordinance.\n\n6. Why holds he us contemners of the church for not receiving the five\nArticles of Perth? We cannot be called contemners for not obeying, but for\nnot subjecting ourselves, wherewith we cannot be charged. Could he not\ndistinguish betwixt subjection and obedience? Art thou a Doctor in Israel,\nand knowest not these things? Nil, art thou a Conformist, and knowest not\nwhat thy fellow Conformists do hold?\n\n_Sect._ 13. One point more resteth, at which the Doctor(411) holdeth him\nin this argument, namely, that for the offence of the weak necessary\nthings are not to be omitted, such as is obedience to superiors, but their\nminds are to be better informed.\n\n_Ans._ 1. Obedience to superiors cannot purge that from scandal which\notherwise were scandal, as we have seen before.(412)\n\n2. That information and giving of a reason cannot excuse the doing of that\nout of which scandal riseth, we have also proved already.(413)\n\n3. That the ordinance of superiors cannot make the ceremonies necessary, I\nhave proved in the first part of this dispute. This is given for one of\nthe chief marks of the man of sin,(414) \u201cThat which is indifferent, he by\nhis laws and prohibitions maketh to be sin;\u201d and shall they who profess to\ntake part with Christ against antichrist, do no less than this? It will be\nreplied, that the ceremonies are not thought necessary in themselves, nor\nnon-conformity unlawful in itself, but only in respect of the church\u2019s\nordinance. Just so the Papists profess,(415) that the omission of their\nrites and observances is not a sin in itself, but only in respect of\ncontemning the church\u2019s customs and commandments. How comes it, then, that\nthey are not ashamed to pretend such a necessity for the stumbling-blocks\nof those offending ceremonies among us, as Papists pretend for the like\namong them?\n\n_Sect._ 14. But the English Formalists have here somewhat to say, which we\nwill hear. Mr Hooker tells us,(416) that ceremonies are scandalous, either\nin their very nature, or else through the agreement of men to use them\nunto evil; and that ceremonies of this kind are either devised at first\nunto evil, or else having had a profitable use, they are afterwards\ninterpreted and wrested to the contrary. As for the English ceremonies, he\nsaith, that they are neither scandalous in their own nature, nor because\nthey were devised unto evil, nor yet because they of the church of England\nabuse them unto evil.\n\n_Ans._ 1. Though all this were true, yet forasmuch as they have been\nabused by the Papists unto idolatry and superstition, and are monuments of\nPopery, the trophies of Antichrist, and the relics of Rome\u2019s whorish\nbravery,\u2014they must be granted, at least for this respect, to be more than\nmanifest appearances of evil, and so scandalous.\n\nBut secondly, It is false which he saith; for kneeling in receiving the\ncommunion is, in its own nature, evil and idolatrous, because religious\nadoration before a mere creature, which purposely we set before us in the\nact of adoring, to have state in the worship, especially if it be an\nactual image in that act representing Christ to us (such as the bread in\nthe act of receiving) draweth us within the compass of co-adoration or\nrelative worship, as shall be copiously proved afterwards.\n\nOther of the ceremonies that are not evil in their own nature, yet were\ndevised to evil; for example, the surplice. The replier(417) to Dr\nMortoune\u2019s particular defence, observeth, that this superstition about\napparel in divine worship, began first among the French bishops, unto whom\nC\u00e6lestinus writeth thus:\u2014_Discernendi, &c._ \u201cWe are to be distinguished\nfrom the common people and others by doctrine, not by garment,\u2014by\nconversation, not by habit,\u2014by the purity of mind, not by attire; for if\nwe study to innovation, we tread under foot the order which hath been\ndelivered unto us by our fathers, to make place to idle superstitions;\nwherefore we ought not to lead the minds of the faithful into such things,\nfor they are rather to be instructed than played withal; neither are we to\nblind and beguile their eyes, but to infuse instructions into their\nminds.\u201d In which words C\u00e6lestinus reprehends this apparel, as a novelty\nwhich tended to superstition, and made way to the mocking and deceiving of\nthe faithful.\n\nLastly, Whereas he saith the ceremonies are not abused by them in England,\nI instance the contrary in holidays. Perkins saith,(418) that the feast of\nChrist\u2019s nativity, so commonly called, is not spent in praising the name\nof God, but in rifling, dicing, carding, masking, mumming, and in all\nlicentious liberty, for the most part, as though it were some heathen\nfeast of Ceres or Bacchus. And elsewhere(419) he complaineth of the great\nabuses of holidays among them.\n\n_Sect._ 15. As touching the rule which is alleged against the ceremonies\nout of Paul\u2019s doctrine, namely, that in those things from which we may\nlawfully abstain, we should frame the usage of our liberty with regard to\nthe weakness of our brethren. Hooker answereth to it, 1. That the weak\nbrethren among them were not as the Jews, who were known to be generally\nweak, whereas, saith he, the imbecility of ours is not common to so many,\nbut only here and there some such an one is found. 2. He tells us that\nthese scandalous meats, from which the Gentiles were exhorted to abstain\nfor fear of offending the Jews, cannot represent the ceremonies, for their\nusing of meats was a matter of private action in common life, where every\nman was free to order that which himself did, but the ceremonies are\npublic constitutions for ordering the church, and we are not to look that\nthe church is to change her public laws and ordinances, made according to\nthat which is judged ordinarily and commonly fittest for the whole,\nalthough it chance that, for some particular men, the same be found\ninconvenient, especially when there may be other remedies also against the\nsores of particular inconveniences. Let them be better instructed.\n\n_Ans._ 1. This is bad divinity that would make us not regard the\nscandalising of a few particular men. Christ\u2019s woe striketh not only upon\nthem who offend many, but even upon them who offend so much as one of his\nlittle ones, Matt. xviii 6.\n\n2. That which he saith of the few in England, and not many, who are\nscandalised by the ceremonies, hath been answered by a countryman of his\nown.(420) And as for us, we find most certainly that not a few, but many,\neven the greatest part of Scotland, one way or other, are scandalised by\nthe ceremonies. Some are led by them to drink in superstition, and to fall\ninto sundry gross abuses in religion, others are made to use them\ndoubtingly, and so damnably. And how many who refuse them are animated to\nuse them against their consciences, and so to be damned? Who is not made\nto stumble? And what way do they not impede the edificatlon of the church?\n\n3. What if there had been a public constitution, commanding the Gentiles\nto eat all meats freely, and that this hath been judged ordinarily and\ncommonly fittest for the whole, even to signify the liberty of the church\nof the New Testament? Should not the Gentiles, notwithstanding of this\nconstitution, have abstained because of the scandal of the Jews? How comes\nit then, that that which the Apostle writeth against the scandal of meats,\nand the reasons which he giveth, are found to hold over good, whether\nthere be a constitution or not?\n\n4. As for his remedy against the scandal of particular men, which is to\ninstruct them better, it hath been answered before.(421)\n\n_Sect._ 16. Now, if I reckon Paybody to be no body, perhaps some body will\nnot take it well. I will therefore examine how he handleth this argument.\nFour things are answered by him(422) to those places, Rom. xiv. 16; 1 Cor.\nviii. 10; Matt. xviii. 6, which are alleged against the use of things\nindifferent, when we cannot use them without scandal.\n\nFirst, he saith, that all those Scriptures which are quoted as condemning\nthe scandalising of others in things indifferent, speak only of\nscandalising them who are weak.\n\n_Ans._ 1. Be it so, thought he, that they are all malicious, and none\nweak, who are offended by the ceremonies. He himself describeth the weak\nwhom we are forbidden to scandalise, to be such as are weak in knowledge\nand certainty of the truth. Now there are many who are in this respect\nweak, scandalised by the ceremonies. But I say, moreover, that his\ndescription is imperfect; for there are some who know the truth, and that\ncertainly, who are, notwithstanding, to be accounted weak, in regard of\nthe defect of that prudence which should guide, and that stability which\nshould accompany all their actions, in the particular usage of such things\nas they know certainly, in their general kind, to be agreeable to truth\nand righteousness. Such Christians are impeded by the ceremonies from\ngoing on in their Christian course so fast as otherwise they would, if not\nalso made to waver or stumble. And thus are they properly scandalised\naccording to my fifth proposition. _Si quis nostra culpa vel impingit, vel\nabducitur a recto cursu, vel tardatur, cum dicimur offendere_, saith\nCalvin.(423) _Porro scandalum est dictum vel factum quo impeditur\nevangelii cursus, cujus ampliationem et propagationem, totius vitae\nnostrae scopum esse oportet_, saith Martyr.(424)\n\n2. It is a fault to give offence even to the strong, or else Peter was not\nto be blamed for giving offence to Christ, Matt. xvi. 23. Yea, it is a\nfault to offend the very malicious by things that are not necessary, as I\nhave proved in my twelfth proposition.\n\n_Sect._ 17. Secondly, saith he, all those Scriptures condemn only the\nscandal of the weak which is made at that time when we know they will be\nscandalised.\n\n_Ans._ 1. If he speak of certain and infallible knowledge, none but God\nknoweth whether a man shall be scandalised or not, by that which we are to\ndo. He must mean, therefore, of such knowledge as we can have of the event\nof our actions, and so his answer bringeth great damage to his own cause.\nFormalists know that then weak brethren have been of a long time\nscandalised by the ceremonies, and they hear them professing that they are\nyet scandalised, and how then can they but know that scandal will still\nfollow upon that which they do?\n\n2. Albeit they know not that their brethren will be scandalised by the\nceremonies, yea, albeit then brethren should not be scandalised thereby,\nyet because the ceremonies are appearances of evil, inductive to sin, and\noccasions of ruin, scandal is given by them, whether it be taken by their\nbrethren or not, according to my fourth and fifth propositions.\n\n_Sect._ 18. Thirdly, saith Paybody, all those Scriptures condemn only that\noffence of another in things indifferent, which is made by him who is at\nliberty and not bound, they speak not of using or refusing those things,\nas men are tied by the commandment of authority. Where he laboureth to\nprove that obedience to the magistrate in a thing indifferent is a better\nduty than the pleasing of a private person in such a thing.\n\n_Ans._ 1. I have proved heretofore, that the commandment of authority\ncannot make the use of a thing indifferent to be no scandal, which\notherwise were scandal.\n\n2. I have also proved in the first part of this dispute, that an\necclesiastical constitution cannot bind us, nor take away our liberty in\nthe using or not using of a thing indifferent in itself, except some other\nreason be showed us than the bare authority of the church. As touching the\ncivil magistrate\u2019s place and power to judge and determine in things\npertaining to the worship of God, we shall see it afterwards, and so shall\nwe know how far his decisions and ordinances in this kind of things have\nforce to bind us to obedience.\n\n3. He should have proved that obedience to the magistrate in a thing\nindifferent, is a better duty than abstaining from that which scandaliseth\nmany Christians. He should not have opposed pleasing and scandalising (for\nperhaps a man is most scandalised when he is most pleased), but edifying\nand scandalising, according to my first proposition. Now, will anybody\nexcept Paybody say, that obedience to the magistrate in a thing\nindifferent, out of which scandal riseth, is a better duty than forbearing\nfor the edification of many Christian souls, and for shunning to\nscandalise them. This we must take to be his meaning, or else he saith\nnothing to the purpose.\n\n_Sect._ 19. His fourth answer is, that all those scriptures condemning\nscandal, must needs especially condemn that which is greatest. Peter and\nhis companions coming to Antioch, were in danger of a double scandal;\neither of the Jews by eating with the Gentiles, which was the less, or of\nthe Gentiles in refusing their company, as if they had not been brethren,\nwhich was far the greater. Now Paul blamed Peter very much, that for the\navoiding the lesser scandal, he and his companions fell into the greater.\n\n_Ans._ 1. He is greatly mistaken whilst he thinks that a man can be so\nstraitened betwixt two scandals, that he cannot choose but give the one of\nthem. For, _nulla datur talis perplexitas, ut necessarium sit pro homini\nsive hoc sive illud faciat, scandalum alicui dare_.(425)\n\n2. That sentence of choosing the least of two evils, must be understood of\nevils of punishment, not of evils of sin, as I showed before,(426) so that\nhe is in a foul error whilst he would have us to choose the least of two\nscandals.\n\n3. As for the example which he allegeth, he deceiveth himself to think\nthat Peter had given scandal to the Jews by his eating with the Gentiles.\n_Cum Gentibus cibum capiens, recte utebatur libertate Christiana_, say the\nMagdeburgians;(427) but when certain Jews came from James, he withdrew\nhimself, fearing the Jews, and so _quod ante de libertate Christiana\naedificarat, rursus destruebat_, by eating, then, with the Gentiles, he\ngave no scandal, but by the contrary he did edify. And farther, I say,\nthat his eating with the Gentiles was a thing necessary, and that for\nshunning of two great scandals; the one of the Gentiles, by compelling\nthem to Judaise; the other of the Jews, by confirming them in Judaism,\nboth which followed upon his withdrawing from the Gentiles; so that by his\neating with the Gentiles no scandal could be given, and if any had been\ntaken, it was not to be cared for. Wherefore there was but one scandal\nwhich Peter and his companions were in danger of, which also they did\ngive, and for which Paul apprehended them, namely, their withdrawing of\nthemselves from the Gentiles, and keeping company only with the Jews,\nwhereby both the Jews and the Gentiles were scandalised, because both were\nmade to think (at least occasion was given to both for thinking) the\nobservation of the ceremonial law necessary. That which deceiveth Paybody,\nis the confounding of _scandalising_ and _displeasing_. Peter, by eating\nwith the Gentiles, perhaps had displeased the Jews, but he had thereby\nedified them, though the scandal which he gave them was by Judaising;\n_Judaizabat olim Petrus per dissimulationem_, saith Gerson:(428) by this\nJudaising through such dissimulation and double-dealing, as was his eating\nwith the Gentiles first, and then withdrawing of himself, when certain\nJews came; for keeping company with them only, he scandalised the Jews and\nconfirmed them in Judaism, as Pareus noteth.(429) How then can it be said,\nthat he that scandalised them by his eating with the Gentiles? For\nhereupon it should follow that there was a necessity of doing evil laid\nupon Peter, so that he behoved to offend the Jews either by his eating\nwith the Gentiles, or by his not eating with the Gentiles; for he could\nnot both eat with them and not eat with them. This is therefore plain,\nthat if he scandalised the Jews by his not eating with the Gentiles, as I\nhave showed, then had he not scandalised them, but edified them by his\neating with the Gentiles.\n\nI perceive he would say, that the scandal of non-conformity is a greater\nscandal than the scandal of conformity; and so he would make us gain\nlittle by our argument of scandal. He is bold to object,(430) \u201cWhere one\nis offended with our practice of kneeling, twenty, I may say ten thousand,\nare offended with your refusal.\u201d O adventurous arithmetic! O huge\nhyperbole! O desultorious declamation! O roving rethoric! O prodigal\nparadox!\n\nYet, I reply, 1. Though sundry (yet not ten thousand for one) are\ndispleased by our refusal, who can show us that any are thereby\nscandalised; that is, made worse and induced to ruin? This man is bold to\nsay well to it; but we have solidly proved that scandal riseth out of\nkneeling and the rest of the ceremonies: let it be measured to us with the\nsame measure wherewith we mete.\n\n2. Put the case, that ten thousand were scandalised by our refusal, will\nit thereupon follow that our refusal is a greater scandal than their\npractising? Nay, then, let it be said that the cross of Christ is a\ngreater scandal than a private man\u2019s fornication, because both Jews and\nGreeks were offended at that, 1 Cor. i. 23; whereas, perhaps, a small\ncongregation only is offended at this.\n\n3. Our refusal is necessary, because of the unlawfulness of the ceremonies\nwhich we refuse, so that we may not receive them, but must refuse them,\nnotwithstanding of any scandal which can follow upon our refusal. If he\nhad aught to say against this answer, why is he silent? He might have\nfound it at home. \u201cOur forbearance of conformity (saith Parker(431)) is a\nnecessary duty, there is therein no fault of any scandal in us.\u201d\n\n4. Our opposites should do well to assail our argument of scandal before\nthey propound any other argument against us; for so long as they make it\nnot evident that the scandal of the ceremonies, which we object, is an\nactive or faulty scandal, so long they cannot object the scandal of\nnon-conformity to us; because if the scandal (which is to be avoided) be\nin their practising of the ceremonies, it cannot be in our refusing of\nthem.\n\n5. We know many are grieved and displeased with our non-conformity, yet\nthat every one who is grieved is not by and by scandalised, the Bishop of\nWinchester teacheth as well as we. \u201cMany times (saith he(432)) men are\ngrieved with that which is for their good, and earnestly set on that which\nis not expedient for them.\u201d But, in good earnest, what do they mean who\nsay they are scandalised, or made worse by our non-conformity? for neither\ndo we make them condemn our lawful deed as unlawful, nor yet do we animate\nthem by our example to do that which, in their consciences, they judge\nunlawful. They themselves acknowledge that sitting is as lawful as\nkneeling; that the not-observing of the five holidays is as lawful as the\nobserving of them; that the not-bishoping of children is as lawful as the\nbishoping of them. Do they not acknowledge the indifferency of the things\nthemselves? Do they not permit many of their people either to kneel or to\nsit at the communion? Have not many of themselves taken the communion\nsitting in some places? Have not our Conformists in Scotland hitherto\ncommonly omitted bishoping of children, and the ministration of the\nsacraments in private places? As for ourselves we make our meaning plain\nwhen we object the scandal of conformity; for many ignorant and\nsuperstitious persons are, by the ceremonies, confirmed (_expertus\nloquor_) in their error and superstition; so that now they even settle\nthemselves upon the old dregs of popish superstition and formality, from\nwhich they were not well purged. Others are made to practise the\nceremonies with a doubting and disallowing conscience, and to say with\nNaaman, \u201cIn this the Lord be merciful unto us if we err:\u201d with my own ears\nhave I heard some say so. And even those who have not practised the\nceremonies, for that they cannot see the lawfulness of them, yet are\nanimated by the example of practising Conformists to do these things\nwhich, in their consciences, they condemn as unlawful (which were to sin\ndamnably), and if they do them not, then is there no small doubting and\ndisquietness, trouble, and trepidation, harboured in their consciences.\nAnd thus, one way or other, some weakening or deterioration cometh to us\nby the means of the ceremonies; and if any of our opposites dare think\nthat none of us can be so weak as to stumble or take any harm in this\nkind, because of the ceremonies, we take God himself to witness, who shall\nmake manifest the counsels of the heart, that we speak the truth, and lie\nnot.\n\nFinally, Let that be considered which divines observe to be the perpetual\ncondition of the church,(433) namely, that as in any other family there\nare found some great, some small, some strong, some weak, some wholesome,\nsome sickly, so still is there found such an inequality in the house of\nGod, which is the church,\u2014and that because some are sooner, some are later\ncalled, some endued with more gifts of God, and some with fewer.(434)\n\n\n\n\n                             THE THIRD PART.\n\n\nAGAINST THE LAWFULNESS OF THE CEREMONIES.\n\n\n\n                                CHAPTER I.\n\n\nTHAT THE CEREMONIES ARE UNLAWFUL, BECAUSE SUPERSTITIOUS, WHICH IS\nPARTICULARLY INSTANCED IN HOLIDAYS, AND MINISTERING THE SACRAMENTS IN\nPRIVATE PLACES.\n\n\n_Sect._ 1. The strongest tower of refuge to which our opposites make their\nmain recourse, is the pretended lawfulness of the ceremonies, which now we\nare to batter down and demolish, and so make it appear how weak they are\neven where they think themselves strongest.\n\nMy first argument against the lawfulness of the ceremonies I draw from the\nsuperstition of them. I cannot marvel enough how Dr Mortoune and Dr Burges\ncould think to rub the superstition upon Non-conformists, whom they set\nforth as fancying their abstinence from the ceremonies to be a singular\npiece of service done to God, placing religion in the not using of them,\nand teaching men to abstain from them for conscience\u2019 sake. Dr Ames(435)\nhath given a sufficient answer, namely, that abstaining from sin is one\nact of common obedience, belonging as well to things forbidden in the\nsecond table, as to those forbidden in the first; and that we do not\nabstain from those ceremonies but as from other unlawful corruptions, even\nout of the compass of worship. We abstain from the ceremonies even as from\nlying, cursing, stealing, &c. Shall we be holden superstitious for\nabstaining from things unlawful? The superstition therefore is not on our\nside, but on theirs:\u2014\n\n_Sect._ 2. For, 1st, Superstition is the opposite vice to religion, in the\nexcess, as our divines describe it; for it exhibits more in the worship of\nGod than he requires in his worship. Porro saith,(436) _Zanchius in cultum\nipsum excessu ut, peccatur; si quid illi quem Christus instituit, jam\naddas, aut ab aliis additum sequar is; ut si sacramentis a Christo\ninstitutis, alia addas sacramenta; si sacrificiis, alia sacrificia; si\nceremoniis cujusvis sacramenti, alios addas ritus, qui merito omnes\nsuperstitionis nomine appellantur._ We see he accounteth superstition to\nbe in the addition of ceremonies not instituted by Christ, as well as in\nthe addition of more substantial matters. _Superstitio_ (as some derive\nthe word) is that which is done _supra statutum_; and thus are the\ncontroverted ceremonies superstitious, as being used in God\u2019s worship upon\nno other ground than the appointment of men.\n\n_Sect._ 3. 2d. Superstition is that which exhibits divine worship, _vel\ncui non debet, vel eo non modo quo debet_, say the schoolmen.(437) Now our\nceremonies, though they exhibit worship to God, yet this is done\ninordinately, and they make the worship to be otherwise performed than it\nshould be; for example, though God be worshipped by the administration of\nthe sacraments in private places, yet not so as he should be worshipped.\nThe Professors of Leyden(438) condemn private baptism as inordinate,\nbecause _baptismus publici ministerii, non privat\u00e6 exhortationis est\nappendix_. It is marked in the fourth century,(439) both out of councils\nand fathers, that it was not then permitted to communicate in private\nplaces; but this custom was thought inordinate and unbeseeming. If it be\nsaid, that the communion was given to the sick privately in the ancient\nchurch, I answer: Sometimes this was permitted, but for such special\nreasons as do not concern us; for, as we may see plainly by the fourteenth\ncanon of the first Council of Nice (as those canons are collected by\nRuffinus), the sixty-ninth canon of the Council of Eleberis, and the sixth\ncanon of the Council of Ancyra, the communion was only permitted to be\ngiven in private houses to the _paenitentes_, who were _abstenti_ and\ndebarred from the sacrament, some for three years, some for five, some for\nseven, some for ten, some for thirteen, some longer, and who should\nhappily be overtaken with some dangerous and deadly sickness before the\nset time of abstention was expired. As for the judgment of our own\ndivines, _Calviniani_, saith Balduine,(440) _morem illum quo eucharastia\nad aegrotos tanquam viaticum defertur improbant, eamque non nisi in\ncoetibus publicis usurpendam censent_. For this he allegeth Beza, Aretius,\nand Musculus. It was a better ordinance than that of Perth, which said,\n_non oportet in domibus oblationes ab episcopis sive presbyteris\nfieri_.(441) But to return.\n\n_Sect._ 4. 3d. The ceremonies are proved to be superstitious, by this\nreason, if there were no more, they have no necessary nor profitable use\nin the church (as hath been proved), which kind of things cannot be used\nwithout superstition. It was according to this rule that the\nWaldenses(442) and Albigenses taught that the exorcisms, breathings,\ncrossings, salt, spittle, unction, chrism, &c. used by the church of Rome\nin baptism, being neither necessary nor requisite in the administration of\nthe same, did occasion error and superstition, rather than edification to\nsalvation,\n\n4th. They are yet more superstitious, for that they are not only used in\nGod\u2019s worship unnecessary and unprofitably, but likewise they hinder other\nnecessary duties. They who, though they serve the true God, \u201cyet with\nneedless offices, and defraud him of duties necessary,\u201d are superstitious\nin Hooker\u2019s judgment.(443) I wish he had said as well to him as from him.\nWhat offices more unnecessary than those Roman rituals? yet what more\nnecessary duties than to worship God in a spiritual and lively manner,\u2014to\npress the power of godliness upon the consciences of professors,\u2014to\nmaintain and keep faithful and well qualified ministers in the church,\u2014to\nbear the bowels of mercy and meekness,\u2014not to offend the weak, nor to\nconfirm Papists in Popery,\u2014to have all things in God\u2019s worship disposed\naccording to the word, and not according to the will of man,\u2014not to\nexercise lordship over the consciences of those whom Christ hath made\nfree,\u2014to abolish the monuments of by-past and badges of present idolatry;\nyet are those and other necessary duties shut quite out of doors by our\nneedless ceremonial service.\n\n_Sect._ 5. 5th. The ceremonies are not free of superstition, inasmuch as\nthey give to God an external service, and grace-defacing worship, which he\ncareth not for, and make fleshly observations to step into the room of\nGod\u2019s most spiritual worship. Augustine(444) allegeth that which is\nsaid,\u2014\u201cThe kingdom of God is within you,\u201d Luke xvii. against superstitious\npersons, who _exterioribus principalem curam impendunt_. The Christian\nworship ought to be \u201cin spirit, without the carnal ceremonies and rites,\u201d\nsaith one of our divines;(445) yea, the kingdom of God cometh not _cum\napparatu aut pompa mundana, ita ut observari possit tempus vel locus_,\nsaith a Papist.(446) Carnal worship, therefore, and ceremonial\nobservations, are (to say the least) superfluous in religion, and by\nconsequence superstitious.\n\n_Sect._ 6. 6th. Worship is placed in the ceremonies, therefore they are\nmost superstitious. To make good what I say, holiness and necessity are\nplaced in the ceremonies, _ergo_, worship. And, 1st, Holiness is placed in\nthem. Hooker(447) thinks festival days clothed with outward robes of\nholiness; nay, he saith plainly,(448)\u2014\u201cNo doubt, as God\u2019s extraordinary\npresence hath hallowed and sanctified certain places, so they are his\nextraordinary works that have truly and worthily advanced certain times,\nfor which cause they ought to be, with all men that honour God, more holy\nthan other days.\u201d He calleth also the cross an holy sign.(449) Dr\nBurges(450) defendeth that the ceremonies are and may be called worship of\nGod, not only _ratione modi_, as belonging to the reverend usage of God\u2019s\nprescribed worship, but also _ratione medii_, though not _medii per se_,\nof and by itself, yet _per aliud_, by virtue of somewhat else. Now, do not\nPapists place worship in their cross and crucifix? yet do they place no\nholiness in it _per se_, but only _per aliud_, in respect of Christ\ncrucified thereby represented, and they tell us,(451) that _creaturae\ninsensibili non debetur honor vel reverentia, nisi ratione rationalis\nnaturae_; and that they give no religious respect unto the tree whereon\nChrist was crucified, the nails, garments, spear, manger, &c., but only\n_quantum ad rationem contactus membrorum Christi_. Saith Dr Burges any\nless of the ceremonies? Nay, he placeth every way as much holiness and\nworship in them in the forequoted place. And elsewhere he teacheth,(452)\nthat after a sort the ceremonies are worship in themselves, even such a\nworship as was that of the free-will offerings under the law, and such a\nworship as was the building and use of altars here and there(453) (before\nGod had chosen out the standing place for his altar), though to the same\nend for which the Lord\u2019s instituted altar served. Thus we see that they\noffer the ceremonies as worship to God: yet put the case they did not, the\nschool saith,(454) that a thing belongeth to the worship of God, _vel quo\nad offerendum, vel quo ad assumendum_. Whereupon it followeth, that\nsuperstition is not only to be laid to their charge who offer to God for\nworship that which he hath not commanded, but theirs also who assume in\nGod\u2019s worship the help of anything as sacred or holy which himself hath\nnot ordained. 2. They place as great a necessity in the ceremonies as\nPapists place in theirs, whereby it shall also appear now superstitiously\nthey place worship in them; for _quaecunque observatio quasi necessaria\ncommendatur, continuo censetur ad cultum Dei pertinere_, saith\nCalvin.(455) The Rhemists think,(456) that meats of themselves, or of\ntheir own nature, do not defile, \u201cbut so far as by accident they make a\nman to sin; as the disobedience of God\u2019s commandment, or of our superiors,\nwho forbid some meats for certain times and causes, is a sin.\u201d And they\nadd, \u201cthat neither flesh nor fish of itself doth defile, but the breach of\nthe church\u2019s precept defileth.\u201d Aquinas(457) defendeth that trin-immersion\nis not _de necessitate baptismi_, only he thinks it a sin to baptise\notherwise, because this rite is instituted and used by the church. Do not\nFormalists place the same necessity in the ceremonies, while, as they say,\nthey urge them not as necessary in themselves, but only as necessary in\nrespect of the determination of the church, and the ordinance of those who\nare set over us? Nay, Papists place not so great necessity in many\nordinances of their church as Formalists place in the ceremonies. If the\ncause be doubtful, Aquinas(458) sends a man to seek a dispensation from\nthe superior. But _si causa sit evidens, per seipsum licite potest homo\nstatuti observantiam praeterire_. What Formalist dare yield us such\nliberty, as by ourselves, and without seeking a dispensation from\nsuperiors, to neglect the observation of their statutes, when we see\nevident cause for so doing? They think that we have no power at our own\nhand to judge that we have an evident cause of not obeying those who are\nset over us; yet this much is allowed by this Papist, who also elsewhere\nacknowledged(459) that there is nothing necessary in baptism but the form,\nthe minister, and the washing of water, and that all the other ceremonies\nwhich the church of Rome useth in baptism are only for solemnity.\nBellarmine saith,(460) that the neglecting and not observing the\nceremonies of the church, with them is not a mortal sin, except it proceed\n_ex contemptu_. And that he who, entering into a church, doth not asperge\nhimself with holy water, sinneth not,(461) if so be he do it _circa\ncontemptum_. Now, to be free of contempt will not satisfy our Formalists,\nexcept we obey and do that very same thing which we are commanded to do.\nCornelius Jansenius,(462) commenting upon these words, \u201cIn vain do they\nworship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men,\u201d saith, that\nthe commandments of men there forbidden and condemned, are those which\ncommand nothing divine, but things merely human; and therefore he pleadeth\nfor the constitutions of the church about feasts, choice of meats,\nfestivities, &c., and for obedience to the same upon no other ground than\nthis, because _pius quisque facile videt quam habeant ex scripturis\noriginem et quomodo eis consonant, eo quod faciant ad __ carnis\ncastigationem et temperantiam, aut ad fidelium unionem et edificationem_.\nI know it to be false which this Papist affirmeth; yet in that he thus\npleadeth for those constitutions of the church from Scripture and reason,\nforsaking the ground of human authority, he is a great deal more modest\nand less superstitious than those our opposites, who avouch the ceremonies\nas necessary, and will have us bound to the practice of them upon no other\nground than the bare will and authority of superiors, who have enjoined\nthem, as hath been shown in the first part of this dispute. Yea, some of\nthem place a certain and constant necessity in the ceremonies themselves,\neven beside and without the church\u2019s constitution (which is more than\nPapists have said of their ceremonies). Dr Forbesse(463) calleth the\nArticles of Perth, _pauca necessaria_, &c., a few things necessary for\nGod\u2019s glory, and the promoting of piety in our church, for order, peace,\nunity, and charity; and particularly he teacheth, that a minister may not\nlawfully omit to administer the sacraments in private places, and without\nthe presence of the congregation, to such as through sickness cannot come\nto the public assemblies; which he calleth, _eis necessaria ministrare_.\nTo say the truth, the ministration of the sacraments in private places\nimporteth a necessity in the matter itself, for which cause the divines of\nGeneva resolved(464) that in _Ecclesiis publice institutis_, baptism might\nnot be administered in private places, but only publicly in the\ncongregation of the faithful, _partim ne sacramenta, &c._, \u201cpartly (say\nthey) lest the sacraments, being separate from the preaching of the word,\nshould be again transformed in certain magical ceremonies, as in Popery it\nwas; partly that the gross superstition of the absolute necessity of\nexternal baptism may be rooted out of the minds of men.\u201d Sure, the\ndefenders of private baptism place too great necessity in that sacrament.\nHooker plainly insinuates(465) the absolute necessity of outward baptism,\nat least in wish or desire, which is the distinction of the schoolmen, and\nfollowed by the modern Papists to cloak their superstition. But whatsoever\nshow it hath, it was rightly impugned in the Council of Trent(466) by\nMarianarus, who alleged against it that the angel said to Cornelius his\nprayers were acceptable to God, before ever he knew of the sacrament of\nbaptism; so that, having no knowledge of it, he could not be said to have\nreceived it, no not in vow or wish; and that many holy martyrs were\nconverted in the heat of persecution, by seeing the constancy of others,\nand presently taken and put to death, of whom one cannot say, but by\ndivination, that they knew the sacraments, and made a vow.\n\n_Sect._ 7. 7th. I will now apply this argument, taken from superstition,\nparticularly to holidays. _Superstitiosum esse docemus_, saith Beza,(467)\n_arbitrari unum aliquem diem altero sanctiorem_. Now I will show that\nFormalists observe holidays, as mystical and holier than other days,\nhowbeit Bishop Lindsey thinks good to dissemble and deny it.(468) \u201cTimes\n(saith he) are appointed by our church for morning and evening prayers in\ngreat towns; hours for preaching on Tuesday, Thursday, &c.; hours for\nweekly exercises of prophecying, which are holy in respect of the use\nwhereunto they are appointed; and such are the five days which we esteem\nnot to be holy, for any mystic signification which they have, either by\ndivine or ecclesiastical institution, or for any worship which is\nappropriated unto them, that may not be performed at another time, but for\nthe sacred use whereunto they are appointed to be employed as\ncircumstances only, and not as mysteries.\u201d _Ans._ This is but falsely\npretended, for as Didoclavius observeth,(469) _aliud est deputare, aliud\ndedicare, aliud sanctificare_. Designation or deputation is when a man\nappoints a thing for such an use, still reserving power and right to put\nit to another use if he please; so the church appointeth times and hours\nfor preaching upon the week-days, yet reserving power to employ those\ntimes otherwise, when she shall think fit. Dedication is when a man so\ndevotes a thing to some pious or civil use, that he denudes himself to all\nright and title which thereafter he might claim unto it, as when a man\ndedicates a sum of money for the building of an exchange, a judgment-hall,\n&c., or a parcel of ground for a church, a churchyard, a glebe, a school,\nan hospital, he can claim no longer right to the dedicated thing.\nSanctification is the setting apart of a thing for a holy and religious\nuse, in such sort that hereafter it may be put to no other use, Prov. xx.\n25. Now whereas times set apart for ordinary and weekly preaching, are\nonly designed by the church for this end and purpose, so that they are not\nholy, but only for the present they are applied to an holy use; neither is\nthe worship appointed as convenient or beseeming for those times, but the\ntimes are appointed as convenient for the worship. Festival days are holy\nboth by dedication and consecration of them; and thus much the Bishop\nhimself forbeareth not to say,(470) only he laboureth to plaster over his\nsuperstition with the untempered mortar of this quidditative distinction,\nthat some things are holy by consecration of them to holy and mystical\nuses,(471) as water in baptism, &c., but other things are made holy by\nconsecration of them to holy political uses. This way, saith he, the\nchurch hath power to make a thing holy, as to build and consecrate places\nto be temples, houses to be hospitals; to give rent, lands, money and\ngoods, to the ministry and to the poor; to appoint vessels, and vestures,\nand instruments for the public worship, as table, table-cloths, &c. _Ans._\n1. The Bishop, I see, taketh upon him to coin new distinctions at his own\npleasure; yet they will not, I trust, pass current among the judicious. To\nmake things holy by consecration of them to holy uses for policy, is an\nuncouth speculation, and, I dare say, the Bishop himself comprehendeth it\nnot. God\u2019s designation of a thing to any use, which serves for his own\nglory, is called the sanctification of that thing, or the making of it\nholy, and so the word is taken, Isa. xiii. 3; Jer. i. 5, as G. Sanctius\nnoteth in his commentaries upon these places; and Calvin, commenting upon\nthe same places, expoundeth them so likewise; but the church\u2019s appointing\nor designing of a thing to an holy use, cannot be called the making of it\nholy. It must be consecrated at the command of God, and by virtue of the\nword and prayer: thus are bread and wine consecrated in the holy supper,\n_Res sacrae_, saith Fennerus,(472) _sunt quae Dei verbo in praedictum usum\nsanctificatae et dedicatae sunt_. Polanus, speaking of the sacramental\nelements, saith,(473) _Sanctificatio rei terrenae est actio ministri, qua\ndestinat __ rem terrenam ad sanctum usum, ex mandato Dei, &c._ The\nProfessors of Leyden(474) call only such things, persons, times and places\nholy, as are consecrated and dedicated to God and his worship, and that\n_divina praescriptione_. If our ordinary meat and drink cannot be\nsanctified to us, so that we may lawfully, and with a good conscience, use\nthose common things, but by the word of God and prayer, how then shall\nanything be made holy for God\u2019s worship but by the same means? 1 Tim. iv.\n5. And, I pray, which is the word, and which be the prayers, that make\nholy those things which the Bishop avoucheth for things consecrated and\nmade holy by the church, namely, the ground whereupon the church is built,\nthe stones and timber of an hospital; the rents, lands, money, or goods\ngiven to the ministry and the poor; the vessels, vestures, tables,\nnapkins, basons, &c., appointed for the public worship.\n\n_Sect._ 8. 2d. Times, places and things, which the church designeth for\nthe worship of God, if they be made holy by consecration of them to holy\npolitical uses, then either they may be made holy by the holy uses to\nwhich they are to be applied, or else by the church\u2019s dedicating of them\nto those uses. They cannot be called holy by virtue of their application\nto holy uses; for then (as Ames argueth(475)) the air is sacred, because\nit is applied to the minister\u2019s speech whilst he is preaching, then is the\nlight sacred which is applied to his eye in reading, then are his\nspectacles sacred which are used by him reading his text, &c. But neither\nyet are they holy, by virtue of the church\u2019s dedicating of them to those\nuses for which she appointed them; for the church hath no such power as by\nher dedication to make them holy. P. Martyr(476) condemneth the dedication\nor consecration (for those words he useth promiscuously) whereby the\nPapists hallow churches, and he declareth against it the judgment of our\ndivines to be this, _Licere, imo jure pietatis requiri, ut in prima\ncujusque rei usurpatione gratias Deo agamus, ejusque bonitatem celebremus,\n&c. Collati boni religiosum ac sanctum usum poscamus._ This he opposeth to\nthe popish dedication of temples and bells, as appeareth by these words:\n_Quanto sanius rectusque decernimus._ He implieth, therefore, that these\nthings are only consecrated as every other thing is consecrated to us. Of\nthis kind of consecration he hath given examples. _In libro Nehemiae\ndedicatio maeniam civitatis commemoratur, quae nil aliud fuit nisi quod\nmuris urbis instauratis, populus una cum Levitis et sacerdotibus, nec non\nprincipibus, eo se contulit, ibique gratias Deo egerunt de maenibus\nreaedificatis, et justam civitatis usuram postularunt, qua item ratione\nprius quam sumamus cibum, nos etiam illum consecramus._ As the walls of\nJerusalem then, and as our ordinary meat are consecrated, so are churches\nconsecrated, and no otherwise can they be said to be dedicated, except one\nwould use the word _dedication_, in that sense wherein it is taken, Deut.\nxx. 5; where Calvin turns the word _dedicavit_; Arias Montanus,\n_initiavit_; Tremelius, _caepit uti_. Of this sort of dedication, Gaspar\nSanctius writeth thus: _Alia dedicatio est, non solum inter prophanos, sed\netiam inter Haebreos usitata, quae nihil habet sacrum sed tantum est\nauspicatio aut initium operis, ad quod destinatur locus aut res cujus tunc\nprimum libatur usus. Sic Nero Claudius dedicasse dicitur domum suam cum\nprimum illam habitare caepit. Ita Suetonius in Nerone. Sic Pompeius\ndedicavit theatrum suum, cum primum illud publicis ludis et communibus\nusibus aperuit; de quo Cicero,_ lib. 2, epist. 1. Any other sort of\ndedicating churches we hold to be superstitious. Peter Waldus, of whom the\nWaldenses were named, is reported to have taught that the dedication of\ntemples was but an invention of the devil.(477) And though churches be\ndedicated by preaching and praying, and by no superstition of sprinkling\nthem with holy water, or using such magical rites, yet even these\ndedications, saith the Magdeburgians,(478) _ex Judaismo natae videntur\nsine nullo Dei praecepto_. There is, indeed, no warrant for such\ndedication of churches as is thought to make them holy. Bellarmine would\nwarrant it by Moses\u2019 consecrating of the tabernacle, the altar, and the\nvessels of the same; but Hospinian answereth him:(479) _Mosis factum\nexpressum habuit Dei mandatum: de consecrandis autem templis\nChristianorum, nullum uspiam in verbo Dei praeceptum extat, ipso quoque\nBellarmino teste._ Whereupon he concludeth that this ceremony of\nconsecrating or dedicating the churches of Christians, is not to be used\nafter the example of Moses, who, in building and dedicating of the\ntabernacle, did follow nothing without God\u2019s express commandment. What I\nhave said against the dedication of churches, holds good also against the\ndedication of altars; the table whereupon the elements of the body and\nblood of Christ are set, is not to be called holy; neither can they be\ncommended who devised altars in the church, to be the seat of the Lord\u2019s\nbody and blood, as if any table, though not so consecrated, could not as\nwell serve the turn. And what though altars were used in the ancient\nchurch? Yet this custom _\u00e0 Judaica, in ecclesiam Christi permanavit ac\npostea superstitioni materiam pr\u00e6buit_, say the Magdeburgians.(480) Altars\nsavour of nothing but Judaism, and the borrowing of altars from the Jews,\nhath made Christians both to follow their priesthood and their sacrifices.\n_H\u00e6c enim trio, scilicet sacerdos, altare, et sacrificium, sunt\ncorrelativa, ut ubi unum est, coetera duo adesse necesse sit_, saith\nCornelius \u00e0 Lapide.(481)\n\n_Sect._ 9. 3d. If some times, places and things, be made holy by the\nchurch\u2019s dedication or consecration of them to holy uses, then it\nfolloweth that other times, places and things, which are not so dedicated\nand consecrated by the church, howbeit they be applied to the same holy\nuses, yet are more profane, and less apt to divine worship, than those\nwhich are dedicated by the church. I need not insist to strengthen the\ninference of this conclusion from the principles of our opposites; for the\nmost learned among them will not refuse to subscribe to it. Hooker\nteacheth us,(482) that the service of God, in places not sanctified as\nchurches are, hath not in itself (mark _in itself_) such perfection of\ngrace and comeliness, as when the dignity of the place which it wisheth\nfor, doth concur; and that the very majesty and holiness of the place\nwhere God is worshipped, bettereth even our holiest and best actions. How\nmuch more soundly do we hold with J. Rainolds,(483) that unto us\nChristians, \u201cno land is strange, no ground unholy,\u2014every coast is Jewry,\nevery town Jerusalem, and every house Sion,\u2014and every faithful company,\nyea, every faithful body, a temple to serve God in.\u201d The contrary opinion\nHospinian rejecteth as favouring Judaism,(484) _alligat enim religionem ad\ncerta loca_. Whereas the presence of Christ among two or three gathered\ntogether in his name, maketh any place a church, even as the presence of a\nking with his attendants maketh any place a court. As of places, so of\ntimes, our opposites think most superstitiously. For of holidays Hooker\nsaith thus,(485) \u201cNo doubt as God\u2019s extraordinary presence hath hallowed\nand sanctified certain places, so they are his extraordinary works that\nhave truly and worthily advanced certain times, for which cause they ought\nto be with all men that honour God more holy than other days.\u201d What is\nthis but popish superstition? For just so the Rhemists think that the\ntimes and places of Christ\u2019s nativity,(486) passion, burial, resurrection,\nand ascension, were made holy; and just so Bellarmine holdeth,(487) that\nChrist did consecrate the days of his nativity, passion, and resurrection,\n_eo quod nascens consecrarit pr\u00e6sepe, moriens crucem, resurgens\nsepulchrum_. Hooker hath been of opinion, that the holidays were so\nadvanced above other days, by God\u2019s great and extraordinary works done\nupon them, that they should have been holier than other days, even albeit\nthe church had not appointed them to be kept holy. Yet Bishop Lindsey\nwould have us believe that they think them holy, only because of the\nchurch\u2019s consecration of them to holy political uses. But that now, at\nlast, I may make it appear to all that have common sense, how falsely\n(though frequently) it is given forth by the Bishop, that holidays are\nkept by them only for order and policy, and that they are not so\nsuperstitious as to appropriate the worship to those days, or to observe\nthem for mystery and as holier than other days:\u2014\n\n_Sect._ 10. First, I require the Bishop to show us a difference betwixt\nthe keeping of holidays by Formalists, and their keeping of the Lord\u2019s\nday; for upon holidays they enjoin a cessation from work, and a dedicating\nof the day to divine worship, even as upon the Lord\u2019s day. The Bishop\nallegeth five respects of difference,(488) but they are not true. _First_,\nhe saith, that the Lord\u2019s day is commanded to be observed of necessity,\nfor conscience of the divine ordinance as a day sanctified and blessed by\nGod himself. _Ans._ 1. So have we heard from Hooker, that holidays are\nsanctified by God\u2019s extraordinary works; but because the Bishop dare not\nsay so much, therefore I say, 2. This difference cannot show us that they\nobserve holidays only for order and policy, and that they place no worship\nin the observing of them, as in the observing of the Lord\u2019s day (which is\nthe point that we require), for worship is placed in the observing of\nhuman as well as of divine ordinances, otherwise worship hath never been\nplaced in the keeping of Pharisaical and popish traditions. This way is\nworship placed in the keeping of holidays, when for conscience of an human\nordinance, they are both kept as holy and thought necessary to be so kept.\n3. The Bishop contradicteth himself; for elsewhere he defendeth,(489) that\nthe church hath power to change the Lord\u2019s day. _Secondly_, He giveth us\nthis difference, that the Lord\u2019s day is observed as the Sabbath of\nJehovah, and as a day whereon God himself did rest after the creation.\n_Ans._ 1. This is false of the Lord\u2019s day; for after the creation, God\nrested upon the seventh day, not upon the first. 2. Dr Downame saith,(490)\nthat festival days also are to be consecrated as Sabbaths to the Lord.\n_Thirdly_, The Bishop tells us, that the Lord\u2019s day is observed in memory\nof the Lord\u2019s resurrection. _Ans._ He shall never make this good; for, we\nobserve the Lord\u2019s day in memory of the whole work of redemption. 2. If it\nwere so, this could make no difference; for just so Christmas is observed\nin memory of the Lord\u2019s nativity, Good Friday in memory of his passion,\n&c. His _fourth_ and _fifth_ respects of differences are certain mysteries\nin the Lord\u2019s day. But we shall see by and by how his fellow Formalists\nwho are more ingenuous than himself, show us mysteries in the festival\ndays also. Lastly, Albeit the Bishop hath told us that there is no worship\nappropriated unto the festival days, which may not be performed at any\nother time, yet this cannot with him make a difference betwixt them and\nthe Lord\u2019s day; for in his epistle, which I have quoted, he declareth his\njudgment to be the same of the Lord\u2019s day, and teacheth us, that the\nworship performed on it is not, so appropriated to that time, but lawfully\nthe same may be performed at any other convenient time, as the church\nshall think fit. Now, as the worship performed on the Lord\u2019s day is\nappropriated (in his judgment) to that time, so long as the church\naltereth it not, and no longer, just as much thinks he of the\nappropriating to festival days the worship performed on the same.\n\n_Sect._ 11. 2d. If the holidays be observed by Formalists only for order\nand policy, then they must say the church hath power to change them. But\nthis power they take from the church, by saying that they are dedicated\nand consecrated to those holy uses to which they are applied. _Simul Deo\ndicatum non est ad usus humanos ulterius transferendum_, saith one of the\npopes.(491) And, by the dedication of churches, the founders surrender\nthat right which otherwise they might have in them, saith one of the\nFormalists themselves.(492) If, then, the church hath dedicated holidays\nto the worship of God, then hath she denuded herself of all power to\nchange them, or put them to another use: which were otherwise if holidays\nwere appointed to be kept only for order and policy. Yea, farther, times\nand places which are applied to the worship of God, as circumstances only\nfor outward order and policy, may be by a private Christian applied to\ncivil use, for in so doing he breaketh not the ordinance of the church.\nFor example, material churches are appointed to be the receptacles of\nChristian assemblies, and that only for such common commodity and decency\nwhich hath place as well in civil as in holy meetings, and not for any\nholiness conceived to be in them more than in other houses. Now, if I be\nstanding in a churchyard when it raineth, may I not go into the church\nthat I may be defended from the injury of the weather? If I must meet with\ncertain men for putting order to some of my worldly affairs, and it fall\nout that we cannot conveniently meet in any part but in the church, may we\nnot there keep our trust? A material church, then, may serve for a civil\nuse the same way that it serveth to an holy use. And so, for times\nappointed for ordinary preaching upon week-days in great towns, may not I\napply those times to a civil use when I cannot conveniently apply them to\nthe use for which the church appointeth them? I trust our prelates shall\nsay, I may, because they use to be otherwise employed than in divine\nworship during the times of weekly preaching. Now if holidays were\ncommanded to be kept only for order and policy, they might be applied to\nanother use as well as those ordinary times of weekly meetings in great\ntowns, whereas we are required of necessity to keep them holy.\n\n_Sect._ 12. 3d. If the holidays be kept only for order and policy, why do\nthey esteem some of them above others? Doth not Bishop Andrews call the\nfeast of Easter the highest and greatest of our religion?(493) and doth\nnot Bishop Lindsey himself, with Chrysostom, call the festival of Christ\u2019s\nnativity, _metropolim omnium festorum_?(494) By this reason doth\nBellarmine prove(495) that the feasts of Christians are celebrated _non\nsolum ratione ordinis et politi\u00e6, sed etiam mysterii_, because otherwise\nthey should be all equal in celebrity, whereas Leo calls Easter _festum\nfestorum_, and Nazianzen, _celebritatem celebritatum_.\n\n_Sect._ 13. 4. If the holidays be kept only for order and policy, then the\nsanctification of them should be placed _in ipso actuali externi cultus\nexercitio_.(496) But Hooker hath told us before, that they are made holy\nand worthily advanced above other days by God\u2019s extraordinary works\nwrought upon them. Whereupon it followeth, that as _Deus septimum\nsanctificavit vacatione sancta, et ordinatione ad usum sanctum_(497) so\nhath he made festival days no less holy in themselves, and that as the\nSabbath was holy from the beginning, because of God\u2019s resting upon it, and\nhis ordaining of it for an holy use, howbeit it had never been applied by\nmen to the exercises of God\u2019s worship, even so festival days are holy,\nbeing advanced truly and worthily by the extraordinary works of God, and\nfor this cause commended to all men that honour God to be holier with them\nthan other days, albeit it should happen that by us they were never\napplied to an holy use. If Bishop Lindsey thinketh that all this toucheth\nnot him, he may be pleased to remember that he himself hath\nconfessed,(498) that the very presence of the festivity puts a man in mind\nof the mystery, howbeit he have not occasion to be present in the holy\nassembly. What order or policy is here, when a man being quiet in his\nparlour or cabinet, is made to remember of such a mystery on such a day?\nWhat hath external order and policy to do with the internal thoughts of a\nman\u2019s heart, to put in order the same?\n\n_Sect._ 14. 5th. By their fruits shall we know them. Look whether they\ngive so much liberty to others, and take so much to themselves upon their\nholidays, for staying from the public worship and attending worldly\nbusiness, as they do at the diets of weekly and ordinary preaching, yet\nthey would make the simple believe that their holidays are only appointed\nto be kept as those ordinary times set apart for divine service on the\nweek-days, nay, moreover, let it be observed whether or not they keep the\nfestival days more carefully, and urge the keeping of them more earnestly\nthan the Lord\u2019s own day. Those prelates that will not abase themselves to\npreach upon ordinary Sabbaths, think the high holidays worthy of their\nsermons. They have been also often seen to travel upon the Lord\u2019s day,\nwhereas they hold it irreligion to travel upon an holiday. And whereas\nthey can digest the common profanation of the Lord\u2019s day, and not\nchallenge it, they cannot away with the not observing of their\nfestivities.\n\n_Sect._ 15. 6th. By their words shall we judge them. Saith not Bishop\nLindsey(499) that the five anniversary days are consecrate to the\ncommemoration of our Saviour, his benefits being separate from all other\nordinary works, and so made sacred and holidays? Will he say this much of\nordinary times appointed for weekly preaching? I trow not. Dr Downame(500)\nholdeth that we are commanded, in the fourth commandment, to keep the\nfeasts of Christ\u2019s nativity, passion, resurrection, ascension, and\nPentecost, and that these feasts are to be consecrated as sabbaths to the\nLord. Bishop Andrews, a man of the greatest note amongst our opposites,\naffordeth us here plenty of testimonies of the proof of the point in hand,\nnamely, that the anniversary festival days are kept for mystery, and as\nholier than other days. Simon on Psal. lxxxv. 10, 11, he saith of\nChristmas, That mercy and truth, righteousness and peace, \u201cof all the days\nof the year meet most kindly on this day.\u201d Sermon on Psal. ii. 7, he saith\nof the same day, That of all other \u201c_hodies_, we should not let slip the\n_hodie_ of this day, whereon the law is most kindly preached, so it will\nbe most kindly practised of all others.\u201d Sermon on Heb. xii. 2, he saith\nof Good Friday, \u201cLet us now turn to him, and beseech him by the sight of\nthis day.\u201d Sermon on 1 Cor. v. 7, 8, he saith of the keeping of the\nChristian passover upon Easter, That then \u201cit is best for us to do it, it\nis most kindly to do it, most like to please Christ, and to prosper with\nus. And, indeed, if at any time we will do it, _quando pascha nisi in\npascha, &c._, so that without any more ado, the season pleadeth for this\neffectually,\u201d &c. Sermon on Col. iii. 1, he saith, That \u201cthere is no day\nin the year so fit for a Christian to rise with Christ, and seek the\nthings above, as Easter day.\u201d Sermon on Job. ii. 19, he saith, That \u201cthe\nact of receiving Christ\u2019s body is at no time so proper, so in season, as\nthis very day.\u201d Sermon on 1 Cor. xi. 16, he tells us out of Leo, \u201cThis is\na peculiar that Easter day hath, that on it all the whole church obtaineth\nremission of their sins.\u201d Sermon on Acts ii. 1-3, he saith of the feast of\nPentecost, That \u201cof all days we shall not go away from the Holy Ghost\nempty on this day, it is _dies donorum_ his giving day.\u201d Sermon on Eph.\niv. 30, he saith, \u201cThis is the Holy Ghost\u2019s day, and not for that\noriginally so it was, but for that it is to be intended, ever he will do\nhis own chief work upon his own chief feast, and _opus diei_, the day\u2019s\nwork upon the day itself.\u201d Sermon on Psal. lxviii. 18, he saith, That\n\u201clove will be best and soonest wrought by the sacrament of love upon\nPentecost, the feast of love.\u201d Sermon on Acts x. 34, 35, he saith, That\nthe receiving of the Holy Ghost in a more ample measure is _opus diei_,\n\u201cthe proper work of this day.\u201d Sermon on James i. 16, 17, he calls the\ngift of the Holy Ghost the gift of the day of Pentecost, and tells us that\n\u201cthe Holy Ghost, the most perfect gift of all, this day was, and any day\nmay be, but chiefly this day, will be given to any that will desire.\u201d\nSermon on Luke iv. 18, he saith of the same feast, That \u201cbecause of the\nbenefit that fell on this time, the time itself it fell on, is, and cannot\nbe but acceptable, even _eo nomine_, that at such a time such a benefit\nhappened to us.\u201d Much more of this stuff I might produce out of this\nprelate\u2019s holiday sermons,(501) which I supersede as more tedious than\nnecessary; neither yet will I stay here to confute the errors of those and\nsuch like sentences of his; for my purpose is only to prove against Bishop\nLindsey, that the festival days, whereabout we dispute, are not observed\nas circumstances of worship, for order and policy, but that, as the chief\nparts of God\u2019s worship are placed in the celebration and keeping of the\nsame, so are they kept and celebrated most superstitiously, as having\ncertain sacred and mystical significations, and as holier in themselves\nthan other days, because they were sanctified above other days by the\nextraordinary works and great benefits of God which happened upon them; so\nthat the worship performed on them is even appropriated to them; all which\nis more than evident from those testimonies which I have in this place\ncollected.\n\nAnd, finally, the author of _The Nullity of Perth Assembly_(502) proveth\nthis point forcibly: Doth not Hooker say \u201cThat the days of public\nmemorials should be clothed with the outward robes of holiness? They\nallege for the warrant of anniversary festivities, the ancients, who call\nthem sacred and mystical days. If they were instituted only for order and\npolicy, that the people might assemble to religious exercises, wherefore\nis there but one day appointed betwixt the passion and the resurrection;\nforty days betwixt the resurrection and ascension; ten betwixt the\nascension and Pentecost? Wherefore follow we the course of the moon, as\nthe Jews did, in our moveable feasts? &c. Wherefore is there not a certain\nday of the month kept for Easter as well as for the nativity?\u201d &c. That\nwhich is here alleged out of Hooker and the ancients, Bishop Lindsey\npasseth quite over it, and neither inserts nor answers it. As touching\nthose demands which tie him as so many Gordian knots, because he cannot\nunloose them, he goeth about to break them, telling us,(503) that they\norder these things so for unity with the catholic church. This is even as\nsome natural philosophers, who take upon them to give a reason and cause\nfor all things in nature, when they can find no other, they flee to\n_sympathia physica_. When it is asked, wherefore the loadstone doth\nattract iron rather than other metal? they answer, that the cause thereof\nis _sympathia physica inter magnetem et ferrum_. With such kind of\netymology doth the Bishop here serve us; yet peradventure he might have\ngiven us another cause. If so, my retractation is, that if he be excused\none way, he must be accused another way; and if he be blameless of\nignorance, he is blameworthy for dissimulation. The true causes why those\nthings are so ordered, we may find in Bishop Andrew\u2019s sermons, which I\nhave made use of in handling this argument. For example,(504) the reason\nwhy there is but one day betwixt the passion and the resurrection, is,\nbecause that Jonas was but one day in the whale\u2019s belly, and Christ but\none day in the bosom of the earth; for in their going thither he sets out\nGood Friday; in their being there, Easter eve; in their coming thence,\nEaster day. As for the fifty days betwixt Easter and Pentecost, he\nsaith,(505) \u201cFifty is the number of the jubilee; which number agreeth well\nwith this feast, the feast of Pentecost;\u2014what the one in years, the other\nin days;\u2014so that this is the jubilee as it were of the year, or the yearly\nmemory of the year of jubilee: that, the pentecost of years; this, the\njubilee of days.\u201d In the end of the same sermon, he tells us the reason\nwhy there are ten days appointed betwixt the ascension and Pentecost. \u201cThe\nfeast of jubilee (saith he) began ever after the high priest had offered\nhis sacrifice, and had been in the _sancta sanctorum_, as this jubilee of\nChrist also took place from his entering into the holy places, made\nwithout hands, after his propitiatory sacrifice, offered up for the quick\nand the dead, and for all yet unborn, at Easter. And it was the tenth day;\nand this now is the tenth day since.\u201d He hath told us also why there is\nnot a certain day of the month appointed for Easter,(506) as there is for\nthe nativity, namely, because the fast of Lent must end with that high\nfeast, according to the prophecy of Zechariah. Wherefore I conclude,\n_aliquid mysterii alunt_, and so _aliquid monstri_ too.\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER II.\n\n\nTHAT THE CEREMONIES ARE UNLAWFUL BECAUSE THEY ARE MONUMENTS OF BY-PAST\nIDOLATRY, WHICH NOT BEING NECESSARY TO BE RETAINED, SHOULD BE UTTERLY\nABOLISHED, BECAUSE OF THEIR IDOLATROUS ABUSES: ALL WHICH IS PARTICULARLY\nMADE GOOD OF KNEELING.\n\n\n_Sect._ 1. I have here proved the ceremonies to be superstitious; now I\nwill prove them to be idolatrous. These are different arguments; for every\nidolatry is superstition, but every superstition is not idolatry, as is\nrightly by some distinguished.(507) As for the idolatry of the\ncontroverted ceremonies, I will prove that they are thrice idolatrous: 1.\n_Reductive_, because they are monuments of by-past idolatry;\n2._Participative_, because they are badges of present idolatry;\n3._Formaliter_, because they are idols themselves.\n\nFirst, then, they are idolatrous, because having been notoriously abused\nto idolatry heretofore, they are the detestable and accursed monuments,\nwhich give no small honour to the memory of that by-past idolatry which\nshould lie buried in hell. Dr Burges(508) reckons for idolatrous all\nceremonies devised and used in and to the honouring of an idol, whether\nproperly or by interpretation such. \u201cOf which sort (saith he) were all the\nceremonies of the pagans, and not a few of the Papists.\u201d If an opposite,\nwriting against us, be forced to acknowledge this much, one may easily\nconjecture what enforcing reason we have to double out our point. The\nargument in hand I frame thus:\u2014\n\nAll things and rites which have been notoriously abused to idolatry, if\nthey be not such as either God or nature hath made to be of a necessary\nuse, should be utterly abolished and purged away from divine worship, in\nsuch sort that they may not be accounted nor used by us as sacred things\nor rites pertaining to the same.\n\nBut the cross, surplice, kneeling in the act of receiving the communion,\n&c., are things and rites, &c., and are not such as either God or nature,\n&c.\n\nTherefore they should be utterly abolished, &c.\n\n_Sect._ 2. As for the proposition I shall first explain it and then prove\nit. I say, \u201call things and rites,\u201d for they are alike forbidden, as I\nshall show. I say, \u201cwhich have been notoriously abused to idolatry,\u201d\nbecause if the abuse be not known, we are blameless for retaining the\nthings and rites which have been abused. I say, \u201cif they be not such as\neither God or nature hath made to be of a necessary use,\u201d because if they\nbe of a necessary use, either through God\u2019s institution, as the\nsacraments, or through nature\u2019s law, as the opening of our mouths to speak\n(for when I am to preach or pray publicly, nature makes it necessary that\nI open my mouth to speak audibly and articularly), then the abuse cannot\ntake away the use. I say, \u201cthey may not be used by us as sacred things,\nrites pertaining to divine worship,\u201d because without the compass of\nworship they may be used to a natural or civil purpose. If I could get no\nother meat to eat than the consecrated host, which Papists idolatrise in\nthe circumgestation of it, I might lawfully eat it; and if I could get no\nother clothes to put on than the holy garments wherein a priest hath said\nmass, I might lawfully wear them. Things abused to idolatry are only then\nunlawful when they are used no otherwise than religiously, and as things\nsacred.\n\n_Sect._ 3. The proposition thus explained is confirmed by these five\nproofs: 1. God\u2019s own precept,\u2014\u201cYe shall defile also the covering of thy\ngraven images of silver, and the ornaments of thy molten images of gold:\nthou shalt cast them away as a menstruous cloth, thou shalt say unto it,\nGet thee hence,\u201d Isa. xxx. 22. The covering of the idol here spoken of,\nGaspar Sanctus(509) rightly understandeth to be that, _quo aut induebantur\nsimulacra Gentilico ritu, aut bracteas quibus ligneae imagines integantur,\naut quo homines idolis sacrificaturi amiciebantur_; so that the least\nappurtenances of idols are to be avoided. When the apostle Jude(510) would\nhave us to hate garments spotted with the flesh, his meaning is,\n_detestandam essevel superficiem ipsam mali sive peccati, quam tunicae\nappellatione subinnuere videtur_, as our own. Rolloke hath observed,(511)\nIf the very covering of an idol be forbidden, what shall be thought of\nother things which are not only spotted, but irrecoverably polluted with\nidols? Many such precepts were given to Israel, as \u201cYe shall destroy their\naltars, break their images, and cut down their groves,\u201d Exod. xxxiv. 13.\n\u201cThe graven images of their gods shall ye burn with fire: thou shalt not\ndesire the silver nor gold that is on them, nor take it unto thee, lest\nthou be snared therein; for it is an abomination to the Lord thy God,\u201d\nDeut. vii. 25, 26. Read to the same purpose, Num. xxxiii. 52; Deut. vii.\n5; xii. 2, 3.\n\nSecondly, God hath not only by his precepts commanded us to abolish all\nthe relics of idolatry, but by his promises also manifested unto us how\nacceptable service this should be to him. There is a command \u201cThat the\nIsraelites should destroy the Canaanites,\u201d Num. xxxiii. 52, _evertantque\nres omnes idololatricas ipsorum cui mandato_, saith Junius,(512)\n_subjicitur sua promissio_, namely, that the Lord would give them the\npromised land, and they should dispossess the inhabitants thereof, ver.\n53; yea, there is a promise of remission and reconciliation to this work:\n\u201cBy this shall the iniquity of Jacob be purged, and this is all the fruit\nto take away his sin; when he maketh all the stones of the altar as\nchalk-stones that are beaten asunder, the groves and images shall not\nstand up.\u201d Isa. xxvii. 9.\n\n_Sect._ 4. Thirdly, The churches of Pergamos and Thyatira are reproved for\nsuffering the use of idolothites, Rev. ii. 14-20, where the eating of\nthings sacrificed to idols is condemned as idolatry and spiritual\nadultery, as Perkins(513) noteth. Paybody, therefore, is greatly mistaken\nwhen he thinks that meats sacrificed to idols, being the good creatures of\nGod, were allowed by the Lord, out of the case of scandal, notwithstanding\nof idolatrous pollution; for the eating of things sacrificed to idols is\nreproved as idolatry, Rev. ii.; and the eating of such things is condemned\nas a fellowship with devils, 1 Cor. x. 20. Now idolatry and fellowship\nwith devils, I suppose, are unlawful, though no scandal should follow upon\nthem. And whereas he thinks meats sacrificed to idols to be lawful enough\nout of the case of scandal, for this reason, because they are the good\ncreatures of God, he should have considered better the Apostle\u2019s mind\nconcerning such idolothites; which Zanchius(514) setteth down thus: _Verum\nest, per se haec nihil __ sunt, sed respectu eorum quibut immolantur\naliquid sunt; quia per hoec illis quibus immolantur, nos consociamur. Qui\nisti? Daemones._ For our better understanding of this matter, we must\ndistinguish two sorts of idolothites, both which we find, 1 Cor. x. Of the\none, the Apostle speaks from the 14th verse of that chapter to the 23d; of\nthe other, from the 23d verse to the end. This is Beza\u2019s distinction in\nhis Annotations on that chapter. Of the first sort, he delivers the\nApostle\u2019s mind thus: That as Christians have their holy banquets, which\nare badges of their communion both with Christ and among themselves; and\nas the Israelites, by their sacrifices, did seal their copulation in the\nsame religion, so also idolaters, _cum suis idolis aut potius daemonibus,\nsolemnibusillis epulis copulantur_. So that this sort of idolothites were\neaten in temples, and public solemn banquets, which were dedicated to the\nhonour of idols, 1 Cor. viii. 10. Cartwright showeth(515) that the Apostle\nis comparing the table of the Lord with the table of idolaters; whereupon\nit followeth, that as we use the Lord\u2019s table religiously, so that table\nof idolaters of which the Apostle speaketh, had state in the idolatrous\nworship like that feast, Num. xxv. 3; _quod in honorem falsorum Deorum\ncelebrabatur_, saith Calvin.(516) This first sort of idolothites\nPareus(517) calls the sacrifices of idols; and from such, he saith, the\nApostle dissuadeth by this argument, _Participare epulis idolorum, est\nidololatria_. Of the second sort of idolothites, the Apostle begins to\nspeak in ver. 23. The Corinthians moved a question, Whether they might\nlawfully eat things sacrificed to idols? _In privatis conviviis_, saith\nPareus.(518) The Apostle resolves them that _domi in privato convictu_,\nthey might eat them, except it were in the case of scandal; thus\nBeza.(519) The first sort of idolothites are meant of Rev. ii., as Beza\nthere noteth; and of this sort must we understand Augustine(520) to mean\nwhilst he saith, that it were better _mori fame, quam idolothites vesci_.\nThese sorts are simply and in themselves unlawful. And if meats sacrificed\nto idols be so unlawful, then much more such things and rites as have not\nonly been sacrificed and destinated to the honour of idols (for this is\nbut one kind of idolatrous abuse), but also of a long time publicly and\nsolemnly employed in the worshipping of idols, and deeply defiled with\nidolatry, much more, I say, are they unlawful to be applied to God\u2019s most\npure and holy worship, and therein used by us publicly and solemnly, so\nthat the world may see us conforming and joining ourselves unto idolaters.\n\n_Sect._ 5. Fourthly, I fortify my proposition by approved examples; and,\nfirst, we find that Jacob, Gen. xxxv. 4, did not only abolish out of his\nhouse the idols, but their ear-rings also, because they were\n_superstitionis insignia_, as Calvin; _res ad idololatriam pertinentes_,\nas Junius; _monilia idolis consecrata_, as Pareus calleth them; all\nwriting upon that place. We have also the example of Elijah, 1 Kings\nxviii. 30: he would by no means offer upon Baal\u2019s altar, but would needs\nrepair the Lord\u2019s altar, though this should hold the people the longer in\nexpectation. This he did, in P. Martyr\u2019s judgment, because he thought it a\ngreat indignity to offer sacrifice to the Lord upon the altar of Baal;\nwhereupon Martyr(521) reprehendeth those who, in administering the true\nsupper of the Lord, _uti velint Papisticis vestibus et instrumentis_.\nFurther, we have the example of Jehu, who is commended for the destroying\nof Baal out of Israel, with his image, his house, and his very vestments,\n2 Kings x. 22-28. And what example more considerable than that of\nHezekiah, who not only abolished such monuments of idolatry as at their\nfirst institution were but men\u2019s invention, but brake down also the brazen\nserpent (though originally set up at God\u2019s own command), when once he saw\nit abused to idolatry? 2 Kings xviii. 4. This deed of Hezekiah Pope\nSteven(522) doth greatly praise, and professeth that it is set before us\nfor our imitation, that when our predecessors have wrought some things\nwhich might have been without fault in their time, and afterward they are\nconverted into error and superstition, they may be quickly destroyed by us\nwho come after them. Farellus saith,(523) that princes and magistrates\nshould learn by this example of Hezekiah what they should do with those\nsignificant rites of men\u2019s devising which have turned to superstition.\nYea, the Bishop of Winchester acknowledgeth,(524) that whatsoever is taken\nup at the injunction of men, when it is drawn to superstition, cometh\nunder the compass of the brazen serpent, and is to be abolished; and he\nexcepteth nothing from this example but only things of God\u2019s own\nprescribing. Moreover, we have the example of good Josiah, 2 Kings xxiii.,\nfor he did not only destroy the houses, and the high places of Baal, but\nhis vessels also, and his grove, and his altars; yea, the horses and\nchariots which had been given to the sun. The example also of penitent\nManasseh, who not only overthrew the strange gods, but their altars too, 2\nChron. xxxiii. 15. And of Moses, the man of God, who was not content to\nexecute vengeance on the idolatrous Israelites, except he should also\nutterly destroy the monument of their idolatry, Exod. xxxii. 17-20.\nLastly, we have the example of Daniel, who would not defile himself with a\nportion of the king\u2019s meat, Dan. i. 8; because, saith Junius,(525) it was\nconverted in _usum idololatricum_; for at the banquets of the Babylonians\nand other Gentiles, _erant praemessa sive praemissa, quoe diis\nproemittebantur_, they used to consecrate their meat and drink to idols,\nand to invocate the names of their idols upon the same, so that their meat\nand drink fell under the prohibition of idolothites. This is the reason\nwhich is given by the most part of the interpreters for Daniel\u2019s fearing\nto pollute himself with the king\u2019s meat and wine; and it hath also the\napprobation of a Papist.(526)\n\n_Sect._ 6. Fifthly, Our proposition is backed with a twofold reason, for\nthings which have been notoriously abused to idolatry should be abolished:\n1. Quia _monent. Quia movent._ First, then, they are monitory, and\npreserve the memory of idols; _monumentum_ in good things is both\n_monimentum_ and _munimentum_; but _monumentum_ in evil things (such as\nidolatry) is only _monimentum_, which _monet mentem_, to remember upon\nsuch things as ought not to be once named among saints, but should lie\nburied in the eternal darkness of silent oblivion. Those relics therefore\nof idolatry, _quibus quasi monumentis posteritas admoneatur_ (as Wolphius\nrightly saith(527)), are to be quite defaced and destroyed, because they\nserve to honour the memory of cursed idols. God would not have so much as\nthe name of an idol to be remembered among his people, but commanded to\ndestroy their names as well as themselves, Exod. xxiii. 13; Deut. xii. 3;\nJosh. xxiii. 7; whereby we are admonished, as Calvin saith,(528) how\ndetestable idolatry is before God, _cujus memoriam vult penitus deleri, ne\nposthac ullum ejus vestigium appareat_: yea, he requireth,(529) _eorum\nomnium memoriam deleri, quoe semeldicata sunt idolis_. If Mordecai would\nnot give his countenance, Esth. iii. 2, nor do any reverence to a living\nmonument of that nation whose name God had ordained to be blotted out from\nunder heaven, much less should we give connivance, and far less\ncountenance, but least of all reverence, Deut. xxv. 19, to the dead and\ndumb monuments of those idols which God hath devoted to utter destruction,\nwith all their naughty appurtenances, so that he will not have their names\nto be once mentioned or remembered again. But, secondly, _movent_ too;\nsuch idolothous remainders move us to turn back to idolatry. For _usu\ncompertum habemus, superstitiones etiam postquam explosoe essent, si qua\nrelicta fuissent earum monumenta, cum memoriam sui ipsarum apud homines,\ntum id tandem ut revocerantur obtinuisse_, saith Wolphius,(530) who\nhereupon thinks it behoveful to destroy _funditus_ such vestiges of\nsuperstition, for this cause, if there were no more: _ut et aspirantibus\nad revocandam idololatriam spes frangatur, et res novas molientibus ansa\npariter ac materia proeripiatur_. God would have Israel to overthrow all\nidolatrous monuments, lest thereby they should be snared, Deut. vii. 25;\nxii. 30. And if the law command to cover a pit, lest an ox or an ass\nshould fall therein, Exod. xxi. 23, shall we suffer a pit to be open\nwherein the precious souls of men and women, which all the world cannot\nransom, are likely to fall? Did God command to make a battlement for the\nroof of a house, and that for the safety of men\u2019s bodies, Deut. xxii. 8,\nand shall we not only not put up a battlement, or object some bar for the\nsafety of men\u2019s souls, but also leave the way slippery and full of snares?\nRead we not that the Lord, who knew what was in man, and saw how propense\nhe was to idolatry, did not only remove out of his people\u2019s way all such\nthings as might any way allure or induce them to idolatry (even to the\ncutting off the names of the idols out of the land, Zech. xiii. 2), but\nalso hedge up their way with thorns that they might not find their paths,\nnor overtake their idol gods, when they should seek after them? Hos. ii.\n6, 7. And shall we by the very contrary course not only not hedge up the\nway of idolatry with thorns, which may stop and stay such as have an\ninclination aiming forward, but also lay before them the inciting and\nenticing occasions which add to their own propension, such delectation as\nspurreth forward with a swift facility?\n\n_Sect._ 7. Thus, having both explained and confirmed the proposition of\nour present argument, I will make my next for the confutation of the\nanswers which our opposites devise to elude it. And, First, They tell us,\nthat it is needless to abolish utterly things and rites which the Papists\nhave abused to idolatry and superstition, and that it is enough to purge\nthem from the abuse, and to restore them again to their right use. Hence\nSaravia(531) will not have _pium crucis usum_ to be abolished _cum abusu_,\nbut holds it enough that the abuse and superstition be taken away. Dr\nForbesse\u2019s answer is,(532) that not only things instituted by God are not\nto be taken away for the abuse of them, but farther, _neque res medioe ab\nhominibus prudenter introductoe, propter sequentem abusum semper tollendoe\nsunt. Abusi sunt Papistoe templis, et oratoriis, et cathedris, et sacris\nvasis, et campanis, et benedictione matrimoniali; nec tamen res istas\ncensuerunt prudentes reformatores abjiciendas. Ans._ 1. Calvin,(533)\nanswering that which Cassander allegeth out of an Italian writer, _abusu\nnon tolli bonum usum_, he admits it only to be true in things which are\ninstituted by God himself, not so in things ordained by men, for the very\nuse of such things or rites as have no necessary use in God\u2019s worship, and\nwhich men have devised only at their own pleasure, is taken away by\nidolatrous abuse. _Pars tutior_ here, is to put them wholly away, and\nthere is by a great deal more danger in retaining than in removing them.\n2. The proofs which I have produced (or the proposition about which now we\ndebate,) do not only infer that things and rites which have been\nnotoriously abused to idolatry should be abolished, in case they be not\nrestored to a right use, but simply and absolutely that in any wise they\nare to be abolished. God commanded to say to the covering, and the\nornaments of idols, \u201cGet you hence,\u201d Isa. xxx. 22. It is not enough they\nbe purged from the abuse, but _simpliciter_ they themselves must pack them\nand be gone. How did Jacob with the ear-rings of the idols; Elijah with\nBaal\u2019s altar; Jehu with his vestments; Josiah with his houses; Manasseh\nwith his altars; Moses with the golden calf; Joshua with the temples of\nCanaan; Hezekiah with the brazen serpent? Did they retain the things\nthemselves, and only purge them from the abuse? Belike, if these our\nopposites had been their councillors, they had advised them to be\ncontented with such a moderation; yet we see they were better counselled\nwhen they destroyed utterly the things themselves, whereby we know that\nthey were of the same mind with us, and thought that things abused to\nidolatry, if they have no necessary use, are far better away than a-place.\nDid Daniel refuse Bel\u2019s meat because it was not restored to the right use?\nNay, if that had been all, it might have been quickly helped, and the meat\nsanctified by the word of God and prayer. Finally, Were the churches of\nPergamos and Thyatira reproved because they did not restore things\nsacrificed to idols to their right use? Or, were they not rather reproved\nfor having anything at all to do with the things themselves?\n\n_Sect._ 8. As for that which Dr Forbesse objecteth to us, we answer, that\ntemples, places of prayer, chairs, vessels, and bells, are of a necessary\nuse, by the light and guidance of nature itself; and matrimonial\nbenediction is necessary by God\u2019s institution, Gen. i. 28; so that all\nthose examples do except themselves from the argument in hand. But the\nDoctor(534) intendeth to bring those things within the category of things\nindifferent; and to this purpose he allegeth, that it is indifferent to\nuse this or that place for a temple, or a place of prayer; also to use\nthese vessels, and bells, or others. And of matrimonial benediction to be\nperformed by a pastor, he saith there is nothing commanded in Scripture.\n_Ans._ Though it be indifferent to choose this place, &c., also to use\nthese vessels or other vessels, &c.; yet the Doctor, I trust, will not\ndeny that temples, houses of prayer, vessels and bells, are of a necessary\nuse (which exempteth them from the touch of our present argument);\nwhereas, beside that it is not necessary to kneel in the communion in this\nplace more than in that place, neither to keep the feast of Christ\u2019s\nnativity, passion, &c. upon these days more than upon other days, &c., the\nthings themselves are not necessary in their kind; and it is not necessary\nto keep any festival day, nor to kneel at all in the act of receiving the\ncommunion. There is also another respect which hindereth temples, vessels,\n&c. from coming within the compass of this our argument, but neither doth\nit agree to the controverted ceremonies. Temples, houses of prayer,\nvessels for the ministration of the sacraments, and bells, are not used by\nus in divine worship as things sacred, or as holier than other houses,\nvessels, and bells; but we use them only for natural necessity,\u2014partly for\nthat common decency which hath no less place in the actions of civil than\nof sacred assemblies; yea, in some cases they may be applied to civil\nuses, as hath been said;(535) whereas the controverted ceremonies are\nrespected and used as sacred rites, and as holier than any circumstance\nwhich is alike common to civil and sacred actions, neither are they used\nat all out of the case of worship. We see now a double respect wherefore\nour argument inferreth not the necessity of abolishing and destroying such\ntemples, vessels, and bells, as have been abused to idolatry, viz. because\nit can neither be said that they are not things necessary, nor yet that\nthey are things sacred.\n\n_Sect._ 9. Nevertheless (to add this by the way), howbeit for those\nreasons the retaining and using of temples which have been polluted with\nidols be not in itself unlawful, yet the retaining of every such temple is\nnot ever necessary, but sometimes it is expedient, for farther extirpation\nof superstition, to demolish and destroy some such temples as have been\nhorribly abused to idolatry, Calvin also(536) and Zanchius(537) do plainly\ninsinuate. Whereby I mean to defend (though not as in itself necessary,\nyet as expedient _pro tunc_,) that which the reformers of the church of\nScotland did in casting down some of those churches which had been\nconsecrate to popish idols, and of a long time polluted with idolatrous\nworship. As on the one part the reformers (not without great probability)\nfeared, that so long as these churches were not made even with the ground,\nthe memory of that superstition, whereunto they had been employed and\naccustomed, should have been in them preserved, and, with some sort of\nrespect, recognised; so, on the other part, they saw it expedient to\ndemolish them, for strengthening the hands of such as adhered to the\nreformation, for putting Papists out of all hope of the re-entry of\nPopery, and for hedging up the way with thorns, that the\nidolatrously-minded might not find their paths. And since the pulling down\nof those churches wanted neither this happy intent not happy event, I must\nsay that the bitter invectives given forth against it, by some who carry a\nfavourable eye to the pompous bravery of the Romish whore, and have\ndeformed too much of that which was by them reformed, are to be detested\nby all such as wish the eternal exile of idolatrous monuments out of the\nLord\u2019s land, yet let these Momus-like spirits understand that their\ncensorious verdicts do also reflect upon those ancient Christians of whom\nwe read,(538) that with their own hands they destroyed the temples of\nidols, and upon Chrysostom, who stirred up some monks, and sent them into\nPh\u0153nicia, together with workmen, and sustained them on the expences and\ncharges of certain godly women, that they might destroy the temples of\nidols, as the Magdeburgians(539) have marked out of Theodoret, likewise\nupon them of the religion in France, of whom Thuanus recordeth, that\n_templa confractis ac disjectis statuis et altaribus, expilaverant_,\nlastly, upon foreign divines,(540) who teach, that not only _idola_, but\n_idolia_ also, and _omnia idololatria instrumenta_ should be abolished.\nMoreover, what was it else but reason\u2019s light which made Cambyses to fear\nthat the superstition of Egypt could not be well rooted out if the temples\nwherein it was seated were not taken away; so that _offensus\nsuperstitionibus AEgyptiorum, Apis c\u0153terorumque Deorum \u0153des dirui jubet:\nad Ammonis quoque nobilissimum templum expugnandum, exercitum mittit_,\nsaith Justinus.(541) And is not the danger of retaining idolatrous\nchurches thus pointed at by P. Martyr: _Curavit_, &c. \u201cJehu (saith\nhe(542)) took care to have the temples of Baal overthrown, lest they\nshould return any more to their wonted use. Wherefore, it appears, that\nmany do not rightly, who, having embraced the gospel of the Son of God,\nyet, notwithstanding, keep still the instruments of Popery. And they have\nfar better looked to piety who have taken care to have popish images,\nstatues and ornaments, utterly cut off; for, as we read in the\necclesiastical histories, Constantine the Great, after he had given his\nname to Christ, by an edict provided and took order that the temples of\nthe idols might be closed and shut up; but, because they did still remain,\nJulian the Apostate did easily open and unlock them, and thereafter did\nprostitute the idols of old superstition to be worshipped in them,\u2014which\nTheodosius, the best and commended prince, animadverting, commanded to\npull them down, lest they should again any more be restored.\u201d But because\nI suppose no sober spirit will deny that sometimes, and in some cases, it\nmay be expedient to rase and pull down some temples polluted with idols,\nwhere other temples may be had to serve sufficiently the assemblies of\nChristian congregations (which is all I plead for), therefore I leave this\npurpose and return to Dr Forbesse.\n\n_Sect._ 10. As touching matrimonial benediction, it is also exempted out\nof the compass of our present argument, because through divine institution\nit hath a necessary use, as we have said. And though the Doctor, to make\nit appear that a pastor\u2019s performing of the same is a thing indifferent,\nallegeth, that in Scripture there is nothing commanded thereanent; yet\nplain it is from Scripture itself, that matrimonial benediction ought to\nbe given by a pastor; for God hath commanded his ministers to bless his\npeople, Num. vi., which by just analogy belongeth to the ministers of the\ngospel; neither is there any ground for making herein a difference betwixt\nthem and the minister of the law, but we must conceive the commandment to\ntie both alike to the blessing of God\u2019s people. Unto which ministerial\nduty of blessing, because no such limits can be set as may exclude\nmatrimonial blessing, therefore they are bound to the performance of it\nalso. And if farther we consider, that the duty of blessing was performed\nby the minister of the Lord, Heb. vi. 7, even before the law of Moses, we\nare yet more confirmed to think, that the blessing of the people was not\ncommanded in the law as a thing peculiar and proper to the Levitical\npriesthood, but as a moral and perpetual duty belonging to the Lord\u2019s\nministers for ever. Wherefore, notwithstanding of any abuse of matrimonial\nbenediction among Papists, yet, forasmuch as it hath a necessary use in\nthe church, and may not (as the controverted ceremonies may) be well\nspared, it is manifest that it cometh not under the respect and account of\nthose things whereof our argument speaketh.\n\n_Sect._ 11. Lastly, Whereas the Doctor would bear his reader in hand, that\nin the judgment of wise reformators, even such things as have been brought\nin use by men only, without God\u2019s institution, are not to be ever taken\naway, for the abuse which followeth upon them; let reformators speak for\nthemselves: _Nos quoque priscos ritus, quibus indifferenter uti licet,\nquia verbo Dei consentanei sunt, non rejicimus; modo ne superstitio et\npravus abusus eos abolere cogat_.(543) This was the judgment of the wisest\nreformators,\u2014that rights which were both ancient and lawful, and agreeable\nto God\u2019s word, were notwithstanding of necessity to be abolished, because\nof their superstition and wicked abuse.\n\n_Sect._ 12. Secondly, Our opposites answer us, that beside the purging of\nthings and rites abused by idolaters from the idolatrous pollution, and\nthe restoring of them to a right use, preaching and teaching against the\nsuperstition and abuse which hath followed upon them, is another means to\navoid that harm which we fear to ensue upon the retaining of them. _Ans._\n1. This is upon as good ground pretended for the keeping of images in\nchurches: _At inquiunt statim, docemus has imagines non esse adorandas.\nQuasi vero_, saith Zanchius,(544) _non idem olim fecerit diligentius Deus,\nper Mosen et prophetas, quam nos faciamus. Cur igitur etiam volebat tolli\nimagines omnes? quia non satis est verbo docere non esse faciendum malum;\nsed tollenda etiam sunt malorum offendicula, irritamenta, caus\u0153,\noccasiones._ It is not enough, with the scribes and Pharisees, to teach\nout of Moses\u2019 chair what the people should do, but all occasions, yea,\nappearances of evil, are to be taken out of their sight. _Efficacious enim\net plus movent, quae in oculos quam quae in aures incidunt. Potuerat et\nHezekias populum monere, ne serpentem adorarent, sed muluit confringere et\npenitus e conspectu auferre; et rectius fecit,_ saith one well to this\npurpose.(545) 2. Experience hath taught to how little purpose such\nadmonitions do serve. Calvin,(546) writing to the Lord Protector of\nEngland of some popish ceremonies which did still remain in that church\nafter the reformation of the same, desireth that they may be abolished,\nbecause of their former abuse, in time of Popery. _Quid enim_, saith he,\n_illae ceremoniae aliud fuerunt, quam totidem lenocinia quae miseras\nanimas ad malum perducerent?_ &c. But because he saw that some might\nanswer that which our Formalists answer now to us, and say, it were enough\nto warn and teach men that they abuse not these ceremonies, and that the\nabolishing of these ceremonies themselves were not necessary; therefore\nimmediately he subjoineth these words: _Jam si de cautione agitur,\nmonebuntur homines scilicet, ne ad illas nunc impingant, &c. Quis tamen\nnon videt obdurari ipsos nihilominus, nihil ut infelici illa cautione\nobtineri possit._ Whereupon he concludes, that if such ceremonies were\nsuffered to remain, this should be a means to nourish a greater hardness\nand confirmation in evil, and a veil drawn, so that the sincere doctrine\nwhich is propounded should not be admitted as it ought to be. In another\nepistle to Cranmer,(547) archbishop of Canterbury, he complaineth that\nexternal superstitions were so corrected in the church of England, _ut\nresidui maneant innumeri surculi, qui assidue pullulent_. And what good,\nthen, was done by their admonitions, whereby they did, in some sort, send\nthe reviving twigs of old superstition, since forasmuch as they were not\nwholly eradicate, they did still shoot forth again? If a man should dig a\npit by the way-side, for some commodity of his own, and thou admonish the\ntravellers to take heed to themselves, if they go that way in the darkness\nof the night, who would hold him excusable? How then shall they be excused\nwho dig a most dangerous pit, which is like to ruin many souls, and yet\nwill have us to think that they are blameless, for that they warn men to\nbeware of it?\n\n_Sect._ 13. Thirdly, we are told that if these answers which our opposites\ngive get no place, then shall we use nothing at all which hath been used\nby idolaters, and by consequence, neither baptism nor the Lord\u2019s supper.\nBut let Zanchius answer for us,(548) that these things are by themselves\nnecessary, so that it is enough they be purged from the abuse. And\nelsewhere(549) he resolveth, that things which are by themselves both good\nand necessary, may not for any abuse be put away. _Si vero res sint\nadiaphorae sua natura et per legem Dei, eoque tales quae citra jacturam\nsalutis omitti possunt, etiam si ad bonos usus initio fuerunt institutae;\nsi tamen postea videamus illas in abusus pernitiosos esse conversas;\npietas in Deum, et charitas erga proximum, postulant ut tollantur, &c._ He\nadds, for proof of that which he saith, the example of Hezekiah in\nbreaking down that brazen serpent; which example doth indeed most\npregnantly enforce the abolishing of all things or rites notoriously\nabused to idolatry when they are not of any necessary use, but it\nwarranteth not the abolishing of anything which has a necessary use,\nbecause the brazen serpent is not contained in the number of those things,\n_quibus carere non possumus_, saith Wolphius,(550) answering to the same\nobjection which presently I have in hand. Now, that the ceremonies have\nnot in themselves, nor by the law of God, any necessary use, and that\nwithout hazard of salvation they may be omitted, is acknowledged by\nFormalists themselves; wherefore I need not stay to prove it.\n\n_Sect._ 14. Besides these answers which are common in our adversaries\u2019\nmouths, some of them have other particular subterfuges, which now I am to\nsearch. \u201cWe must consider (saith Bishop Lindsey(551)) the ceremony itself\n(dedicated to, and polluted with idolatry,) whether it be of human or\ndivine institution. If it be of human institution it may be removed, &c.;\nbut if the ceremony be of divine institution, such as kneeling is,\u2014for the\nsame is commended by God unto us in his word,\u2014then we ought to consider\nwhether the abuse of that ceremony hath proceeded from the nature of the\naction wherein it was used; for if it be so, it ought to be abolished,\n&c.; but if the abuse proceed not from the nature of the action, but from\nthe opinion of the agent, then, the opinion being removed, the religious\nceremony may be used without any profanation of idolatry. For example, the\nabuse of kneeling in elevation, &c., proceedeth not only from the opinion\nof the agent, but from the nature of the action, which is idolatrous and\nsuperstitious, &c., and, therefore, both the action and gesture ought to\nbe abolished. But the sacrament of the supper, being an action instituted\nby God, and kneeling being of its own nature an holy and religious\nceremony, it can never receive contagion of idolatry from it, but only\nfrom the opinion of the agent: then remove the opinion, both the action\nitself may be rightly used, and kneeling therein,\u201d &c. _Ans._ 1. Since he\ngranteth that a ceremony dedicated to and polluted with idolatry, may (he\nanswereth not the argument which there he propounded, except he say must)\nbe abolished, if it be of human institution, he must grant from this\nground, if there were no more, that the cross, surplice, kneeling at the\ncommunion, &c., having been so notoriously abused to idolatry, must be\nabolished, because they have no institution except from men only. But, 2,\nWhy saith he that kneeling is a ceremony of divine institution? which he\npronounceth not of kneeling, as it is actuated by some individual case, or\nclothed with certain particular circumstances, (for he maketh this\nkneeling whereof he speaketh to be found in two most different actions,\nthe one idolatrous, the other holy,) but kneeling in the general, _per\nse_, and _praecise ab omnibus circumstantiis_. Let him now tell where\nkneeling thus considered is commended unto us in God\u2019s word. He would\npossibly allege that place, Psal. xcv. 6, \u201cO come, let us worship and bow\ndown: let us kneel before the Lord our Maker,\u201d which is cited in the Canon\nof Perth about kneeling; but I answer, whether one expounded that place\nwith Calvin,(552) in this sense, _ut scilicet ante arcam faederis populus\nse prosternat, quia sermo de legali cultu habetur_: whereupon it should\nfollow that it commendeth only kneeling to the Jews in that particular\ncase, or whether it be taken more generally, to commend kneeling (though\nnot as necessary, yet as laudable and beseeming) in the solemn acts of\nGod\u2019s immediate worship, such as that praise and thanksgiving whereof the\nbeginning of the psalm speaketh,\u2014whether, I say, it be taken in this or\nthat sense, yet it condemneth not kneeling, except in a certain kind of\nworship only. And as for kneeling in the general nature of it, it is not\nof divine institution, but in itself indifferent, even as sitting,\nstanding, &c., all which gestures are then only made good or evil when in\n_actu exercito_, they are actuated and individualised by particular\ncircumstances. 3. If so be the ceremony be abused to idolatry, it skills\nnot how, for, as I have showed before, the reasons and proofs which I have\nproduced for the proposition of our present argument, hold good against\nthe retaining of anything which hath been known to be abused to idolatry,\nand only such things as have a necessary use are to be excepted. 4. The\nnature of an action, wherein a ceremony is used, cannot be the cause of\nthe abuse of that ceremony; neither can the abuse of a ceremony proceed\nfrom the nature of the action wherein it is used, as one effect from the\ncause, for _nihil potest esse homini causa sufficiens peccati_, except\nonly _propria voluntas_(_553_). 5. The abuse of kneeling in the idolatrous\naction of elevation, proceedeth not from the nature of the action, but\nfrom the opinion of the agent, or rather from his will, for (_principium\nactionum humanarum_, is not opinion, but will, choosing that which opinion\nconceiteth to be chosen, or _voluntas praeunte luce intellectus_,) it is\nthe will of the agent only which both maketh the action of elevation to be\nidolatrous, and likewise kneeling in this action to receive the contagion\nof idolatry. For the elevation of the bread _materialiter_ is not\nidolatrous (more than the lifting up of the bread among us by elders or\ndeacons, when in taking it off the table, or setting it on, they lift it\nabove the heads of the communicants), but _formaliter_ only, as it is\nelevated with a will and intention to place it in state of worship. So\nlikewise kneeling to the bread _materialiter_ is not idolatry (else a man\nwere an idolater who should be against his will thrust down and holden by\nviolence kneeling on his knees when the bread is elevated), but\n_formaliter_, as it proceedeth from a will and intention in men to give to\nthe bread elevated a state in that worship, and out of that respect to\nkneel before it. 6. What can he gain by this device, that the abuse of\nkneeling in the Lord\u2019s supper proceeded not from the nature of the action,\nbut from the will of the agent? Can he hereupon infer, that kneeling in\nthat action is to be retained notwithstanding of any contagion of idolatry\nwhich it hath received? Nay, then, let him say that Hezekiah did not\nrightly in breaking down the brazen serpent, which was set up at God\u2019s\ncommand, and the abuse whereof proceeded not from the thing itself, which\nhad a most lawful, profitable, and holy use, but only from the perverse\nopinion and will of them who abused it to idolatry.\n\n_Sect._ 15. But the comparing of kneeling to the brazen serpent is very\nunsavoury to the Bishop; and wherefore? \u201cThe brazen serpent (saith he), in\nthe time it was abolished, had no use: that ceased with the virtue of the\ncure that the Israelites received by looking upon it; the act of kneeling\ncontinueth always in a necessary use, for the better expressing of our\nthankfulness to God.\u201d _Ans._ 1. Both kneeling, and all the rest of the\npopish ceremonies, may well be compared to the brazen serpent. And divines\ndo commonly allege this example, as most pregnant to prove that things or\nrites polluted with idols, and abused to idolatry, may not be retained, if\nthey have no necessary use; and I have cited before the Bishop of\nWinchester, acknowledging that this argument holdeth good against all\nthings which are taken up, not at God\u2019s prescription, but at men\u2019s\ninjunction. J. Rainold(554) argumenteth from Hezekiah\u2019s breaking down of\nthe brazen serpent, to the plucking down of the sign of the cross. 2. Why\nsaith he that the brazen serpent, in the time it was abolished, had no\nuse? The use of it ceased not with the cure, but it was still kept for a\nmost pious and profitable use, even to be a monument of that mercy which\nthe Israelites received in the wilderness, and it served for the better\nexpressing of their thankfulness to God, which the Bishop here calleth a\nnecessary use. 3. When he saith that kneeling continueth always in a\nnecessary use, we must understand him to speak of kneeling in the act of\nreceiving the communion; else he runs at random; for it is not kneeling in\nthe general, but kneeling in this particular case, which is compared to\nthe brazen serpent. Now, to say that this gesture in this action is\nnecessary for our better expressing of our thankfulness to God, importeth\nthat the church of Scotland, and many famous churches in Europe, for so\nmany years have omitted that which was necessary for the better expressing\nof their thankfulness to God, and that they have not well enough expressed\nit. And, moreover, if kneeling be necessary in the Lord\u2019s supper for our\nbetter expressing of our thankfulness to God, then it is also necessary at\nour own common tables. Though we be bound to be more thankful at the\nLord\u2019s table, and that because we receive a benefit of infinite more\nworth, yet we are bound to be _tam grati_, as well thankful at our own\ntables, albeit not _tanta gratitudine_. If, then, the same kind of\nthankfulness be required of us at our own tables (for _intentio et\nremissio graduum secundum magis et minus, non variant speciem rei_,) that\nwhich is necessary for expressing of our thankfulness at the Lord\u2019s table\nmust be necessary also for the expressing of it at our own. When I see the\nBishop sitting at his table, I shall tell him that he omitteth the gesture\nwhich is necessary for the expressing of his thankfulness to God. 4. Did\nnot the apostles\u2019 receiving this sacrament from Christ himself well enough\nexpress their thankfulness to God? yet they kneeled not, but sat, as is\nevident, and shall be afterwards proved against them who contradict\neverything which crosseth them. 5. God will never take a ceremony of men\u2019s\ndevising for a better expressing of our thankfulness than a gesture which\nis commended to us by the example of his own Son, and his apostles,\ntogether with the celebration of this sacrament in all points according to\nhis institution. 6. How shall we know where we have the Bishop and his\nfellows? It seems they know not where they have themselves; for sometimes\nthey tell us that it is indifferent to take the communion sitting, or\nstanding, or passing, or kneeling, yet here the Bishop tells us that\nkneeling is necessary. 7. I see the Bishop perceiveth that no answer can\ntake kneeling at the communion out of the compass of the brazen serpent,\nexcept to say it hath a necessary use; this is the dead lift, which yet\nhelpeth not, as I have showed. All things, then, which are not necessary\n(whereof kneeling is one), being notoriously abused to idolatry, fall\nunder the brazen serpent.\n\n_Sect._ 16. Paybody also will here talk with us, therefore we will talk\nwith him too. He saith,(555) that God did not absolutely condemn things\nabused to idolatry, and tells us of three conditions on which it was\nlawful to spare idolatrous appurtenances. 1. If there were a needful use\nof them in God\u2019s worship. 2. In case they were so altered and disposed, as\nthat they tended not to the honour of the idol, and his damnable worship.\n3. If they were without certain danger of ensnaring people into idolatry.\n_Ans._ 1. Either he requires all these conditions in every idolothite and\nidolatrous appurtenance which may be retained, or else he thinks that any\none of them sufficeth. If he require all these, the last two are\nsuperfluous; for that which hath a needful use in God\u2019s worship, can\nneither tend to the honour of the idol, nor yet can have in it any danger\nof ensnaring people into idolatry. If he think any one of those conditions\nenough, then let us go through them: The first I admit, but it will not\nhelp his cause, for while the world standeth they shall never prove that\nkneeling in the act of receiving the communion, and the other controverted\nceremonies, have either a needful, or a profitable, or a lawful use in\nGod\u2019s worship. As for his second condition, it is all one with that which\nI have already confuted,(556) namely, that things abused to idolatry may\nbe kept, if they be purged from their abuse, and restored to the right\nuse. But he allegeth for it a passage of Parker, _of the Cross_, cap. 1,\nsect. 7, p. 10, where he showeth out of Augustine, that an idolothite may\nnot be kept for private use, except, 1. _Omnis honor idoli, cum\nappertessima destructione subvertatur_. 2. That not only his honour be not\ndespoiled, but also all show thereof. How doth this place (now would I\nknow) make anything for Paybody? Do they keep kneeling for private use? Do\nthey destroy most openly all honour of the idol to which kneeling was\ndedicated? Hath their kneeling not so much as any show of the breaden\ngod\u2019s honour? Who will say so? And if any will say it, who will believe\nit? Who knoweth not that kneeling is kept for a public, and not for a\nprivate use, and that the breaden idol receiveth very great show of honour\nfrom it? He was scarce of warrants when he had no better than Parker could\nafford him. His third condition rests, and touching it I ask, what if\nthose idolatrous appurtenances be not without apparent danger of ensnaring\npeople into idolatry? Are we not commanded to abstain from all appearance\nof evil? Will he correct the Apostle, and teach us, that we need not care\nfor apparent, but for certain dangers? What more apparent danger of\nensnaring people into idolatry than unnecessary ceremonies, which have\nbeen dedicated to and polluted with idols, and which, being retained, do\nboth admonish us to remember upon old idolatry, and move us to return to\nthe same, as I have before made evident?(557)\n\n_Sect._ 17. Now, as for the assumption of our present argument, it cannot\nbe but evident to any who will not harden their minds against the light of\nthe truth, that the ceremonies in question have been most notoriously\nabused to idolatry and superstition, and withal, that they have no\nnecessary use to make us retain them. I say, they have been notoriously\nabused to idolatry. 1. Because they have been dedicated and consecrated to\nthe service of idols. 2. Because they have been deeply polluted, and\ncommonly employed in idolatrous worship. For both these reasons does\nZanchius condemn the surplice,(558) and such like popish ceremonies left\nin England, because the whore of Rome has abused, and does yet abuse them,\n_ad alliciendos homines ad scortandum. Sunt enim pompae istae omnes, et\nceremoniae Papistisae, nihil aliud quam fuci meretricii, ad hoc\nexcogitati, ut homines ad spiritualem scortationem alliciantur._ O golden\nsentence, and worthy to be engraven with a pen of iron, and the point of a\ndiamond! for most needful it is to consider, that those ceremonies are the\nvery meretricious bravery and veigling trinkets wherewith the Romish whore\ndoth faird and paint herself, whilst she propineth to the world the cup of\nher fornications. This makes Zanchius(559) to call those ceremonies the\nrelics and symbols of popish idolatry and superstition. When Queen Mary\nset up Popery in England, and restored all of it which King Henry had\noverthrown, she considered that Popery could not stand well-favoredly\nwithout the ceremonies; whereupon she ordained,(560) _ut dies omnes\nfesticelebrentur, superioris aetatis ceremoniae restituantur, pueri\nadultiores __ ante baptisati, ab episcopis confirmentur._ So that not in\nremote regions, but in his Majesty\u2019s dominions,\u2014not in a time past memory,\nbut about fourscore years ago,\u2014not by people\u2019s practice only, but by the\nlaws and edicts of the supreme magistrate, the ceremonies have been abused\nto the reinducing and upholding of Popery and idolatry. Both far and near,\nthen, both long since and lately, it is more than notorious how grossly\nand grievously the ceremonies have been polluted with idolatry and\nsuperstition.\n\nI cannot choose but marvel much how Paybody was not ashamed to deny that\nkneeling has been abused by the Papists.(561) Blush, O paper, which art\nblotted with such a notable lie! What will not desperate impudency dare to\naver? But Bishop Lindsey seemeth also to hold that kneeling hath been\nabused by the Papists(562) only in the elevation and circumgestation of\nthe host, but not in the participation, and that Honorius did not command\nkneeling in the participation, but only in the elevation and\ncircumgestation. _Ans._ 1. _Saltem mendacem oportet essememorem._ Saith\nnot the Bishop himself elsewhere of the Papists,(563) \u201cIn the sacrament\nthey kneel to the sign,\u201d whereby he would prove a disconformity between\ntheir kneeling and ours; for we kneel, saith he, \u201cby the sacrament to the\nthing signified.\u201d Now if the Papists in the sacrament kneel to the sign,\nthen they have idolatrously abused kneeling, even in the participation;\nfor the Bishop dare not say that, in the elevation or circumgestation,\nthere is either sacrament or sign. 2. Why do our divines controvert with\nthe Papists, _de adoratione euchuristiae_, if Papists adore it not in the\nparticipation? for the host, carried about in a box, is not the sacrament\nof the eucharist. 3. In the participation, Papists think that the bread is\nalready transubstantiate into the body of Christ, by virtue of the words\nof consecration. Now, if in the participation they kneel to that which\nthey falsely conceive to be the body of Christ (but is indeed corruptible\nbread), with an intention to give it _latria_ or divine worship, then in\nthe participation they abuse it to idolatry. But that is true; therefore,\n&c. 4. Durand showeth,(564) that though in the holidays of Easter and\nPentecost, and the festivities of the blessed Virgin, and in the Lord\u2019s\nday, they kneel not in the church, but only stand (because of the joy of\nthe festivity), and at the most do but bow or incline their heads at\nprayer, yet _in praesentia corporis et sanguinis Christi_, in presence of\nthe bread and wine, which they think to be the body and blood of Christ,\nthey cease not to kneel. And how will the Bishop make their participation\nfree of this idolatrous kneeling? The Rhemists show us,(565) that when\nthey are eating and drinking the body and blood of our Lord, they adore\nthe sacrament, and, humbling themselves, they say to it, _Domine non sum\ndignus, Deus propitius esto mihi peccatori_. 5. As for that which Honorius\nIII. decreed, Dr White calleth it the adoration of the sacrament,(566)\nwhich, if it is so, then we must say, that he decreed adoration in the\nparticipation itself, because _extra usum sacramenti_, the bread cannot be\ncalled a sacrament. Honorius commanded that the priest should frequently\nteach his people to bow down devoutly when the host is elevated in the\ncelebration of the mass, and that they should do the same when it is\ncarried to the sick. All this was ordained in reference to the\nparticipation. _Ad usum illa instituta sunt_, says Chemnitius,(567)\nspeaking of this decree, _quando scilicet panis consecratur, et quando ad\ninfirmos defertur, ut exhibeatur et sumatur_. So that that which was\nspecially respected in the decree, was adoring in the participation.\n\nLastly, Here we have to do with Dr Burges, who will have us to think, that\nadoration in receiving the sacrament(568) hath not been idolatrously\nintended to the sacrament in the church of Rome, neither by decree nor\ncustom. Not by decree, because albeit Honorius appointed adoration to be\nused in the elevation and circumgestation, yet not in the act of\nreceiving. And albeit the Roman ritual do appoint, that clergymen coming\nto receive the sacrament do it kneeling, yet this was done in veneration\nof the altar,(569) or of that which standeth thereupon, and not for\nadoration of the host put into their mouths. Not by custom; for he will\nnot have it said that kneeling in the time of receiving was ever in the\nchurch of Rome any rite of or for adoration of the sacrament, because\nalbeit the people kneel in the act of receiving, yet I \u201cdeny (saith he)\nthat they ever intended adoration of the species, at that moment of time\nwhen they took it in their mouths, but then turned themselves to God,\u201d &c.\n_Ans._ 1. As for the decree of Honorius, I have already answered with\nChemnitius, that it had reference specially to the receiving. 2. When\nclergymen are appointed in the Roman ritual to receive the sacrament at\nthe altar kneeling, this was not for veneration of the altar, to which\nthey did reverence at all times when they approached to it, but this was\nrequired particularly in their receiving of the sacrament, for adoration\nof it. Neither is there mention made of the altar as conferring anything\nto their kneeling in receiving the sacrament; for the sacrament was not\nused the more reverently because it stood upon the altar, but by the\ncontrary, for the sacrament\u2019s sake reverence was done to the altar, which\nwas esteemed the seat of the body of Christ. It appeareth, therefore, that\nthe altar is mentioned, not as concerning the kneeling of the clergymen in\ntheir communicating, but simply as concerning their communicating, because\nnone but they were wont to communicate at the altar, according to that\nreceived canon, _Solis autem ministris altaris liceat ingredi ad altare et\nibidem communicare_.(570) The one of the Doctor\u2019s own conjectures is, that\nthey kneeled for reverence of that which stood upon the altar; but I would\nknow what that was which, standing upon the altar, made them to kneel in\nthe participation, if it was not the host itself? Now, whereas he denies,\nas touching custom, that people did ever intend the adoration of the\nspecies, I answer: 1. How knows he what people in the Roman church did\nintend in their minds? 2. What warrant hath he for this, that they did not\nin the participation adore the host, which was then put into their mouth?\n3. Though this which he saith were true, he gaineth nothing by it; for put\nthe case, they did not intend the adoration of the species, dare he say,\nthat they intended not the adoration of that which was under the species?\nI trow not. Now, that which was under the species, though in their conceit\nit was Christ\u2019s body, yet it was indeed bread; so that, in the very\nparticipation, they were worshipping the bread. But, 4, What needeth any\nmore? He maketh himself a liar, and saith plainly,(571) that after\ntransubstantiation was embraced, and when all the substance of the visible\ncreature was held to be gone, they did intend the adoration of the\ninvisible things, as if there had been now no substance of any creature\nleft therein, whereby he destroyeth all which he hath said of their not\nintending the adoration of the species.\n\n_Sect._ 20. Last of all, for the other part of my assumption, that the\nceremonies have no necessary use in God\u2019s worship, I need no other proof\nthan the common by-word of Formalists, which saith they are things\nindifferent. Yet the Bishop of Edinburgh(572) and Paybody(573) have turned\ntheir tongues bravely, and chosen rather to say anything against us than\nnothing. They spare not to answer, that kneeling hath a necessary use.\nThey are most certainly speaking of kneeling in the act of receiving the\ncommunion, for they and their opposites, in those places, are disputing of\nno other kneeling but this only. Now we may easily perceive they are in an\nevil taking, when they are driven to such an unadvised and desperate\nanswer. For, 1. If kneeling in the act of receiving the Lord\u2019s supper be\nnecessary, why have themselves too written so much for the indifferency of\nit? O desultorious levity that knows not where to hold itself! 2. If it be\nnecessary, what makes it to be so? What law? What example? What reason? 3.\nIf it be necessary, not only many reformed churches, and many ancient too,\nbut Christ himself and his apostles have, in this sacrament, omitted\nsomething that was necessary. 4. If it be necessary, why do many of their\nown disciples take the communion sitting, in places where sitting is used?\nWhat need I to say more? In the first part of this dispute I have proved\nthat the ceremonies are not necessary, in respect of the church\u2019s\nordinance, howbeit if it were answered in this place, that they are in\nthis respect necessary, it helpeth not, since the argument proceedeth\nagainst all things notoriously abused to idolatry, which neither God nor\nnature hath made necessary. And for any necessity of the ceremonies in\nthemselves, either our opposites must repudiate what hath unadvisedly\nfallen from their pens hereanent, or else forsake their beaten ground of\nindifferency, and say plainly, that the ceremonies are urged by them, to\nbe observed with an opinion of necessity, as worship of God, and as things\nin themselves necessary. Look to yourselves, O Formalists, for you stand\nhere upon such slippery places, that you cannot hold both your feet.\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER III.\n\n\nTHAT THE CEREMONIES ARE UNLAWFUL, BECAUSE THEY SORT US WITH IDOLATERS,\nBEING THE BADGES OF PRESENT IDOLATRY AMONG THE PAPISTS.\n\n\n_Sect._ 1. It followeth according to the order which I have proposed, to\nshow next, that the ceremonies are idolatrous, _participativ\u00e8_. By\ncommunicating with idolaters in their rites and ceremonies, we ourselves\nbecome guilty of idolatry; even as Ahaz, 2 Kings xvi. 10, was an idolater,\n_eo ipso_, that he took the pattern of an altar from idolators. Forasmuch,\nthen, as kneeling before the consecrated bread, the sign of the cross,\nsurplice, festival days, bishopping, bowing down to the altar,\nadministration of the sacraments in private places, &c., are the wares of\nRome, the baggage of Babylon, the trinkets of the whore, the badges of\nPopery, the ensigns of Christ\u2019s enemies, and the very trophies of\nantichrist,\u2014we cannot conform, communicate and symbolise with the\nidolatrous Papists in the use of the same, without making ourselves\nidolaters by participation. Shall the chaste spouse of Christ take upon\nher the ornaments of the whore? Shall the Israel of God symbolise with her\nwho is spiritually called Sodom and Egypt? Shall the Lord\u2019s redeemed\npeople wear the ensigns of their captivity? Shall the saints be seen with\nthe mark of the beast? Shall the Christian church be like the\nantichristian, the holy like the profane, religion like superstition, the\ntemple of God like the synagogue of Satan? Our opposites are so far from\nbeing moved with these things, that both in pulpits and private places\nthey used to plead for the ceremonies by this very argument, that we\nshould not run so far away from Papists, but come as near them as we can.\nBut for proof of that which we say, namely, that it is not lawful to\nsymbolise with idolaters (and by consequence with Papists), or to be like\nthem in their rites or ceremonies, we have more to allege than they can\nanswer.\n\n_Sect._ 2. For, 1st, We have Scripture for us. \u201cAfter the doings of the\nland of Egypt, wherein you dwelt, shall ye not do and after the doings of\nthe land of Canaan, whither I bring ye, shall ye not do, neither shall ye\nwalk in their ordinances,\u201d Lev. xviii. 3. \u201cTake heed to thyself that thou\nbe not snared by following them, &c., saying, How did these nations serve\ntheir gods? even so will I do likewise. Thou shalt not do so unto the Lord\nthy God,\u201d Deut. xii. 30. \u201cThou shalt not do after their works,\u201d Exod.\nxxiii. 24. Yea, they were straitly forbidden to round the corners of their\nheads, or to make any cuttings in the flesh for the dead, or to print any\nmark upon them, or to make baldness upon their heads, or between their\neyes, forasmuch as God had chosen them to be a holy and a peculiar people,\nand it behoved them not to be framed nor fashioned like the nations, Lev.\nxix. 27, 28, and xxi. 5, and Deut. xiv. 1. And what else was meant by\nthose laws which forbade them to suffer their cattle to gender with a\ndiverse kind, to sow their field with diverse seed, to wear a garment of\ndiverse sorts, as of woollen and linen, to plough with an ox and an ass\ntogether? Levit. xix. 19, Deut. xxii. 6-11. This was the hold that people\nin simplicity and purity, _ne hinc inde accersat ritus alienos_, saith\nCalvin, upon these places. Besides, find we not that they were sharply\nreproved when they made themselves like other nations? \u201cYe have made you\npriests after the manner of the nations of other lands,\u201d 2 Chron. xxii. 9.\n\u201cThey followed vanity, and became vain, and went after the heathen that\nwere round about them, concerning whom the Lord had charged them, that\nthey should not do like them,\u201d 2 Kings xvii. 15. The gospel commendeth the\nsame to us which the law did to them: \u201cBe not ye unequally yoked with\nunbelievers, for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness?\nand what communion hath light with darkness? and what concord hath Christ\nwith Belial? and what agreement hath the temple of God with idols,\u201d &c.\n\u201cWherefore, come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord,\nand touch not the unclean thing,\u201d 2 Cor. vi. 14-17. \u201cIf any man worship\nthe beast, and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his\nhand, the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God,\u201d Rev. xiv. 9.\nAnd the apostle Jude ver. 12, will have us to hate the very garment\nspotted with the flesh, importing, that as under the law men were made\nunclean not only by leprosy, but by the garments, vessels and houses of\nleprous men, so do we contract the contagion of idolatry, by communicating\nwith the unclean things of idolaters.\n\n_Sect._ 3. Before we go further, we will see what our opposites have said\nto those Scriptures which we allege. Hooker saith,(574) that the reason\nwhy God forbade his people Israel the use of such rites and customs as\nwere among the Egyptians and the Canaanites, was not because it behoved\nhis people to be framed of set purpose to an utter dissimilitude with\nthose nations, but his meaning was to bar Israel from similitude with\nthose nations in such things as were repugnant to his ordinances and laws.\n_Ans._ 1. Let it be so, he has said enough against himself. For we have\nthe same reason to make us abstain from all the rites and customs of\nidolaters, that we may be barred from similitude with them in such things\nas are flatly repugnant to God\u2019s word, because dissimilitude in ceremonies\nis a bar to stop similitude in substance, and, on the contrary, similitude\nin ceremonies openeth a way to similitude in greater substance. 2. His\nanswer is but a begging of that which is in question, forasmuch as we\nallege those laws and prohibitions to prove that all the rites and customs\nof those nations were repugnant to the ordinances and laws of God, and\nthat Israel was simply forbidden to use them. 3. Yet this was not a\nframing of Israel of set purpose to an utter dissimilitude with those\nnations, for Israel used food and raiment, sowing and reaping, sitting,\nstanding, lying, walking, talking, trading, laws, government, &c.,\nnotwithstanding that the Egyptians and Canaanites used so. They were only\nforbidden to be like those nations in such unnecessary rites and customs\nas had neither institution from God nor nature, but were the inventions\nand devices of men only. In things and rites of this kind alone it is that\nwe plead for dissimilitude with the idolatrous Papists; for the ceremonies\nin controversy are not only proved to be under the compass of such, but\nare, besides, made by the Papists badges and marks of their religion, as\nwe shall see afterwards.\n\n_Sect._ 4. To that place, 2 Cor. vi., Paybody answereth,(575) that nothing\nelse is there meant, than that we must beware and separate ourselves from\nthe communion of their sins and idolatries. _Ans._ 1. When the Apostle\nthere forbiddeth the Corinthians to be unequally yoked with unbelievers,\nor to have any communion or fellowship with idolaters, and requireth them\nso to come out from among them, that they touch none of their unclean\nthings, why may we not understand his meaning to be, that not only they\nshould not partake with pagans in their idolatries, but that they should\nnot marry with them, nor frequent their feasts, nor go to the theatre to\nbehold their plays, nor go to law before their judges, nor use any of\ntheir rites? For with such idolaters we ought not to have any fellowship,\nas Zanchius resolves,(576) but only in so far as necessity compelleth, and\ncharity requireth. 2. All the rites and customs of idolaters, which have\nneither institution from God nor nature, are to be reckoned among those\nsins wherein we may not partake with them, for they are the unprofitable\nworks of darkness, all which Calvin judgeth to be in that place generally\nforbidden,(577) before the Apostle descend particularly to forbid\npartaking with them in their idolatry. As for the prohibition of diverse\nmixtures, Paybody saith,(578) the Jews were taught thereby to make no\nmixture of true and false worship. _Ans._ 1. According to his tenets, it\nfolloweth upon this answer, that no mixture is to be made betwixt holy and\nidolatrous ceremonies, for he calleth kneeling a _bodily worship_, and a\n_worship gesture_, more than once or twice. And we have seen before, how\nDr Burges calleth the ceremonies _worship of God_. 2. If mixture of true\nand false worship be not lawful, then forasmuch as the ceremonies of God\u2019s\nordinance, namely, the sacraments of the New Testament are true worship;\nand the ceremonies of Popery, namely, cross, kneeling, holidays, &c., are\nfalse worship; therefore, there ought to be no mixture of them together.\n3. If the Jews were taught to make no mixture of true and false worship,\nthen by the self-same instruction, if there had been no more, they were\ntaught also to shun all such occasions as might any ways produce such a\nmixture, and by consequence all symbolising with idolaters in their rites\nand ceremonies.\n\n_Sect._ 5. As touching those laws which forbade the Israelites to make\nround the corners of their heads, or to mar the corners of their beards,\nor to make any cuttings in their flesh, or to make any baldness between\ntheir eyes, Hooker answereth,(579) that the cutting round of the corners\nof the head, and the tearing off the tufts of the beard, howbeit they were\nin themselves indifferent, yet they are not indifferent being used as\nsigns of immoderate and hopeless lamentation for the dead; in which sense\nit is, that the law forbiddeth them. To the same purpose saith\nPaybody,(580) that the Lord did not forbid his people to mar and abuse\ntheir heads and beards for the dead, because the heathen did so, but\nbecause the practice doth not agree to the faith and hope of a Christian,\nif the heathen had never used it. _Ans._ 1. How much surer and sounder is\nCalvin\u2019s judgment,(581) _non aliud fuisse Dei consilium, quam ut\ninterposito obstaculo populum suum a prophanis Gentibus dirimiret_? For\nalbeit the cutting the hair be a thing in itself indifferent, yet because\nthe Gentiles did use it superstitiously, therefore, saith Calvin, albeit\nit was _per se medium, Deus tamen noluit populo suo liberum esse, ut\ntanquam pueri discerent ex parvis rudimentis, se non aliter Deo fore\ngratos, nisi exteris et proeputiatis essent prorsus dissimiles, ac\nlongissime abessent ab eorum exemplis, praesertim vero ritus omnes\nfugerent, quibus testata fuerit religio_. So that from this law it doth\nmost manifestly appear, that we may not be like idolaters, no not in\nthings which are in themselves indifferent, when we know they do use them\nsuperstitiously. 2. What warrant is there for this gloss, that the law\nforbiddeth the cutting round of the corners of the head, and the matting\nof the corners of the beard, to be used as signs of immoderate and\nhopeless lamentation for the dead, and that in no other sense they are\nforbidden? Albeit the cutting of the flesh may be expounded to proceed\nfrom immoderate grief, and to be a sign of hopeless lamentation; yet this\ncannot be said of rounding the hair, marring the beard, and making of\nbaldness, which might have been used in moderate and hopeful lamentation,\nas well as our putting on of mourning apparel for the dead. The law saith\nnothing of the immoderate use of these things, but simply forbiddeth to\nround the head, or mar the beard for the dead; and that because this was\none of the rites which the idolatrous and superstitious Gentiles did use,\nconcerning whom the Lord commanded his people, that they should not do\nlike them, because he had chosen them to be a holy and peculiar people,\nabove all people upon the earth. So that the thing which was forbidden, if\nthe Gentiles had not used it, should have been otherwise lawful enough to\nGod\u2019s people, as we have seen out of Calvin\u2019s commentary.\n\n_Sect._ 6. Secondly, We have reason for that which we say; for by\npartaking with idolaters in their rites and ceremonies, we are made to\npartake with them in their religion too. For, _ceremonioe omnes sun\nquoedam protestationes fidei_, saith Aquinas.(582) Therefore _communio\nrituum est quasi symbolum communionis in religione_, saith Balduine.(583)\nThey who did eat of the Jewish sacrifices were partakers of the altar, 1\nCor. x. 18, that is, saith Pareus,(584) _socios Judaicae religionis et\ncultus se profitebantur_. For the Jews by their sacrifices _mutuam in una\neademque religione copulationem sanciunt_, saith Beza.(585) Whereupon Dr\nFulk noteth,(586) that the Apostle in that place doth compare our\nsacraments with the altars, hosts, sacrifices or immolations of the Jews\nand Gentiles, \u201cin that point which is common to all ceremonies, to declare\nthem that use them to be partakers of that religion whereof they be\nceremonies.\u201d If then Isidore thought it unlawful for Christians to take\npleasure in the fables of heathen poets,(587) because _non solum thura\nofferendo daemonibus immolatur, sed etiam eorum dicta libentius capiendo_;\nmuch more have we reason to think that, by taking part in the ceremonies\nof idolaters, we do but offer to devils, and join ourselves to the service\nof idols.\n\n_Sect._ 7. Thirdly, As by Scripture and reason, so by antiquity, we\nstrengthen our argument. Of old, Christians did so shun to be like the\npagans, that in the days of Tertullian it was thought they might not wear\ngarlands, because thereby they had been made conform to the pagans. Hence\nTertullian justifieth the soldier who refused to wear a garland as the\npagans did.(588) Dr Mortoune himself allegeth another case out of\nTertullian,(589) which maketh to this purpose, namely, that Christian\nproselytes did distinguish themselves from Roman pagans, by casting away\ntheir gowns and wearing of cloaks. But these things we are not to urge,\nbecause we plead not for dissimilitude with the Papists in civil fashions,\nbut in sacred and religious ceremonies. For this point then at which we\nhold us, we allege that which is marked in the third century out of\nOrigen,(590) namely, that it was held unlawful for Christians to observe\nthe feasts and solemnities, either of the Jews or of the Gentiles. Now we\nfind a whole council determining thus,(591) _Non oportet a Judoeis vel\nhoereticis, feriatica quoe mittuntur accipere, nec cum cis dies agere\nferiatos._ The council of Nice also condemned those who kept Easter upon\nthe fourteenth day of the month. That which made them pronounce so (as is\nclear from Constantine\u2019s epistle to the churches(592)) was, because they\nheld it unbeseeming for Christians to have anything common with the Jews\nin their rites and observances. Augustine condemneth fasting upon the\nSabbath day as scandalous, because the Manichees used so, and fasting upon\nthat day had been a conformity with them;(593) and wherefore did Gregory\nadvise Leander to abolish the ceremony of trim-immersion? His words are\nplain:(594) _Quia nunc huc usque ab hoereticis infans in baptismate tertio\nmergebatur, fiendum apud vos esse non censeo._ Why doth Epiphanius,(595)\nin the end of his books _contra haereses_, rehearse all the ceremonies of\nthe church, as marks whereby the church is discerned from all other sects?\nIf the church did symbolise in ceremonies with other sects, he could not\nhave done so. And, moreover, find we not in the canons of the ancient\ncouncils,(596) that Christians were forbidden to deck their houses with\ngreen boughs and bay leaves, to observe the calends of January, to keep\nthe first day of every month, &c., because the pagans used to do so? Last\nof all, read we not in the fourth century of the ecclesiastical\nhistory,(597) that the frame of Christians in that age was such, that _nec\ncum haereticis commune quicquam habere voluerunt_?\n\n_Sect._ 8. One would think that nothing could be answered to any of these\nthings, by such as pretend no less than that they have devoted themselves\nto bend all their wishes and labours for procuring the imitation of\nvenerable antiquity. Yet Hooker can coin a conjecture to frustrate all\nwhich we allege.(598) \u201cIn things (saith he) of their own nature\nindifferent, if either councils or particular men have at any time with\nsound judgment misliked conformity between the church of God and infidels,\nthe cause thereof hath not been affectation of dissimilitude, but some\nspecial accident which the church, not being always subject unto, hath not\nstill cause to do the like. For example (saith he), in the dangerous days\nof trial, wherein there was no way for the truth of Jesus Christ to\ntriumph over infidelity but through the constancy of his saints, whom yet\na natural desire to save themselves from the flame might, peradventure,\ncause to join with the pagans in external customs, too far using the same\nas a cloak to conceal themselves in, and a mist to darken the eyes of\ninfidels withal; for remedy hereof, it might be, those laws were\nprovided.\u201d _Ans._ 1. This answer is altogether doubtful and conjectural,\nmade up of _if_, and _peradventure_, and _it might be_. Neither is\nanything found which can make such a conjecture probable. 2. The true\nreason why Christians were forbidden to use the rites and customs of\npagans, was neither a bare affectation of dissimilitude, nor yet any\nspecial accident which the church is not always subject unto, but because\nit was held unlawful to symbolise with idolaters in the use of such rites\nas they placed any religion in. For in the fathers and councils which we\nhave cited to this purpose, there is no other reason mentioned why it\nbehoved Christians to abstain from those forbidden customs, but only\nbecause the pagans and infidels used so. 3. And what if Hooker\u2019s\ndivination shall have place? Doth it not agree to us, so as it should make\nus mislike the Papists? Yes, sure, and more properly. For put the case,\nthat those ancient Christians had not avoided conformity with pagans in\nthose rites and customs which we read to have been forbidden them, yet for\nall that, there had been remaining betwixt them and the pagans a great\ndeal more difference than will remain betwixt us and the Papists, if we\navoid not conformity with them in the controverted ceremonies; for the\npagans had not the word, sacraments, &c., which the Papists do retain, so\nthat we may far more easily use the ceremonies as a mist to darken the\neyes of the Papists, than they could have used those forbidden rites as a\nmist to darken the eyes of pagans. Much more, then, Protestants should not\nbe permitted to conform themselves unto Papists in rites and ceremonies,\nlest, in the dangerous days of trial (which some reformed churches in\nEurope do presently feel, and which seem to be faster approaching to\nourselves than the most part are aware of), they join themselves to\nPapists in these external things, too far using the same as a cloak to\nconceal themselves in, &c. 4. We find that the reason why the fourth\ncouncil of Toledo forbade the ceremony of thrice dipping in water to be\nused in baptism, was,(599) lest Christians should seem to assent to\nheretics who divide the Trinity. And the reason why the same council\nforbade the clergymen to conform themselves unto the custom of\nheretics,(600) in the shaving off the hair of their head, is mentioned to\nhave been the removing of conformity with the custom of heretics from the\nchurches of Spain, as being a great dishonour unto the same. And we have\nheard before, that Augustine condemneth conformity with the Manichees, in\nfasting upon the Lord\u2019s day, as scandalous. And whereas afterwards the\ncouncil of C\u00e6sar-Augusta forbade fasting upon the Lord\u2019s day, a grave\nwriter layeth out the reason of this prohibition thus:(601) \u201cIt would\nappear that this council had a desire to abolish the rites and customs of\nthe Manichean heretics, who were accustomed to fast upon the Lord\u2019s day.\u201d\nLastly, we have seen from Constantine\u2019s epistle to the churches, that\ndissimilitude with the Jews was one (though not the only one) reason why\nit was not thought beseeming to keep Easter upon the fourteenth day of the\nmonth. Who then can think that any special accident, as Hooker imagineth,\nwas the reason why the rites and customs of pagans were forbidden to\nChristians? Were not the customs of the pagans to be held unbeseeming for\nChristians, as well as the customs of the Jews? Nay, if conformity with\nheretics (whom Hooker acknowledgeth to be a part of the visible\nchurch(602)), in their customs and ceremonies, was condemned as a scandal,\na dishonour to the church, and an assenting unto their heresies, might he\nnot have much more thought that conformity with the customs of pagans was\nforbidden as a greater scandal and dishonour to the church, and as an\nassenting to the paganism and idolatry of those that were without?\n\n_Sect._ 9. But to proceed. In the fourth place, the canon law itself\nspeaketh for the argument which we have in hand: _Non licet iniquas\nobservationes agere calendarum, et otiis vacare Gentilibus, neque lauro,\naut viriditate arborum, cingere domos: omnis enim haec observatio\npaganismi est._(603) And again: _Anathema sit qui ritum paganorum et\ncalendarum observat._(604) And after: _Dies Aegyptiaci et Januarii\ncalendae non sunt observandae._(605)\n\nFifthly, Our assertion will find place in the school too, which holdeth\nthat Jews are forbidden to wear a garment of diverse sorts,(606) as of\nlinen and woollen together, and that their women were forbidden to wear\nmen\u2019s clothes, or their men women\u2019s clothes, because the Gentiles used so\nin the worshipping of their gods. In like manner, that the priests were\nforbidden to round their heads,(607) or mar their beards, or make incision\nin their flesh, because the idolatrous priests did so.(608) And that the\nprohibition which forbade the commixtion of beasts of diverse kinds among\nthe Jews hath a figurative sense,(609) in that we are forbidden to make\npeople of one kind of religion, to have any conjunction with those of\nanother kind.\n\nSixthly, Papists themselves teach,(610) that it is generally forbidden to\ncommunicate with infidels and heretics, but especially in any act of\nreligion. Yea, they think,(611) that Christian men are bound to abhor the\nvery phrases and words of heretics, which they use. Yea, they condemn the\nvery heathenish names of the days of the week imposed after the names of\nthe planets,(612) Sunday, Monday, &c. They hold it altogether a great and\ndamnable sin to deal with heretics in matter of religion,(613) or any way\nto communicate with them in spiritual things. Bellarmine is plain,(614)\nwho will have catholics to be discerned from heretics, and other sects of\nall sorts, even by ceremonies, because as heretics have hated the\nceremonies of the church, so the church hath ever abstained from the\nobservances of heretics.\n\n_Sect._ 10. Seventhly, Our own writers do sufficiently confirm us in this\nargument. The bringing of heathenish or Jewish rites into the church is\naltogether condemned by them,(615) yea, though the customs and rites of\nthe heathen(616) be received into the church for gaining them, and drawing\nthem to the true religion, yet is it condemned as proceeding _ex \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03b6\u03b7\u03bb\u03af\u1fb3\nseu prava Ethnicorum imitatione_. J. Rainolds(617) rejecteth the popish\nceremonies, partly because they are Jewish, and partly because they are\nheathenish. The same argument Beza(618) useth against them. In the second\ncommand, as Zanchius(619) expoundeth it, we are forbidden to borrow\nanything, _ex ritibus idololatrarum Gentium_. _Fidelibus_ (saith\nCalvin(620)) _fas non est ullo symbolo ostendere, sibi cum superstitiosis\nesse consensum_. To conclude, then, since not only idolatry is forbidden,\nbut also, as Pareus noteth,(621) every sort of communicating with the\noccasion, appearances, or instruments of the same; and since, as our\ndivines have declared,(622) the Papists are in many respects gross\nidolaters, let us choose to have the commendation which was given to the\nancient Britons for being enemies to the Roman customs,(623) rather than,\nas Pope Pius V. was forced to say of Rome,(624) that it did more\n_Gentilizare, quam Christianizare_; so they who would gladly wish they\ncould give a better commendation to our church, be forced to say, that it\ndoth not only more _Anglizare, quam Scotizare_, but also more _Romanizare,\nquam Evangelizare_.\n\n_Sect._ 11. But our argument is made by a great deal more strong, if yet\nfurther we consider, that by the controverted ceremonies, we are not only\nmade like the idolatrous Papists, in such rites of man\u2019s devising as they\nplace some religion in, but we are made likewise to take upon us those\nsigns and symbols which Papists account to be special badges of Popery,\nand which also, in the account of many of our own reverend divines, are to\nbe so thought of. In the oath ordained by Pius IV., to be taken of bishops\nat their creation (as Onuphrius writeth(625)), they are appointed to\nswear, _Apostolicas et ecclesiasticas traditiones, reliquasque ejusdem\necclesi\u00e6 observationes et constitutiones firmissime admitto et amplector_;\nand after, _Receptos quoque ac approbatos ecclesi\u00e6 Catholic\u00e6 ritus, in\nsupra dictorum sacramentorum solemni administratione, recipio, et\nadmitto_. We see bishops are not created by this ordinance, except they\nnot only believe with the church of Rome, but also receive her ceremonies,\nby which, as by the badges of her faith and religion, cognizance may be\nhad that they are indeed her children. And farther, Papists give it forth\nplainly,(626) that as the church hath ever abstained from the observances\nof heretics, so now also catholics (they mean Romanists) are very well\ndistinguished from heretics (they mean those of the reformed religion) by\nthe sign of the cross, abstinence from flesh on Friday, &c. And how do our\ndivines understand the mark of the beast, spoken of Rev. xiii. 16, 17?\nJunius(627) comprehendeth confirmation under this mark. Cartwright(628)\nalso referreth the sign of the cross to the mark of the beast. Pareus(629)\napproveth the Bishop of Salisbury\u2019s exposition, and placeth the common\nmark of the beast the observation of antichrist\u2019s festival days, and the\nrest of his ceremonies, which are not commanded by God. It seems this much\nhas been plain to Joseph Hall, so that he could not deny it; for whereas\nthe Brownists allege, that not only after their separation, but before\nthey separated also, they were, and are verily persuaded that the\nceremonies are but the badges and liveries of that man of sin whereof the\nPope is the head and the prelates the shoulders,\u2014he, in this\n_Apology_(630) against them, saith nothing to this point.\n\n_Sect._ 12. As for any other of our opposites, who have made such answers\nas they could to the argument in hand, I hope the strength and force of\nthe same hath been demonstrated to be such that their poor shifts are too\nweak for gain-standing it. Some of them (as I touched before) are not\nashamed to profess that we should come as near to the Papists as we can,\nand therefore should conform ourselves to them in their ceremonies (only\npurging away the superstition), because if we do otherwise, we exasperate\nthe Papists, and alienate them the more from our religion and reformation.\n_Ans._ 1. Bastwick,(631) propounding the same objection, _Si quis objiciat\nnos ipsos pertinaci ceremoniarum papalium contemptu, Papistis offendiculum\nposuisse, quo minus se nostris ecclesiis associent_, he answereth out of\nthe Apostle, Rom. xv. 2, that we are to please every one his neighbour\nonly in good things to edification, and that we may not wink at absurd or\nwicked things, nor at anything in God\u2019s worship which is not found in\nScripture. 2. I have showed(632) that Papists are but more and more\nhardened in evil by this our conformity with them in ceremonies. 3. I have\nshowed also,(633) the superstition of the ceremonies, even as they are\nretained by us, and that it is as impossible to purge the ceremonies from\nsuperstition, as to purge superstition from itself.\n\nThere are others, who go about to sew a cloak of fig leaves, to hide their\nconformity with Papists, and to find out some difference betwixt the\nEnglish ceremonies and those of the Papists; so say some, that by the sign\nof the cross they are not ranked with Papists, because they use not the\nmaterial cross, which is the popish one, but the aerial only. But it is\nknown well enough that Papists do idolatrise the very aerial cross; for\nBellarmine holds,(634) _venerabile esse signum crucis, quod effingitur in\nfronte, aere, &c._ And though they did not make an idol of it, yet\nforasmuch as Papists put it to a religious use, and make it one of the\nmarks of Roman Catholics (as we have seen before), we may not be conformed\nto them in the use of the same. The fathers of such a difference between\nthe popish cross and the English have not succeeded in this their way, yet\ntheir posterity approve their sayings, and follow their footsteps. Bishop\nLindsey(635) by name will trade in the same way, and will have us to think\nthat kneeling in the act of receiving the communion, and keeping of\nholidays, do not sort us with Papists; for that, as touching the former,\nthere is a disconformity in the object, because they kneel to the sign, we\nto the thing signified. And as for the latter, the difference is in the\nemploying of the time, and in the exercise and worship for which the\ncessation is commanded. What is his verdict, then, wherewith he sends us\naway? Verily, that people should be taught that the disconformity between\nthe Papists and us is not so much in any external use of ceremonies, as in\nthe substance of the service and object whereunto they are applied. But,\ngood man, he seeks a knot in the bulrush; for, 1, There is no such\ndifference betwixt our ceremonies and those of the Papists, in respect of\nthe object and worship whereunto the same is applied, as he pretendeth;\nfor, as touching the exercise and worship whereunto holidays are applied,\nPapists tell us,(636) that they keep Pasche and Pentecost yearly for\nmemory of Christ\u2019s resurrection, and the sending down of the Holy Ghost;\nand, I pray, to what other employment do Formalists profess that they\napply these feasts, but to the commemoration of the same benefits? And as\ntouching kneeling in the sacrament, it shall be proved in the next\nchapter, that they do kneel to the sign, even as the Papists do. In the\nmeanwhile, it may be questioned whether the Bishop meant some such matter,\neven here where professedly he maketh a difference betwixt the Papists\u2019\nkneeling and ours. His words, wherein I apprehend this much, are these:\n\u201cThe Papists in prayer kneel to an idol, and in the sacrament they kneel\nto the sign: we kneel in our prayer to God, and by the sacrament to the\nthing signified.\u201d The analogy of the antithesis required him to say, that\nwe kneel \u201cin the sacrament\u201d to the thing signified; but changing his\nphrase, he saith, that we kneel \u201cby the sacrament\u201d to the thing signified.\nNow, if we kneel \u201cby the sacrament to Christ,\u201d then we adore the sacrament\nas _objectum materiale_, and Christ as _objectum formale_. Just so the\nPapists adore their images; because _per imaginem_, they adore\n_prototypon_. 2. What if we should yield to the Bishop that kneeling and\nholidays are with us applied to another service, and used with another\nmeaning than they are with the Papists? Doth that excuse our conformity\nwith Papists in the external use of these ceremonies? If so, J. Hart(637)\ndid rightly argument out of Pope Innocentius, that the church doth not\nJudaise by the sacrament of unction or anointing, because it doth figure\nand work another thing in the New Testament than it did in the Old.\nRainold answereth, that though it were so, yet is the ceremony Jewish; and\nmark his reason (which carrieth a fit proportion to our present purpose),\n\u201cI trust (saith he) you will not maintain but it were Judaism for your\nchurch to sacrifice a lamb in burnt-offering, though you did it to\nsignify, not Christ that was to come, as the Jews did, but that Christ is\ncome,\u201d &c. \u201cSt. Peter did constrain the Gentiles to Judaise, when they\nwere induced by his example and authority to follow the Jewish rite in\nchoice of meats; yet neither he nor they allowed it in that meaning which\nit was given to the Jews in; for it was given them to betoken that\nholiness, and train them up into it, which Christ by his grace should\nbring to the faithful. And Peter knew that Christ had done this in truth,\nand taken away that figure, yea the whole yoke of the law of Moses; which\npoint he taught the Gentiles also. Wherefore, although your church do keep\nthe Jewish rites with another meaning than God ordained them for the Jews,\n&c., yet this of Peter showeth that the thing is Jewish, and you to\nJudaise who keep them.\u201d By the very same reasons prove we that Formalists\ndo Romanise by keeping the popish ceremonies, though with another meaning,\nand to another use, than the Romanists do. The very external use,\ntherefore, of any sacred ceremony of human institution, is not to be\nsuffered in the matter of worship, when in respect of this external use we\nare sorted with idolaters. 3. If conformity with idolaters in the external\nuse of their ceremonies be lawful, if so be there be a difference in the\nsubstance of the worship and object whereunto they are applied, then why\nwere Christians forbidden of old (as we have heard before) to keep the\ncalends of January, and the first day of every month, forasmuch as the\npagans used so? Why was trin-immersion in baptism, and fasting upon the\nLord\u2019s day forbidden, for that the heretics did so? Why did the Nicene\nfathers inhibit the keeping of Easter upon the fourteenth day of the\nmonth,(638) so much the rather because the Jews kept it on that day? The\nBishop must say there was no need of shunning conformity with pagans,\nJews, heretics, in the external use of their rites and customs, and that a\ndifference ought to have been made only in the object and use whereunto\nthe same was applied. Nay, why did God forbid Israel to cut their hair as\nthe Gentiles did? Had it not been enough not to apply this rite to a\nsuperstitious use, as Aquinas showeth(639) the Gentiles did? Why was the\nvery external use of it forbidden?\n\n_Sect._ 14. There is yet another piece brought against us, but we will\nabide the proof of it, as of the rest. Nobis saith,(640) _Saravia, satis\nest, modestis et piis Christianis satisfacere, qui ita recesserunt a\nsuperstitionibus et idololatriae Romanae ecclesiae, ut probatos ab\northodoxis patribus mores, non rejiciant._ So have some thought to escape\nby this postern, that they use the ceremonies, not for conformity with\nPapists, but for conformity with the ancient fathers. _Ans._ 1. When\nRainold speaketh of the abolishing of popish ceremonies,(641) he answereth\nthis subtlety: \u201cBut if you say, therefore, that we be against the ancient\nfathers in religion, because we pluck down that which they did set up,\ntake heed lest your speech do touch the Holy Ghost, who saith that\nHezekiah (in breaking down the brazen serpent) did keep God\u2019s commandments\nwhich he commanded Moses,\u201d 2 Kings xviii. 6; and yet withal saith, \u201cThat\nhe brake in pieces the serpent of brass which Moses had made,\u201d 2 Kings\nxviii. 4. 2. There are some of the ceremonies which the fathers used not,\nas the surplice (which we have seen before(642)) and kneeling in the act\nof receiving the eucharist (as we shall see afterwards(643)). 3. Yielding\nby concession, not by confession, that all the ceremonies about which\nthere is controversy now among us, were of old used by the fathers; yet\nthat which these Formalists say, is (as Parker showeth(644)) even as if a\nservant should be covered before his master, not as covering is a late\nsign of pre-eminence, but as it was of old, a sign of subjection; or as if\none should preach that the prelates are _tyranni_ to their brethren,\n_fures_ to the church, _sophistae_ to the truth, and excuse himself thus:\nI use these words, as of old they signified a ruler, a servant, a student\nof wisdom. All men know that words and actions must be interpreted, used\nand received, according to their modern use, and not as they have been of\nold.\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER IV.\n\n\nTHAT THE CEREMONIES ARE IDOLS AMONG THE FORMALISTS THEMSELVES; AND THAT\nKNEELING IN THE LORD\u2019S SUPPER BEFORE THE BREAD AND WINE, IN THE ACT OF\nRECEIVING THEM, IS FORMALLY IDOLATRY.\n\n\n_Sect._ 1. My fourth argument against the lawfulness of the ceremonies\nfolloweth, by which I am to evince that they are not only idolatrous\n_reductive_, because monuments of by-past, and _participative_, because\nbadges of present idolatry, but that likewise they make Formalists\nthemselves to be formally, and in respect of their own using of them,\nidolaters, consideration not had of the by-past or present abusing of them\nby others. This I will make good: first, of all the ceremonies in general;\nthen, of kneeling in particular. And I wish our opposites here look to\nthemselves, for this argument proveth to them the box of Pandora, and\ncontaineth that which undoeth them, though this much be not seen before\nthe opening.\n\nFirst, then, the ceremonies are idols to Formalists. It had been good to\nhave remembered that which Ainsworth noteth,(645) that idolothites and\nmonuments of idolatry should be destroyed, lest themselves at length\nbecome idols. The idolothious ceremonies, we see now, are become idols to\nthose who have retained them. The ground which the Bishop of Winchester\ntaketh for his sermon _of the worshipping of imaginations_,\u2014to wit, that\nthe devil, seeing that idolatrous images would be put down, bent his whole\ndevice, in place of them, to erect and set up divers imaginations, to be\nadored and magnified instead of the former,\u2014is, in some things, abused and\nmisapplied by him. But well may I apply it to the point in hand; for that\nthe ceremonies are the imaginations which are magnified, adored, and\nidolised, instead of the idolatrous images which were put down, thus we\ninstruct and qualify:\n\n_Sect._ 2. First, They are so erected and extolled, that they are more\nlooked to than the weighty matters of the law of God: all good discipline\nmust be neglected before they be not holden up. A covetous man is an\nidolater, for this respect among others, as Davenant noteth,(646) because\nhe neglects the service which he oweth to God, and is wholly taken up with\nthe gathering of money. And I suppose every one will think that those\ntraditions, Mark vii. 8, 9, which the Pharisees kept and held, with the\nlaying aside of the commandments of God, might well be called idols. Shall\nwe not then call the ceremonies idols, which are observed with the\nneglecting of God\u2019s commandments, and which are advanced above many\nsubstantial points of religion? Idolatry, blasphemy, profanation of the\nSabbath, perjury, adultery, &c., are overlooked, and not corrected nor\nreproved, nay, not so much as discountenanced in those who favour and\nfollow the ceremonies; and if in the fellows and favourites, much more in\nthe fathers. What if order be taken with some of those abominations in\ncertain abject poor bodies? _Dat veniam corvis, vexat censura columbas._\nWhat will not an episcopal conformist pass away with, if there be no more\nhad against him than the breaking of God\u2019s commandments by open and gross\nwickedness? But O what narrow notice is taken of non-conformity! How\nmercilessly is it menaced! How cruelly corrected! Well, the ceremonies are\nmore made of than the substance. And this is so evident, that Dr Burges\nhimself lamenteth the pressure of conformity,(647) and denieth not that\nwhich is objected to him, namely, that more grievous penalties are\ninflicted upon the refusal of the ceremonies than upon adultery and\ndrunkenness.\n\n_Sect._ 3. Secondly, Did not Eli make idols of his sons, 1 Sam. ii. 29,\nwhen he spared them and bare with them, though with the prejudice of God\u2019s\nworship? And may not we call the ceremonies idols, which are not only\nspared and borne with, to the prejudice of God\u2019s worship, but are likewise\nso erected, that the most faithful labourers in God\u2019s house, for their\nsake, are depressed, the teachers and maintainers of God\u2019s true worship\ncast out? For their sake, many learned and godly men are envied,\ncontemned, hated, and nothing set by, because they pass under the name (I\nshould say the nickname) of puritans. For their sake many dear Christians\nhave been imprisoned, fined, banished, &c. For their sake many qualified\nand well-gifted men are holden out of the ministry, and a door of entrance\ndenied to those to whom God hath granted a door of utterance. For their\nsake, those whose faithful and painful labours in the Lord\u2019s harvest have\ngreatly benefited the church, have been thrust from their charges, so that\nthey could not fulfil the ministry which they have received of the Lord,\nto testify of the gospel of the grace of God. The best builders, the wise\nmaster-builders, have been over-turned by them. This is objected to Joseph\nHall by the Brownists; and what can he say to it? Forsooth, \u201cthat not so\nmuch the ceremonies are stood upon as obedience. If God please to try Adam\nbut with an apple, it is enough. What do we quarrel at the value of the\nfruit when we have a prohibition? Shemei is slain. What! merely for going\nout of the city? The act was little, the bond was great. What _is_\ncommanded matters not so much as _by whom._\u201d _Ans._ 1. If obedience be the\nchief thing stood upon, why are not other laws and statutes urged as\nstrictly as those which concern the ceremonies? 2. But what means he? What\nwould he say of those Scottish Protestants imprisoned in the castle of\nScherisburgh in France,(648) who, being commanded by the captain to come\nto the mass, answered, \u201cThat to do anything that was against their\nconscience, they would not, neither for him nor yet for the king?\u201d If he\napprove this answer of theirs, he must allow us to say, that we will do\nnothing which is against our consciences. We submit ourselves and all\nwhich we have to the king, and to inferior governors we render all due\nsubjection which we owe to them, but no mortal man hath domination over\nour consciences, which are subject to one only Lawgiver, and ruled by his\nlaw. I have shown in the first part of this dispute how conscience is\nsought to be bound by the law of the ceremonies, and here, by the way, no\nless may be drawn from Hall\u2019s words, which now I examine; for he implieth\nin them that we are bound to obey the statutes about the ceremonies merely\nfor their authority\u2019s sake who command us, though there be no other thing\nin the ceremonies themselves which can commend them to us. But I have also\nproved before that human laws do not bind to obedience, but only in this\ncase, when the things which they prescribe do agree and serve to those\nthings which God\u2019s law prescribeth; so that, as human laws, they bind not,\nneither have they any force to bind, but only by participation with God\u2019s\nlaw. This ground hath seemed to P. Bayne(649) so necessary to be known,\nthat he hath inserted it in his brief _Exposition of the Fundamental\nPoints of Religion_. And besides all that which I have said for it before,\nI may not here pass over in silence this one thing, that Hall himself\ncalleth it superstition to make any more sins than the ten\ncommandments.(650) Either, then, let it be shown out of God\u2019s word that\nnon-conformity, and the refusing of the English popish ceremonies, is a\nfault, or else let us not be thought bound by men\u2019s laws where God\u2019s law\nhath left us free. Yet we deal more liberally with our opposites, for if\nwe prove not the unlawfulness of the ceremonies, both by God\u2019s word and\nsound reason, let us then be bound to use them for ordinance\u2019 sake.\n\n3. His comparisons are far wide. They are so far from running upon four\nfeet, that they have indeed no feet at all, whether we consider the\ncommandments, or the breach of them, he is altogether extravagant. God\nmight have commanded Adam to eat the apple which he forbade him to eat,\nand so the eating of it had been good, the not eating of it evil; whereas\nthe will and commandment of men is not _regula regulans_, but _regula\nregulata_. Neither can they make good or evil, beseeming or not beseeming,\nwhat they list, but their commandments are to be examined by a higher\nrule. When Solomon commanded Shemei to dwell at Jerusalem, and not to go\nover the brook Kidron, he had good reason for that which he required; for\nas P. Martyr noteth,(651) he was a man of the family of the house of Saul,\n2 Sam. xv. 5, and hated the kingdom and throne of David, so that _relictus\nliber multa fuisset molitus, vel cum Israelitis, vel cum Palestinis_. But\nwhat reason is there for charging us with the law of the ceremonies,\nexcept the sole will of the lawmakers? Yet, say that Solomon had no reason\nfor this his commandment, except his own will and pleasure for trying the\nobedience of Shemei, who will say that princes have as great liberty and\npower of commanding at their pleasure in matters of religion as in civil\nmatters? If we consider the breach of the commandments, he is still at\nrandom. Though God tried Adam but with an apple, yet divines mark in his\neating of that forbidden fruit many gross and horrible sins,(652) as\ninfidelity, idolatry, pride, ambition, self-love, theft, covetousness,\ncontempt of God, profanation of God\u2019s name, ingratitude, impostacy,\nmurdering of his posterity, &c. But, I pray, what exorbitant evils are\nfound in our modest and Christian-like denial of obedience to the law of\nthe ceremonies? When Shemei transgressed king Solomon\u2019s commandment,\nbesides the violation of this,(653) and the disobeying of the charge\nwherewith Solomon (by the special direction and inspiration of God) had\ncharged him, that his former wickedness, and that which he hath done to\nDavid, might be returned upon his head, the Divine Providence so fitly\nfurnishing another occasion and cause of his punishment. There was also a\ngreat contempt and misregard showed to the king, in that Shemei, knowing\nhis own evil-deservings, acknowledged (as the truth was) he had received\nno small favour, and therefore consented to the king\u2019s word as good, and\npromised obedience. Yet for all that, upon such a petty and small occasion\nas the seeking of two runagate servants, he reckoned not to despise the\nking\u2019s mercy and lenity, and to set at nought his most just commandment.\nWhat! Is nonconformity no less piacular? If any will dare to say so, he is\nbound to show that it is so. And thus have we pulled down the untempered\nmortar wherewith Hall would hide the idolising of the ceremonies.\n\n_Sect._ 4. But Thirdly, Did not Rachel make Jacob an idol, when she\nascribed to him a power of giving children? \u201cAm I in God\u2019s stead?\u201d saith\nJacob, Gen. xxx. 1, 3. How much more reason have we to say that the\nceremonies are idols, are set up in God\u2019s stead, since an operative virtue\nis placed in them, for giving stay and strength against sin and tentation,\nand for working of other spiritual and supernatural effects? Thus is the\nsign of the cross an idol to those who conform to Papists in the use of\nit. M. Ant. de Dominis holdeth,(654) _Crucis signum contra daemones esse\npraesidium_; and that even(655) _ex opere operato, effectus mirabiles\nsigni crucis, etiam apud infideles, aliquando enituerint_. \u201cShall I say\n(saith Mr Hooker),(656) that the sign of the cross (as we use it) is a\nmean in some sort to work our preservation from reproach? Surely the mind\nwhich as yet hath not hardened itself in sin, is seldom provoked thereunto\nin any gross and grievous manner, but nature\u2019s secret suggestion objecteth\nagainst it ignominy as a bar, which conceit being entered into that place\nof man\u2019s fancy (the forehead), the gates whereof have imprinted in them\nthat holy sign (the cross), which bringeth forthwith to mind whatsoever\nChrist hath wrought and we vowed against sin; it cometh hereby to pass,\nthat Christian men never want a most effectual, though a silent teacher,\nto avoid whatsoever may deservedly procure shame.\u201d What more do Papists\nascribe to the sign of the cross, when they say, that by it Christ keeps\nhis own faithful ones(657) _contra omnes tentationes et hostes_. Now if\nthe covetous man be called an idolater, Eph. v. 5, because, though he\nthink not his money to be God, yet he trusteth to live and prosper by it\n(which confidence and hope we should repose in God only, Jer. xvii. 7), as\nRainold marketh,(658) then do they make the sign of the cross an idol who\ntrust by it to be preserved from sin, shame, and reproach, and to have\ntheir minds stayed in the instant of tentation. For who hath given such a\nvirtue to that dumb and idle sign as to work that which God only can work?\nAnd how have these good fellows imagined, that not by knocking at their\nbrains, as Jupiter, but by only signing their foreheads, they can\nprocreate some menacing Minerva, or armed Pallas, to put to flight the\ndevil himself.\n\n_Sect._ 5. The same kind of operative virtue is ascribed to the ceremony\nof confirmation or bishopping; for the English service book teacheth, that\nby it children receive strength against sin, and against tentation. And\nHooker hath told us,(659) that albeit the successors of the apostles had\nbut only for a time such power as by prayer and imposition of hands to\nbestow the Holy Ghost, yet confirmation hath continued hitherto for very\nspecial benefits; and that the fathers impute everywhere unto it \u201cthat\ngift or grace of the Holy Ghost, not which maketh us first Christian men,\nbut when we are made such, assisteth us in all virtue, armeth us against\ntentation and sin.\u201d Moreover, whilst he is a-showing why this ceremony of\nconfirmation was separated from baptism, having been long joined with it,\none of his reasons which he giveth for the separation is, that sometimes\nthe parties who received baptism were infants, at which age they might\nwell be admitted to live in the family, but to fight in the army of God,\nto bring forth the fruits, and to do the works of the Holy Ghost, their\ntime of hability was not yet come; which implieth, that by the\nconfirmation men receive this hability, else there is no sense in that\nwhich he saith. What is idolatry, if this be not, to ascribe to rites of\nman\u2019s devising, the power and virtue of doing that which none but He to\nwhom all power in heaven and earth belongs can do; and howbeit Hooker\nwould strike us dead at once, with the high-sounding name of the fathers,\nyet it is not unknown, that the first fathers from whom this idolatry hath\ndescended were those ancient heretics, the Montanists. For as Chemnitius\nmarketh out of Tertullian and Cyprian,(660) the Montanists were the first\nwho began to ascribe any spiritual efficacy or operation to rites and\nceremonies devised by men.\n\n_Sect._ 6. Fourthly, That whereunto more respect and account is given than\nGod alloweth to be given to it, and wherein more excellency is placed than\nGod hath put into it, or will at all communicate to it, is an idol exalted\nagainst God; which maketh Zanchius to say,(661) _Si Luthero vel Calvino\ntribuas, quod non potuerant errare, idola tibi fingis._ Now, when\nHooker(662) accounteth festival days, for God\u2019s extraordinary works\nwrought upon them, to be holier than other days, what man of sound\njudgment will not perceive that these days are idolised, since such an\neminence and excellency is put in them, whereas God hath made no\ndifference betwixt them and any other days? We have seen also that the\nceremonies are urged as necessary,(663) but did ever God allow that things\nindifferent should be so highly advanced at the pleasure of men? And,\nmoreover, I have shown(664) that worship is placed in them; in which\nrespect they must needs be idols, being thus exalted against God\u2019s word,\nat which we are commanded to hold us in the matter of worship. Last of\nall, they are idolatrously advanced and dignified, in so much as holy\nmystical significations are given them, which are a great deal more than\nGod\u2019s word alloweth in any rites of human institution, as shall be\nshown(665) afterwards; and so it appeareth how the ceremonies, as now\nurged and used, are idols.\n\nNow to kneeling in the act of receiving the Lord\u2019s supper, which I will\nprove to be direct and formal idolatry; and from idolatry shall it never\nbe purged while the world standeth, though our opposites strive for it,\n_tanquam pro aris et focis_.\n\n_Sect._ 7. The question about the idolatry of kneeling betwixt them and us\nstandeth in this: Whether kneeling, at the instant of receiving the\nsacrament, before the consecrated bread and wine,\u2014purposely placed in our\nsight in the act of kneeling as signs standing in Christ\u2019s stead, before\nwhich we, the receivers, are to exhibit outwardly religious adoration,\u2014be\nformally idolatry or not? No man can pick a quarrel at the stating of the\nquestion thus; for, 1. We dispute only about kneeling at the instant of\nreceiving the sacramental elements, as all know. 2. No man denies inward\nadoration in the act of receiving, for in our minds we then adore by the\ninward graces of faith, love, thankfulness, &c., by the holy and heavenly\nexercise whereof we glorify God; so that the controversy is about outward\nadoration. 3. No man will deny that the consecrated elements are purposely\nplaced in our sight when we kneel, except he say, that they are in that\naction only accidentally present before us no otherwise than the\ntable-cloth or the walls of the church are. 4. That the sacramental\nelements are in our sight (when we kneel) as signs standing in Christ\u2019s\nstead, it is most undeniable; for if these signs stand not in Christ\u2019s\nstead to us, the bread bearing _vicem corporis Christi_, and the wine\n_vicem sanguinis_, it followeth, that when we eat the bread and drink the\nwine, we are no more eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ,\nspiritually and sacramentally, than if we were receiving any other bread\nand wine not consecrated. I stay not now upon this head, because our\nopposites acknowledge it; for Dr Burges(666) calls the sacraments the\nLord\u2019s images and deputies; and the Archbishop of Spalato saith,(667) that\nwhen we take the sacrament of Christ\u2019s body, we adore _Christum sub hac\nfigura figuratum_. 5. That kneelers, at the instant of receiving, have the\nconsecrated bread and wine in the eyes both of their bodies and minds, as\nthings so stated in that action, that before them they are to exhibit\noutward religious adoration as well as inward, it is also most plain; for\notherwise they should fall down and kneel only out of incogitancy, having\nno such purpose in their minds, or choice in their wills, as to kneel\nbefore these sacramental signs.\n\n_Sect._ 8. The question thus stated, Formalists deny, we affirm. Their\nnegative is destroyed, and our affirmative confirmed by these reasons:\u2014\n\nFirst, The kneelers worship Christ in or by the elements, as their own\nconfessions declare. \u201cWhen we take the eucharist, we adore the body of\nChrist, _per suum signum_,\u201d saith the Archbishop of Spalato.(668) \u201cWe\nkneel by the sacrament to the thing specified,\u201d saith the Bishop of\nEdinburgh.(669) The Archbishop of St Andrews(670) and Dr Burges(671)\nprofess the adoring of Christ in the sacrament. Dr Mortoune maintaineth\nsuch an adoration in the sacrament as he calleth relative from the sign to\nChrist; and Paybody(672) defendeth him herein. But the replier(673) to Dr\nMortoune\u2019s _Particular Defence_ inferreth well, that if the adoration be\nrelative from the sign, it must first be carried to the sign as a means of\nconveyance unto Christ. Dr Burges(674) alloweth adoration, or divine\nworship (as he calleth it), to be given to the sacrament respectively; and\nhe allegeth a place of Theodoret,(675) to prove that such an adoration as\nhe there taketh for divine worship is done to the sacrament in relation to\nChrist, and that this adoration performed to the mysteries as types, is to\nbe passed over to the archetype, which is the body and blood of Christ.\nSince, then, that kneeling about which our question is, by the confession\nof kneelers themselves, is divine worship given by the sign to the thing\nsignified, and done to the sacrament respectively or in relation to\nChrist, he that will say that it is not idolatry must acquit the Papists\nof idolatry also in worshipping before their images; for they do in like\nmanner profess that they adore _prototypon per imaginem, ad imaginem_ or\n_in imagine_, and that they give no more to the image but relative or\nrespective worship. The Rhemists(676) tell us that they do no more but\nkneel before the creatures, at, or by them, adoring God. It availeth not\nhere to excogitate some differences betwixt the sacramental elements and\nthe popish images, for what difference soever be betwixt them when they\nare considered in their own natural being, yet as objects of adoration\nthey differ not, because when they are considered _in esse adorabili_, we\nsee the same kind of adoration is exhibited by Formalists before the\nelements which is by Papists before their images. To come nearer the\npoint, Papists profess that they give to the outward signs in the\nsacrament no other adoration than the same which Formalists give to them.\nFranciscus \u00e0 Sancta Clara saith,(677) that divine worship doth not agree\nto the signs _per se_, but only _per accidens_, and he allegeth for\nhimself that the Council of Trent, can 6. _de euch_, saith not that the\nsacrament, but that Christ in the sacrament, is to be adored with\n_latria_. To the same purpose I observe that Bellarmine(678) will not take\nupon him to maintain any adoration of the sacrament with _latria_, holding\nonly that Christ in the eucharist is to be thus adored, and that _symbola\nexterna per se et proprie non sunt adoranda_. Whereupon he determineth,\n_status questionis non est, nisi an Christus in eucharistia sit adorandus,\ncultu latriae_. Now, albeit Papists understand by the outward sign of\nChrist\u2019s body in the eucharist nothing else but the species or accidents\nof the bread, yet since they attribute to the same _quod sub illis\naccidentibus ut vocant sit substantialiter corpus Christi vivum, cum sua\nDeitate conjunctum_,(679) and since they give adoration or _latria_(680)\nto the species, though not _per se_, yet as _quid unum_ with the Body of\nChrist which they contain,\u2014hereby it is evident that they worship\nidolatrously those very accidents. And I would understand, if any of our\nopposites dare say that Papists commit no such idolatry as here I impute\nto them? Or, if they acknowledge this idolatry of Papists, how make they\nthemselves clean? for we see that the worship which Papists give to the\nspecies of the bread is only relative to Christ, and of the same kind with\nthat which Formalists give to the bread and wine.\n\n_Sect._ 9. Secondly, Religious kneeling before the bread which is set\nbefore us for a sign to stand in Christ\u2019s stead, and before which we adore\nwhilst it is to us actually an image representing Christ,(681) is the very\nbowing down and worshipping forbidden in the second commandment. The\neucharist is called by the fathers _imago, signum, figura, similitudo_, as\nHospinian(682) instanceth out of Origen, Nazianzen, Augustine, Hilary,\nTertullian, Ambrose. The Archbishop of Armagh hath also observed,(683)\nthat the fathers expressly call the sacrament an image of Christ\u2019s body,\nand well might they call it so, since the sacramental elements do not only\nrepresent Christ to us, but also stand in Christ\u2019s stead, in such sort\nthat by the worthy receiving of them we are assured that we receive Christ\nhimself; and in eating of this bread, and drinking of this wine, we eat\nthe flesh, and drink the blood of Christ spiritually, and by faith.\nNeither could the consecrated elements make a sacrament if they were not\nsuch images standing in Christ\u2019s stead. But what needeth any more? Dr\nBurges(684) himself calleth the sacraments the Lord\u2019s images. Now, that a\nman who adoreth before the painted or graven image of Christ, though he\nprofess that he intendeth his whole adoration to Christ, and that he\nplaceth the image before him only to represent Christ, and to stir up his\nmind to worship Christ, doth nevertheless commit idolatry, I trust none of\nour opposites will deny. Nay, Bishop Lindsey teacheth plainly,(685) that\nit is idolatry to set before the eyes of our minds or bodies any image as\na mean or motive of adoration, even though the worship should be\nabstracted from the image, and not given unto it. Well, then, will it\nplease him to let us see that kneeling before the actual images of\nChrist\u2019s body and blood in the sacrament, even though these images should\nbe no otherwise considered in the act of adoration, but as active objects,\nmotives and occasions which stir up the mind of the kneeler to worship\nChrist (for this is the best face which himself puts upon kneeling, though\nfalsely, as we shall see afterward), is not so great idolatry as the\nother. All the difference which he maketh is,(686) \u201cthat no true worship\ncan be properly occasioned by an image, which is a doctor of lies,\nteaching nothing of God, but falsehood and vanities; but the blessed\nsacrament being instituted by Christ, to call to our remembrance his\ndeath, &c., gives us, so oft as we receive it, a most powerful and\npregnant occasion of thanksgiving and praise.\u201d Dr Burges,(687)\nintermeddling with the same difference-making, will not have the\nsacraments, which are images of God\u2019s making and institution, to be\ncompared with images made by the lust of men. Two differences, then, are\ngiven us. 1. That the sacramental elements have their institution from\nGod; images not so. 2. That the sacrament is an occasion of worship; an\nimage not so. The first difference makes them no help; for though the\nordinance and institution of God makes the use of sacramental images to be\nno will-worship, yet doth it not any whit avail to show that adoration\nbefore them is no idolatry. May I not commit idolatry with images of God\u2019s\ninstitution no less than with those invented by men, when (_coeteris\nparibus_) there is no other difference betwixt them, considered as objects\nof adoration, but that of the ordinance and institution which they have?\nWhat if I fall down at the hearing of a sermon, and religiously adore\nbefore the pastor, as the vicarious sign of Christ himself, who stands\nthere, in Christ\u2019s stead, 2 Cor. v. 20, referring my adoration to Christ\nonly, yet in or by that ambassador who stands in Christ\u2019s stead? If this\nmy adoration should be called so great idolatry as if I should fall down\nbefore a graven image, to worship God in or by it (for it is, indeed, as\ngreat every way), our kneelers, I perceive, would permit me to answer for\nmyself, that my worshipping of God by the minister cannot be called\nidolatrous, by this reason, (because the worshipping of God by a graven\nimage is such, therefore also the worshipping of him by a living image is\nno other,) since images of God\u2019s institution must not be paralleled with\nthose of men\u2019s invention. As to the second difference, I answer, 1. Though\nthe Bishop muttereth here that no true worship can be occasioned by an\nimage, yet belike he and his fellows will not stand to it, for many of\nthem allow the historical use of images; and the Bishop hath not denied,\nthough his antagonist objecteth it. Dr Mortoune(688) plainly alloweth of\nimages for historical commemoration; and herein he is followed by Dr\nBurges.(689) 2. Whereas he saith that the blessed sacrament is instituted\nby Christ to call to our remembrance his death, this inferreth not that it\nis an occasion of thanksgiving and praise in the very act of receiving, as\nwe shall see afterward. Our question is only about kneeling in the act of\nreceiving. 3. We confess that the sacrament is an occasion of inward\nworship in the receiving of it; for in _eucharistia exercetur summa fides,\nspes, charitas, religio, caeteraeque virtutes, quibus Deum colimus et\nglorificamus_.(690) But the outward adoration of kneeling down upon our\nknees can be no more occasioned by the blessed sacrament, in the act of\nreceiving it, than by a graven image in the act of beholding it. The point\nwhich the Bishop had to prove is, that whereas an image cannot be the\noccasion of outward adoration and kneeling to God before it in the act of\nlooking upon it, the sacrament may be, and is, an occasion of kneeling,\nwhen it is set before us in the act of receiving. This neither he, nor any\nfor him, shall ever make good.\n\n_Sect._ 10. Thirdly, Kneeling in the act of receiving the sacrament before\nthe vicarious signs which stand in Christ\u2019s stead, and are purposely set\nbefore us in the act of adoration, that before them we may adore, wanteth\nnothing to make up idolatrous co-adoration or relative worship. Our\nopposites here tell us of two things necessary to the making up of\nidolatry, neither of which is found in their kneeling. First, they say,\nexcept there be an intention in the worshipper to adore the creature which\nis before his eyes, his kneeling before it is no idolatry. \u201cWhat shall I\nsay? saith Paybody.(691) What need I say in this place, but to profess,\nand likewise avouch, that we intend only to worship the Lord our God, when\nwe kneel in the act of receiving? We worship not the bread and wine; we\nintend not our adoring and kneeling unto them. Give us leave to avouch our\nsincerity in this matter, and it will take away the respect of idolatry in\nGod\u2019s worship.\u201d _Ans._ I showed before, that Paybody defendeth Dr\nMortoune\u2019s adoration, which he calleth relative from the sign to Chris;\nyet let it be so, as here he pretendeth, that no adoration is intended to\nthe sign; will this save their kneeling from idolatry? Nay, then, the\nthree children should not have been idolaters, if they had kneeled before\nNebuchadnezzar\u2019s image, intending their worship to God only, and not to\nthe image. Our opposites here take the Nicodemites by the hand. But what\nsaith Calvin?(692) _Si isti boni sapientesque sophistae ibi tum fuissent,\nsimplicitatem illorum trium servorum Dei irrisissent. Nam hujusmodi credo\neos verbis objurgassent: miseri homines, istud quidem_(_693_)_ non est\nadorare, quum vos in rebus nullam fidem adhibetis: nulla est idololatria\nnisi ubi est __ devotio, hoc est quaedam animi ad idola colenda\nvenerandaque adjunctio atque applicatio_, &c. If Paybody had been in\nCalvin\u2019s place, he could not have called the Nicodemites idolaters,\nforasmuch as they have no intention to worship the popish images when they\nkneel and worship before them. Nay, the grossest idolaters that ever were,\nshall by this doctrine be no idolaters, and Paul shall be censured for\nteaching that the Gentiles did worship devils, 1 Cor. x. 10, since they\ndid not intend to worship devils. _Idolatrae nec olim in paganismo\nintendebant, nec hodie in papatu intendant, daemonibus offere quid tum?\nApostolus contrarium pronuntiat, quicquid illi intendant_, saith\nPareus.(694)\n\n_Sect._ 11. The other thing which our kneelers require to the making up of\nidolatry is, that the creature before which we adore be a passive object\nof the adoration; whereas, say they,(695) the sacramental elements are \u201cno\nmanner of way the passive object of our adoration, but the active only of\nthat adoration which, at the sacrament, is given to Christ; that is, such\nan object and sign as moves us upon the sight, or by the signification\nthereof, to lift up our hearts and adore the only object of our faith, the\nLord Jesus; such as the holy word of God, his works, and benefits are, by\nmeditation and consideration whereof we are moved and stirred up to adore\nhim.\u201d _Ans._ 1. That which he affirmeth is false, and out of one page of\nhis own book I draw an argument which destroyeth it, thus: If the\nsacramental elements were only the active object of their adoration who\nkneel before them in the receiving, then their real presence should be but\naccidental to the kneelers. But the real presence of the elements, in the\nact of receiving, is not accidental to the kneelers; therefore, the\nproposition I draw from his own words: \u201cWe can neither (saith he(696))\npray to God, nor thank him, nor praise him, but ever there must be, before\nthe eyes of our minds, at least something of his works, word, or\nsacraments, if not before our external senses.\u201d He confesseth it will be\nenough, that these active objects of worship be before the eyes of our\nminds, and that their real presence, before our external senses, is not\nnecessary but accidental to us, whose minds are by their means stirred up\nto worship. And so it is indeed. For _esse scibile_, or _rememoratiuum_ of\nan active object of adoration, is that which stirreth up the mind to\nworship, so that the real presence of such an object is but accidental to\nthe worshipper. The assumption I likewise draw out of the Bishop\u2019s own\nwords. For he saith(697) that we kneel before the elements, \u201chaving them\nin our sight, or object to our senses, as ordinary signs, means, and\nmemorials, to stir us up to worship,\u201d &c. Now if we have them in our sight\nand before our senses for this purpose, that they may be means, signs, and\nmemorials to stir us up to worship, then, sure, their being really before\nour senses, is not accidental to us when we kneel. Since Dr Burges(698)\nhath been so dull and sottish as to write that \u201csigns are but accidentally\nbefore the communicants when they receive,\u201d he is to be ignominiously\nexsibilat for making the sacred sacramental signs to be no otherwise\npresent than the walls of the church, the nails and timber of the material\ntable whereupon the elements are set, or anything else accidentally before\nthe communicants. But, 2. Put the case, they did make the elements only\nactive objects of worship when they kneel in the act of receiving them.\nWhat! Do some Papists make more of their images when they worship before\nthem? They hold, as the Archbishop of Spalato noteth,(699) that _Imago est\nmedium duntaxat seu instrumentum quo exemplar occurrit suo honoratori,\ncultori, adoratori: imago excitat tantummodo memoriam, ut in exemplar\nferatur_. Will we have them to speak for themselves? Suarez will have\n_Imagines esse occasiones vel signa excitantia hominem ad adorandum\nprototype_.(700) Friar Pedro de Cabrera,(701) a Spaniard, taketh the\nopinion of Durand and his followers to be this: That images are adored\nonly improperly, because they put men in mind of the persons represented\nby them; and he reasoneth against them thus: \u201cIf images were only to be\nworshipped by way of rememoration and recordation, because they make us\nremember the samplers which we do so worship as if they had been then\npresent, it would follow that all creatures should be adored with the same\nadoration wherewith we worship God, seeing all of them do lead us unto the\nknowledge and remembrance of God.\u201d Whereby it is evident, that in the\nopinion of Durand,(702) and those who are of his mind, images are but\nactive objects of adoration. Lastly, what saith Becane the Jesuit?(703)\n_Imago autem Christi non est occasio idololatri\u00e6 apud nos catholicos, quia\nnon alium ob finem eam retinemus, quam ut nobis Christum salvatorem, et\nbeneficia ejus representet._ More particularly he will have the image of\nChrist honoured for two reasons. 1. _Quia honor qui exhibetur imagini,\nredundat in eum cujus est imago._ 2. _Quia illud in pretio haberi potest,\nquod per se revocat nobis in memoriam beneficia Dei, et est occasio ut pro\neis acceptis grati existamus. At imago Christi per se revocat nobis in\nmemoriam beneficium nostr\u00e6 redemptionis_, &c. That for this respect the\nimage of Christ is honoured, he confirmed by this simile: _Quia ob eandem\ncausam apud nos in pretio ac honore sunt sacra Biblia, itemque festa\npaschatis, pentecostes, nativitatis, et passionis Christi_. What higher\naccount is here made of images than to be active objects of worship? For\neven whilst it is said that the honour done to the image resulteth to him\nwhose image it is, there is no honour ascribed to the image as a passive\nobject; but they who honour an image for this respect, and with this\nmeaning, have it only for an active object which represents and calls to\ntheir mind the first sampler, as the Archbishop of Spalato also\nobserveth.(704) Neither the Papists only, but some also of the very\nheathen idolaters, _norunt in imaginibus nihil deitatis inesse, meras\nautem esse rerum absentium repr\u00e6sentationes_,(705) &c. And what if neither\nheathens nor Papists had been of this opinion, that images are but active\nobjects of worship? Yet I have before observed, that the Bishop himself\nacknowledgeth it were idolatry to set before us an image as the active\nobject of our adoration, though the worship should be abstracted from the\nimage.\n\n_Sect._ 12. Finally, To shut up this point, it is to be noted that the\nusing of the sacramental elements, as active objects of worship only,\ncannot make kneeling before them in the receiving to be idolatry; for then\nmight we lawfully, and without idolatry, kneel before every active object\nwhich stirreth up our minds to worship God. All the works of God are such\nactive objects, as the Bishop also resolveth in the words before cited.\nYet may we not, at the sight of every one of God\u2019s works, kneel down and\nadore, whilst the eyes, both of body and mind, are fixed upon it, as the\nmeans and occasion which stirreth us up to worship God. The Bishop,\nindeed, holdeth, we may, only he saith this is not necessary,(706) because\nwhen, by the sight of the creatures of God we are moved privately to\nworship, our external gesture of adoration is arbitrary, and sometimes no\ngesture at all is required. But in the ordinary ministry, when the works\nof God or his benefits are propounded, or applied publicly, to stir us up\nto worship in the assemblies of the church, then our gesture ceaseth to be\narbitrary; for it must be such as is prescribed and received in the church\nwhere we worship. _Ans._ 1. He shuffleth the point decently, for when he\nspeaks of being moved to worship at the sight of any creature, he means of\ninward worship, as is evident by these words, \u201cSometime no gesture at all\nis required;\u201d but when he speaks of being moved to worship in the\nassemblies of the church, by the benefits of God propounded publicly (for\nexample, by the blessed sacrament), then he means of outward worship, as\nis evident by his requiring necessarily a gesture. He should have spoken\nof one kind of worship in both cases, namely, of that which is outward;\nfor of no other do we dispute. When we are moved by the sacrament to adore\nGod in the act of receiving, thus can be no other but that which is\ninward, and thus we adore God by faith, hope, and love, though neither the\nheart be praying, nor the body kneeling. That which we deny (whereof\nhimself could not be ignorant) is, that the sacramental elements may be to\nus, in the receiving, active objects of outward adoration; or because they\nmove us to worship inwardly, that therefore we should adore outwardly. 2.\nWhereas he teacheth that kneeling before any creature, when thereby we are\nmoved to worship privately, is lawful; but kneeling before the sacramental\nelements, when thereby we are moved to worship in the assemblies of the\nchurch, is necessary; that we may kneel there, but we must kneel here, he\nknew, or else he made himself ignorant that both these should be denied by\nus. Why, then, did he not make them good? Kneeling before those active\nobjects which stir up our hearts to worship, if it be necessary in the\nchurch, it must first be proved lawful both in the church and out of it.\nNow, if a man meeting his lord riding up the street upon his black horse,\nhave his heart stirred up to worship God, by something which he seeth\neither in himself or his horse, should fall down and kneel before him or\nhis horse, as the active object of his worship, I marvel whether the\nBishop would give the man leave to kneel, and stand still as the active\nobject before the man\u2019s senses? As for us, we hold that we may not kneel\nbefore every creature which stirreth up our hearts to worship God; kneel,\nI say, whilst the eyes both of body and mind are fastened upon it as the\nactive object of our adoration.\n\n_Sect._ 13. The fourth reason whereby I prove the kneeling in question to\nbe idolatry, proceedeth thus. Kneeling in the act of receiving, for\nreverence to the sacrament, is idolatry. But the kneeling in question is\nsuch, therefore, &c. The proposition is necessary. For if they exhibit\ndivine adoration (such as then kneeling is confessed to be) for reverence\nof the sacrament, they do not only give, but also intend to give, divine\nadoration to the same. This is so undeniable that it dasheth Bishop\nLindsey,(707) and makes him give a broad confession, that it is idolatry\nto kneel at the sacrament for reverence to the elements. The assumption I\nprove from the confession of Formalists. King Edward\u2019s book of Common\nPrayer teacheth, that kneeling at the communion is enjoined for this\npurpose, that the sacrament might not be profaned, but held in a reverent\nand holy estimation. So doth Dr Mortoune tell us,(708) that the reason\nwherefore the church of England hath institute kneeling in the act of\nreceiving the sacrament, is, that thereby we might testify our due\nestimation of such holy rites. Paybody(709) makes one of the respects of\nkneeling to be the reverent handling and using of the sacrament. The\nBishop of Winchester exclaimeth against such as do not kneel, for not\nregarding the table of the Lord, which hath ever been thought of all\nholies the most holy, and for denying reverence to the holy symbols and\nprecious memorials of our greatest delivery, even the reverence which is\ngiven to prayer. Where, by the way, I observe, that when we kneel at\nprayer it is not to give reverence to prayer, but to God, whom then most\nimmediately we adore, so that kneeling for reverence of the sacrament\nreceiveth no commendation from kneeling at prayer. The Act of Perth about\nkneeling, when Bishop Lindsey had polished and refined it as well as he\ncould, ordained us to kneel at the sacrament in due regard of so divine a\nmystery. And what think we is understood by this mystery, for reverence\nwhereof we are commanded to kneel? The Bishop(710) expoundeth this mystery\nto be the receiving of the body and blood of Christ. But here he either\nmeans the spiritual receiving of the body and blood of Christ, or the\nsacramental. If the spiritual, why did not the Synod ordain us to kneel in\nhearing the gospel? for therein we receive spiritually the body and blood\nof Christ, and that as truly and really as in the sacrament. Whereupon the\nArchbishop of Armagh showeth,(711) that the spiritual and inward feeding\nupon the body and blood of Christ is to be found out of the sacrament, and\nthat divers of the fathers do apply the sixth of John to the hearing of\nthe word also, Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, Eusebius, as C\u00e6siriensis, and\nothers. Basilius Magnus likewise teacheth plainly, that we eat the flesh\nof Christ in his word and doctrine. This, I am sure, no man dare deny. The\nBishop, then, must mean by this mystery the sacramental receiving of the\nbody and blood of Christ. Now, the sacramental receiving of the body and\nblood of Christ, is the receiving of the sacramental signs of his body and\nblood. And as the Archbishop of Armagh also observeth,(712) the substance\nwhich is outwardly delivered in the sacrament, is not really the body and\nblood of Christ. Again he saith,(713) that the bread and wine are not\nreally the body and blood of Christ, but figuratively and sacramentally.\nThus he opposeth the sacramental presence of the body and blood of Christ\nnot only to bodily, but also to real presence; and by just analogy,\nsacramental receiving of the body and blood of Christ is not only to be\nopposed to a receiving of his body and blood into the hands and mouths of\nour bodies, but likewise to the real receiving of the same spiritually\ninto our souls. It remaineth, therefore, that kneeling in due regard of\nthe sacramental receiving of the body and blood of Christ, must be\nexpounded to be kneeling in reverence of the sacramental signs of Christ\u2019s\nbody and blood; and so Perth\u2019s canon, and the Bishop\u2019s commentary upon it,\nfall in with the rest of those Formalists cited before, avouching and\ndefending kneeling for reverence to the sacrament.\n\n_Sect._ 14. Those who speak out more plainly than Bishop Lindsey, do here\nobject to us, that reverence is due to the sacrament, and that we\nourselves do reverence it when we sit uncovered at the receiving of it.\nBut Didoclavius(714) doth well distinguish betwixt veneration and\nadoration, because in civility we use to be uncovered, even to inferiors\nand equals, for the regard which we bear to them, yet do we not worship\nthem as we worship the king, on our knees.(715) As, then, in civility,\nthere is a respect and reverence different from adoration, so it is in\nreligion also. Yea, Bellarmine(716) himself distinguisheth the reverence\nwhich is due to holy things from adoration. Paybody(717) and Dr\nBurges(718) will by no means admit this distinction betwixt veneration and\nadoration. But since neither of them hath alleged any reason against it, I\nhope they will be weighed down by the authority of the Archbishop of\nSpalato,(719) and the Bishop of Edinburgh,(720) both of whom agree to this\ndistinction. So, then, we give no adoration at all to the sacrament,\nbecause neither by any outward or inward action do we perform any worship\nfor the honour of the same. Burges himself hath noted to us,(721) that the\nfirst Nicene council exhorteth that men should not be _humiliter intenti_\nto the things before them. We neither submit our minds nor humble our\nbodies to the sacrament, yet do we render to it veneration,(722) forasmuch\nas we esteem highly of it, as a most holy thing, and meddle reverently\nwith it, without all contempt or unworthy usage. _Res profecto\ninanimatae_, saith the Archbishop of Spalato,(723) _sint sacrae quantum\nplacet, alium honorem \u00e0 nobis non merentur, nisi in sensu negativo_, as\nthat they be not contemned, nor unworthily handled. If it be said that we\nought not to contemn the word, yet hath it not that respect given to it\nwhich the sacrament hath, at which we are uncovered, so that this\nveneration given to the sacrament must be somewhat more than\n_profanatio_,\u2014I answer, as honour both in the positive and negative sense,\nhas various degrees, and according to the more or less immediate\nmanifestation of divine ordinances to us, so ought the degrees of our\nveneration to be intended or remitted; which is not so to be understood as\nif one part of God\u2019s sacred worship were to be less contemned than another\n(for none of God\u2019s most holy ordinances may be in any sort contemned), but\nthat for the greater regard of those things which are more immediately\ndivine, we are not in the usage of them, to take to ourselves so much\nscope and liberty as otherwise we may lawfully allow to ourselves in\nmeddling with such things as are not merely but mixedly divine, and which\nare not from God so immediately as the other, but more by the intervention\nof means; and thus a higher degree of veneration is due to the sacrament\nthan to the word preached, not by taking aught from the word, but by\nadding more respect to the sacrament than the word hath. The reason hereof\nis given to be this,(724) because when we come to the sacrament, _nihil\nhic humanum, sed divina omnia_; for Christ\u2019s own words are, or at least\nshould be spoken to us when we receive the sacrament, and the elements\nalso are, by Christ\u2019s own institution, holy symbols of his blessed body\nand blood; whereas the word preached to us is but fixedly and mediately\ndivine; and because of this intervention of the ministry of men, and\nmixture of their conceptions with the holy Scriptures of God, we are\nbidden try the spirits, and are required, after the example of the\nBereans, to search the Scriptures daily, whether these things which we\nhear preached be so or not. Now we are not in the like sort to try the\nelements, and the words of the institution, whether they be of God or not,\nbecause this is sure to all who know out of Scripture the first principles\nof the oracles of God. The consideration hereof warneth us, that the\nsacrament given, according to Christ\u2019s institution, is more merely and\nimmediately divine than is the word preached; but others (I hear) object,\nthat if a man should uncover his head at the sight of a graven image, we\nwould account this to be an adoring of the image; and why then shall not\nwe call our uncovering at the sacrament adoration also? _Ans._ Though\nveneration and adoration be distinguished in holy things to show that\nadoration given to them is idolatry, but veneration given to them is not\nidolatry, yet in profane things, such as images are, veneration given to\nthem is idolatry, as well as adoration; and we are idolaters for doing so\nmuch as to respect and reverence them as things sacred or holy; for, as I\ntouched before, and as Zanchius evidenceth by sundry instances,(725)\nidolatry is committed when more estimation is had of anything, more\ndignity and excellency placed in it, and more regard had to it than God\nalloweth, or than can stand with God\u2019s revealed will; for a thing thus\nregarded, though it be not exalted _ut Deus simpliciter_, yet it is set up\n_tanquam Deus ex parte_.\n\n_Sect._ 15. Now Fifthly, If the kneeling in question be not idolatrously\nreferred to the sacrament, I demand whereunto is it specially intended? We\nhave heard the confession of some of our opposites (and those not of the\nsmallest note) avouching kneeling for reverence of the sacrament. Neither\ncan the mystery spoken of in the Act of Perth (in due regard whereof we\nare ordained to kneel), be any other than the sacrament. Yet because\nBishop Lindsey, and some of his kind who desire to hide the foul shape of\ntheir idolatry with the trimmest fairding they can, will not take with the\nkneeling in reverence of the sacrament, let them show us which is the\nobject which they do specially adore, when they kneel in receiving of the\nsame; for this their kneeling at this time ariseth from another respect\nthan that which they consider in other parts of God\u2019s worship, let two of\nour prelates tell it out: Archbishop of St. Andrews would teach out of\nMouline that we ought to adore the flesh of Jesus Christ in the\neucharist;(726) the Bishop of Edinburgh also will have us to worship the\nflesh and blood of Christ in the sacrament,(727) because the humanity of\nChrist is there present, being ever and everywhere joined with the\ndivinity. But a twofold idolatry may be here deprehended. 1. In that they\nworship the flesh and blood of Christ. 2. In that they worship the same in\nthe sacrament. As touching the first, albeit we may and should adore the\nman Christ with divine worship, yet we may not adore his manhood, or his\nflesh and blood. 1. Because though the man Christ be God, yet his manhood\nis not God, and by consequence cannot be honoured with divine worship. 2.\nIf adorability agree to the humanity of Christ, then may his humanity help\nand save us: idolaters are mocked by the Spirit of God for worshipping\nthings which cannot help nor save them. But the humanity of Christ cannot\nsave us nor help us, because _omnis actio est suppositi_, whereas the\nhuman nature of Christ is not _suppositum_. 3. None of those who defend\nthe adoring of the humanity of Christ with divine worship, do well and\nwarrantably express their opinion. First, some of the schoolmen have found\nno other respect wherefore the manhood of Christ can be said to be\nadored,(728) except this, that the flesh of Christ is adored by him who\nadores the word incarnate, even as the king\u2019s clothes are adored by him\nwho adores the king. And thus they make the flesh of Christ to be adored\nonly _per accidens. Ego vero_, saith the Archbishop of Spalato,(729) _non\nputa a quoquam regis vestimenta quibus est indutus, adorari_. And, I pray,\nwhy doth he that worships the king worship his clothes more than any other\nthing which is about him, or beside him, perhaps a hawk upon his hand, or\na little dog upon his knee? There is no more but the king\u2019s own person set\nby the worshipper to have any state in the worship, and therefore no more\nworshipped by him. Others devise another respect wherefore the manhood of\nChrist may be said to be worshipped,(730) namely, that as divine worship\nagrees only to the Godhead, and not _personis divinis praecise sumptis_,\n_i.e._, _sub ratione formali constitutiva personarum quae est __ relatio_:\nbut only as these relations _identificantur_ with the essence of the\nGodhead; so the manhood of Christ is to be adored _non per se proecise,\nsed prout suppositatur \u00e0 Deo_. I answer, if by _suppositatur_ they mean\n(as they must mean) that the manhood is assumed into the unity of the\nperson of the Son of God (for otherwise if they mean that the manhood is\nmade a person, they are Nestorians), that which they say cannot warrant\nthe worshipping of the manhood with divine worship, because the manhood,\neven after this assumption and hypostatical union, and being considered by\nus as now assumed into this personal union, is still for all that a\ncreature, and a distinct nature from the Godhead (except we will be\nEutychians), so that it cannot yet be said to be worshipped with divine\nworship. Dr Field layeth out a third way;(731) for whilst he admitteth the\nphrase of the Lutherans, who say not only concretively that the man Christ\nis omnipresent, but the humanity also, he forgeth a strange distinction.\n\u201cWhen we speak (saith he) of the humanity of Christ, sometimes we\nunderstand only that human created essence of a man that was in him,\nsometimes all that is implied in the being of a man, as well subsistence\nas essence.\u201d By the same distinction would Field defend the attributing of\nthe other divine properties (and adorability among the rest) to the human\nnature. But this distinction is no better than if a man should say, by\nblackness sometimes we understand blackness, and sometimes whiteness. Who\never confounded _abstractum_ and _concretum_, before that in Field\u2019s field\nthey were made to stand for one? It is the tenet of the school, that\nthough in God _concretum_ and _abstractum_ differ not, because _Deus_ and\n_Deitas_ are the same, yet in creatures (whereof the manhood of Christ is\none) they are really differenced. For _concretum_ signifieth _aliquid\ncompletum subsistens_, and _abstractum_ (such as humanity) signifieth(732)\nsomething, _non ut subsistens, sed in quo aliquid est_, as whiteness doth\nnot signify that thing which is white, but that whereby it is white. How\ncomes it then that Field makes humanity, in the abstract, to have a\nsubsistence? Antonius Sadeel censures Turrianus(733) for saying that\n_albedo cum pariete, idem est atque paries albus_: his reason is, because\n_albedo dicitur __ esse, non cum pariete sed in pariete._ An abstract is\nno more an abstract if it have a subsistence.\n\nThere is yet a fourth sense remaining, which is Augustine\u2019s, and theirs\nwho speak with him. His sentence which our opposites cite for them is,\nthat it is sin not to adore the flesh of Christ, howbeit very erroneously\nhe groundeth that which he saith upon those words of the psalm, \u201cWorship\nat his footstool,\u201d taking this footstool to be the flesh of Christ. Yet\nthat his meaning was better than his expression, and that he meant not\nthat adoration should be given to the flesh of Christ, but to the Godhead,\nwhose footstool the flesh is, it is plain from those words which Burges\nhimself citeth out of him:(734) \u201cTo whatsoever earth, _i.e._, flesh of\nChrist, thou bowest and prostrate thyself, look not on it as earth,\n_i.e._, as flesh; but look at that Holy One whose footstool is that thou\ndost adore, _i.e._, look to the Godhead of Christ, whose flesh thou dost\nadore in the mysteries.\u201d Wherefore if we would give any sound sense to\ntheir words who say that the flesh of Christ is to be adored, we must note\nwith A. Polanus,(735) that _cum dicitur carnem Christi adorari, non est\npropria sed figurata enunciatio; quia non adoratur proprie caro secundum\nse, quia creatura est, sed Deus in carne manifestatis, seu Deus carne\nvestitus_. But two things I will here advertise my reader of.\n\n1. That though this form of speaking, which saith that the flesh of Christ\nis to be adored, being thus expounded, receiveth a sound sense, yet the\nexpression is very bad, and violence is done to the phrase when such a\nmeaning is drawn out of it. For how can we, by the flesh of Christ,\nunderstand his Godhead? The communion of properties admitteth us to put\nthe man Christ for God, but not his manhood. And Hooker teacheth\nrightly,(736) \u201cthat by force of union, the properties of both natures (and\nby consequence, adorability, which is a property of the divine nature) are\nimputed to the person only in whom they are, and not what belongeth to the\none nature really conveyed or translated into the other.\u201d\n\n2. Yet our kneelers who say they adore the flesh of Christ in the\nsacrament, have no such orthodox (though forced) meaning whereby to\nexpound themselves. For Bishop Lindsey will have us,(737) in receiving the\nsacrament, to bow our knees and adore the humanity of Christ, by reason of\nthe personal union that it hath with the Godhead; therefore he means that\nwe should, and may adore with divine worship, that which is personally\nunited with the Godhead. And what is that? Not the Godhead sure, but the\ncreated nature of the manhood (which not being God but a creature only,\ncannot without idolatry be worshipped with divine worship). I conclude,\ntherefore, that by the flesh of Christ, which he will have to be adored in\nthe sacrament, he understands not the Godhead, as Augustine doth, but that\ncreated nature which is united with the Godhead.\n\n_Sect._ 16. But, Secondly, As we have seen what is to be thought of\nworshipping the flesh of Christ, so let us next consider what may be\nthought of worshipping his flesh in the sacrament; for this was the other\nhead which I proposed. Now, they who worship the flesh of Christ in the\nsacrament, must either consider it as present in the sacrament, and in\nthat respect to be adored, because of the personal union of it with the\nword, or else because of the sacramental union of it with the outward\nsign, which is a respect supervenient to that of the ubiquity of it in the\nperson of the word. First, then, touching the former of those respects,\nthe personal union of the flesh with the word can neither infer the\npresence of the flesh in the sacrament to those who worthily receive, nor\nyet can it make anything for the adoration of the flesh. Not the former;\nfor in respect of the ubiquity of the flesh in the person of the word, it\nis ever and alike present with the communicants, whether they receive\nworthily or not, and with the bread and wine, whether they be consecrated\nto be the signs of his body and blood or not. Therefore divines rightly\nhold _praesentiam corporis Christi in caena, non ab ubiquitate, sed \u00e0\nverbis Christi pendere_.(738) Not the latter neither; for (as I have\nshowed already) notwithstanding of the personal union, yet the flesh of\nChrist remaineth a creature, and is not God, and so cannot at all be\nworshipped with divine worship. And if his flesh, could be at all so\nworshipped,(739) yet were there no reason for worshipping it in the\nsacrament (in respect of its personal union with the word) more than in\nall other actions, and at all other times, for ever and always is the\nflesh of Christ personally united with the word, and in that respect\npresent to us. There remaineth therefore nothing but that other respect of\nthe sacramental union of the flesh of Christ with the sacramental sign,\nwhich they can have for worshipping his flesh in the sacrament. Whereas\nBishop Lindsey saith,(740) \u201cthat it is no error to believe the spiritual,\npowerful, and personal presence of Christ\u2019s body at the sacrament, and in\nthat respect to worship his flesh and blood there,\u201d\u2014he means, sure, some\nspecial respect, for which it may be said that Christ\u2019s body is present at\nthe sacrament (so as it is not present out of the sacrament), and in that\nrespect to be there adored. Now Christ\u2019s body is spiritually and\npowerfully present to us in the word (as I showed before), yea, as often\nas looking by faith upon his body broken and blood shed for us, we receive\nthe sense and assurance of the remission of our sins through his merits,\nand as for this personal presence of Christ\u2019s body which he speaketh of, I\nhave showed also that the adoring of the flesh of Christ in the sacrament\ncannot be inferred upon it, wherefore he can tell us nothing which may be\nthought to infer the presence of Christ\u2019s flesh in the sacrament, and the\nadoration of it in that respect, save only the sacramental union of it\nwith the outward sign. Now adoration in this respect, and for this reason,\nmust suppose the bodily presence of Christ\u2019s flesh in the sacrament.\nWhereupon the Archbishop of Spalato saith, \u201cthat the Papists adore the\nbody of Christ in the sacrament, only because of the supposition of the\nbodily presence of it, and if they knew that the true body of Christ is\nnot under the species of the bread and wine, they would exhibit no\nadoration.\u201d And elsewhere he showeth,(741) that the mystery of the\neucharist cannot make the manhood of Christ to be adored, _quia in pane\ncorporalis Christi praesentia non est_ implying, that if the flesh of\nChrist be adored in respect of the mystery of the eucharist, then must it\nbe bodily present in the sign, which is false, and hereupon he gathereth\ntruly, that it cannot be adored in respect of the mystery of the\neucharist.\n\nFurther, It is to be remembered (which I have also before noted out of Dr\nUsher(742)) that the sacramental presence of the body of Christ, or that\npresence of it which is inferred upon that sacramental union which is\nbetwixt it and the outward sign, is not the real or spiritual presence of\nit (for in this manner it is present to us out of the sacrament, even as\noft as by faith we apprehend it and the virtue thereof); but it is\nfiguratively only so called, the sense being this, that the body of Christ\nis present and given to us in the sacrament, meaning by his body, the sign\nof his body. These things being so, whosoever worshippeth Christ\u2019s body in\nthe eucharist, and that in respect of the sacramental presence of it in\nthe same, cannot choose but hold that Christ\u2019s body is bodily and really\nunder the species of the bread, and so fall into the idolatry of\nbread-worship; or else our divines(743) have not rightly convinced the\nPapists, as idolatrous worshippers of the bread in the eucharist,\nforasmuch as they attribute to it that which it is not, nor hath not, to\nwit, that under the accidents thereof is contained substantially the true\nand living body of Christ, joined and united to his Godhead. What can\nBishop Lindsey now answer for himself, except he say with one of his\nbrethren,(744) that we should adore the flesh of Christ in the sacrament,\nbecause _corporalis praesentia Christi, sed non modo corporalis, comitatur\nsacramentum eucharistiae_. And Christ is there present _corporaliter, modo\nspirituali_? But this man contradicts himself miserably; for we had him a\nlittle before acknowledging that _in pane corporalis Christi praesentia\nnon est_. How shall we then reconcile him with himself? He would say that\nChrist is not bodily present in the sacrament after a bodily manner, but\nhe is bodily present after a spiritual manner. Why should I blot paper\nwith such a vanity, which implieth a contradiction, bodily and not bodily,\nspiritually and not spiritually.\n\n_Sect._ 17. The sixth and last argument whereby I prove the kneeling in\nquestion to be idolatry, is taken from the nature and kind of the worship\nwherein it is used. For the receiving of the sacrament being a mediate\nworship of God, wherein the elements come between God and us, in such sort\nthat they belong to the substance of the worship (for without the\nelements, the sacrament is not a sacrament), and withal are susceptive of\nco-adoration, forasmuch as in the act of receiving, both our minds and our\nexternal senses are, and should be, fastened upon them, hereby we evince\nthe idolatry of kneeling in the receiving. For in every mediate worship,\nwherein some creature is purposely set between God and us to have state in\nthe same, it is idolatry to kneel before such a creature, whilst both our\nminds and senses are fastened upon it. Our opposites have talked many\nthings together to infringe this argument. First, They allege the bowing\nof God\u2019s people before the ark,(745) the temple, the holy mountain, the\naltar, the bush, the cloud, the fire which came from heaven. _Ans._ 1.\nWhere they have read that the people bowed before the altar of God, I know\nnot. Bishop Lindsey indeed would prove(746) from 2 Chron vi. 12, 13, and\nMich. vi. 6, that the people bowed before the altar and the offering. But\nthe first of those places speaks nothing of kneeling before the altar, but\nonly of kneeling before the congregation, that is, in the sight of the\ncongregation. And if Solomon had then kneeled before the altar, yet the\naltar had been but occasionally and accidentally before him in his\nadoration, for to what end and use could he have purposely set the altar\nbefore him, whilst he was kneeling and praying? The place of Micah cannot\nprove that God\u2019s people did kneel before the offerings at all (for it\nspeaks only of bowing before God), far less, that they kneeled before them\nin the very act of offering, and that with their minds and senses fixed\nupon them, as we kneel in the very act of receiving the sacrament, and\nthat at that instant when our minds and senses are fastened upon the\nsigns, that we may discern the things signified by them, for the\nexercising of our hearts in a thankful meditation upon the Lord\u2019s death.\n2. As for the other examples here alleged, God was immediately present, in\nand with the ark, the temple, the holy mountain, the bush, the cloud, and\nthe fire which came from heaven, speaking and manifesting himself to his\npeople by his own immediate voice, and miraculous extraordinary presence,\nso that worshipping before these things had the same reason which makes\nthe twenty-four elders in heaven worship before the throne, Rev. iv. 10;\nfor in these things God did immediately manifest his presence as well as\nin heaven. Though there be a difference in the degrees of the immediate\nmanifestation of his presence in earth and in heaven, yet _magis et minus\nnon variant speciem_. Now God is present in the sacrament, not\nextraordinarily, but in the way of an ordinary dispensation, not\nimmediately, but mediately. They must therefore allege some commendable\nexamples of such a kneeling as we dispute about, in a mediate and ordinary\nworship, else they say nothing to the point.\n\n_Sect._ 18. Yet to no better purpose they tell us,(747) that when God\nspoke, Abraham fell on his face, and when the fire came down at Elijah\u2019s\nprayer, the people fell on their faces. What is this to the purpose? And\nhow shall kneeling in a mediate and ordinary worship be warranted by\nkneeling in the hearing of God\u2019s own immediate voice, or in seeing the\nmiraculous signs of his extraordinary presence? Howbeit it cannot be\nproved, neither, that the people fell on their faces in the very act of\nseeing the fire fall (when their eyes and their minds were fastened upon\nit), but that after they had seen the miracle wrought, they so considered\nof it as to fall down and worship God.\n\nBut further, it is objected,(748) \u201cthat a penitentiary kneels to God\npurposely before the congregation, and with a respect to the congregation,\n&c. When we come to our common tables before we eat, either sitting with\nour heads discovered, or standing, or kneeling, we give thanks and bless,\nwith a respect to the meat, which is purposely set on table, &c. The\npastor, when he begins the holy action, hath the bread and the cup set\nbefore him purposely upon the table, and with respect to them he gives\nthanks,\u201d &c.\n\n_Ans._ Though a penitentiary kneel to God purposely in the presence and\nsight of the congregation, that he may make known to them his repentance\nfor the sin whereby he hath scandalised them, yet is the confessing of his\nsin to God, kneeling there upon his knees, an immediate worship, neither\ndoth the congregation come betwixt him and God, as belonging to the\nsubstance of this worship, for he kneeleth to God as well, and maketh\nconfession of his sin, when the congregation is not before him. But I\nsuppose our kneelers themselves will confess, that the elements come so\nbetwixt God and them when they kneel, that they belong to the essence of\nthe worship in hand, and that they would not, nor could not, worship the\nflesh and blood of Christ in the sacrament, if the elements were not\nbefore them.\n\nTo be short, the case of a penitentiary standeth thus, that not in his\nkneeling _simpliciter_, but in his kneeling publicly and in sight of the\ncongregation, he setteth them before him purposely, and with a respect to\nthem, whereas our kneelers do kneel in such sort that their kneeling\n_simpliciter_, and without an adjection or adjunct, hath a respect to the\nelements purposely set before them, neither would they at all kneel for\nthat end and purpose for which they do kneel, namely, for worshipping the\nflesh and blood of Christ in the sacrament,(749) except the elements were\nbefore the eyes both of their minds and bodies, as the penitentiary doth\nkneel for making confession of his sin to God, when the congregation is\nnot before him.\n\nAnd if one would say, that in kneeling at the sacrament he worshippeth not\nthe flesh and blood of Christ, but the Lord his God only, yet is the same\ndifference to be put betwixt his kneeling before the elements, and the\nkneeling of a penitentiary before the congregation, for the very kneeling\nitself (simply considered) before the elements, respecteth them as then\npurposely set in our sight that we may kneel before them, whereas, in the\ncase of the penitentiary, it is not his kneeling to confess his sin to God\nwhich hath a respect to the congregation as set in his sight for that\npurpose, but some circumstances of his kneeling only, to wit, _when_? At\nthat time when the congregation is assembled. And _where_? Publicly in\nsight of the congregation! In regard of these circumstances, he hath the\ncongregation purposely in his sight, and so respecteth them, but in regard\nof the kneeling itself simply, the presence of the congregation is but\naccidental to him who kneeleth and confesseth his sin before God. As\ntouching giving thanks before the meat set on our common tables, though a\nman should do it kneeling, yet this speaketh not home to the point now in\ncontroversy, except a man so kneel before his meat, that he have a\nreligious respect to it as a thing separated from a common use and made\nholy, and likewise have both his mind, and his external senses of seeing,\ntouching, and tasting, fastened upon it in the act of his kneeling. And if\na man should thus kneel before his meat, he were an idolater.\n\nLastly, Giving thanks before the elements of bread and wine, in the\nbeginning of the holy action, is as far from the purpose; for this giving\nof thanks is an immediate worship of God, wherein we have our minds and\nsenses, not upon the bread and wine as upon things which have a state in\nthat worship of the Lord\u2019s supper, and belong to the substance of the same\n(for the very consecration of them to this use is but then _in fieri_),\nbut we worship God immediately by prayer and giving of thanks, which is\nall otherwise in the act of receiving.\n\n_Sect._ 19. Moreover it is objected(750) out of Lev. ix. 24; 2 Chron. vii.\n3; Mich. vi. 6; 2 Chron. xxix. 28-30, that all the people fell on their\nfaces before the legal sacrifices, when the fire consumed the\nburnt-offering.\n\nWhereunto it may be answered, that the fire which came from God and\nconsumed the burnt-offerings, was one of the miraculous signs of God\u2019s\nextraordinary and immediate presence (as I have said before), and\ntherefore kneeling before the same hath nothing to do with the present\npurpose.\n\nBut if we will particularly consider all these places, we find in the\nfirst two, that beside the fire, the glory of the Lord did also appear in\na more miraculous and extraordinary manner, Lev. ix. 23, \u201cThe glory of the\nLord appeared to all the people;\u201d 2 Chron. vii. 1, 12, \u201cThe glory of the\nLord filled the house.\u201d They are therefore running at random who take hold\nof those places to draw out of them the lawfulness of kneeling in a\nmediate and ordinary worship.\n\nThe place of Micah I have answered before; and here I add, that though it\ncould be proved from that place (as it cannot), that the people have bowed\nbefore the offerings, and that in the very act of offering, yet how shall\nit be proved, that in the act of their kneeling they had the offerings\npurposely before them, and their minds and senses fixed upon them in the\nvery instant of their worshipping.\n\nThis I make clear by the last place, 2 Chron. xxix., out of which no more\ncan be drawn but that the people worshipped whilst the priests were yet\noffering the burnt-offering. Now the burnt-offering was but accidentally\nbefore the people in their worshipping, and only because it was offered at\nthe same time when the song of the Lord was sung, ver. 27. Such was the\nforwardness of zeal in restoring religion and purging the temple, that it\nadmitted no stay, but eagerly prosecuted the work till it was perfected;\ntherefore the thing was done suddenly, ver. 36. Since, then, the song and\nthe sacrifice were performed at the same time, we must note that the\npeople worshipped at that time, not because of the sacrifice, which was a\nmediate worship, but because of the song of the Lord, which was an\nimmediate worship. Now we all commend kneeling in an immediate worship.\nBut this cannot content our opposites; they will needs have it lawful to\nkneel, in the hearing of the word, purposely, and with a respect to the\nword preached (though this be a mediate worship only). Their warrants(751)\nare taken out, Exod. iv. 30, 31; Exod. xii. 27; 2 Chron. xx. 18; Matt.\nxvii. 6. From the first three places no more can be inferred but that\nthese hearers bowed their heads and worshipped, after that they heard the\nword of the Lord; neither shall they ever warrant bowing and worshipping\nin the act of hearing.\n\nIn the fourth place, we read that the disciples fell on their faces when\nthey heard God\u2019s own immediate voice out of the cloud. What maketh this\nfor falling down to worship at the hearing of the word preached by men?\nHow long shall our opposites not distinguish betwixt mediate and immediate\nworship?\n\nLastly, It is alleged(752) that God, in his word, allows not only kneeling\nat prayer, out also at circumcision, passover, and baptism. The reason of\nthis assertion is given to be this, that a bodily gesture being necessary,\nGod not determining man upon any one, leaves him at plain liberty. _Ans._\nWhether we be left at plain liberty in all things which being in the\ngeneral necessary, are not particularly determined in God\u2019s word, it shall\nbe treated of elsewhere in this dispute. In the meantime, whatsoever\nliberty God leaves man in bodily gestures, he leaves him no liberty of an\nunlawful and idolatrous gesture, such as kneeling in the instant of\nreceiving a sacrament, when not only we have the outward sign purposely\nbefore us, and our minds and senses fastened upon it, for discerning the\nsignification thereof, and the analogy betwixt it and the thing signified,\nbut also to look upon it as an image of Christ, or as a vicarious sign\nstanding there in Christ\u2019s stead. The indifferency of such a gesture in\nsuch a mediate worship should have been proved before such a rule (as this\nhere given us for a reason) had been applied to it.\n\n_Sect._ 20. But the kneelers would yet make more ado to us, and be still\nstirring if they can do no more. Wherefore one of our doctors\nobjecteth,(753) that we lift up our eyes and our hands to heaven, and\nworship God, yet we do not worship the heaven; that a man going to bed,\nprayeth before his bed; that David offered the sacrifices of thanksgiving,\nin the presence of all the people, Psal. cxvi; that Paul, having taken\nbread, gave thanks before all them who were in the ship, Acts xxvii. 36;\nthat the Israelites worshipped before Moses and Aaron, Exod. iv. 31.\nHereupon another doctor, harping upon the same string, tells us,(754) that\nwhen we kneel in the act of receiving the sacrament, \u201cwe kneel no more to\nbread than to the pulpit when we join our prayers with the minister\u2019s.\u201d\nOh, unworthy instances, and reproachful to doctors! All these things were\nand are accidentally present to the worshippers, and not purposely before\nthem, nor respected as having a religious state in the worship. What? Do\nwe worship before the bread in the sacrament, even as before a pulpit, a\nbed, &c.? Nay, graduate men should understand better what they speak of.\n\nAnother objection is,(755) that a man who is admitted to the office of a\npastor, and receiveth imposition of hands, kneeleth still on his knees\ntill the ordination be ended, the rest about him being standing or\nsitting.\n\n_Ans._ Kneeling in receiving imposition of hands, which is joined with\nprayer and invocation, hath nothing ado with kneeling in a mediate\nworship; for in this case a man kneels because of the immediate worship of\ninvocation; but when there is no prayer, I suppose no man will kneel\nreligiously, and with a religious respect to those persons or things which\nare before him, as there purposely in his sight, that before them he may\nadore (which is the kind of kneeling now in question), or if any did so,\nthere were more need to give him instruction than ordination.\n\nIt is further told us, that he who is baptized,(756) or he who offers him\nthat is to be baptized, humbleth himself, and prayeth that the baptism may\nbe saving unto life eternal, yet worshippeth not the bason nor the water.\nBut how long shall simple ones love simplicity, or rather, scorners hate\nknowledge? Why is kneeling in the immediate worship of prayer, wherein our\nminds do purposely respect no earthly thing (but the soul, Psal. xxv. 1,\nthe heart, the hands, Lam. iii. 41, the eyes, Psal. cxxiii. 1, the voice,\nPsal. v. 3, all directed immediately to heaven) paralleled with kneeling\nin the mediate worship of receiving the sacrament, wherein we respect\npurposely the outward sign, which is then in our sight, that both our\nminds and our external senses may be fastened upon it? Our minds, by\nmeditation, and attentive consideration of that which is signified, and of\nthe representation thereof by the sign. Our senses, by seeing, handling,\nbreaking, tasting, eating, drinking.\n\n_Sect._ 21. Thus we see that in all these examples alleged by our\nopposites, there is nothing to prove the lawfulness of kneeling in such a\nmediate worship, wherein something belonging to the substance of the\nworship comes between God and us, and is not accidentally, but purposely\nbefore us, upon which also our minds and senses in the action of worship\nare fast fixed. Howbeit there is another respect, wherefore none of these\nexamples can make ought for kneeling in the act of receiving the sacrament\n(which I have showed before), namely, that in the instant of receiving the\nsacrament, the elements are actually images and vicarious signs standing\nin Christ\u2019s stead. But belike our kneelers have not satisfied themselves\nwith the roving rabble of these impertinent allegations which they have\nproduced to prove the lawfulness of kneeling in a mediate worship, they\nhave prepared another refuge for themselves, which had been needless, if\nthey had not feared that the former ground should fail them.\n\nWhat then will they say next to us? Forsooth, that when they kneel in the\nact of receiving, they are praying and praising, and so worshipping God\nimmediately. And if we would know what a man doth then pray for, it is\ntold us, that he is praying and earnestly crying to God,(757) _ut eum\nfaciat dignum convivam_. To us it seems very strange how a man, when he is\nactually a banqueter, and at the instant of his communicating can be made\nin any other sort a banqueter than he is; for _quicquid est, dum est, non\npotest non esse_. Wherefore if a man in the instant of his receiving be an\nunworthy banqueter, he cannot at that instant be made any other than he\nis.\n\n_Sect._ 22. The truth is, we cannot lawfully be either praying or praising\nin the very act of receiving, because our hearts and minds should then be\nexercised in meditating upon Christ\u2019s death, and the inestimable benefits\nwhich comes to us thereby. 1 Cor. xi. 23, \u201cDo this in remembrance of me.\u201d\n\nThis remembrance is described, ver. 26, \u201cYe do show the Lord\u2019s death.\u201d Now\none of the special ways whereby we remember Christ, and so do show forth\nhis death, is by private meditation upon his death, as Pareus\nresolveth.(758)\n\nThis meditation is a speech of the soul to itself; and though it may stand\nwith short ejaculations, which may and should have place in all our\nactions, yet can it not stand with an ordinary and continued prayer\npurposely conceived, as Bishop Lindsey would maintain.(759) For how can we\norderly both speak to God by prayer, and to ourselves by meditation, at\none instant of time? If therefore prayer be purposely and orderly\nconceived, it banisheth away meditation, which should be the soul\u2019s\nexercise in the receiving of the sacrament. And by the contrary, if\nmeditation be entertained as it should be, it admitteth not prayer to have\nplace at that time. For it is well said,(760) that _Dum auribus, oculis,\nmanibus, dentibus exterius, auribus, oculis, manibus, dentibus fidei\ninterius occupamur, orationem continuam et durabilem, absque mentis\ndivagatione __ ab opere praecepto et imperato, instruere non possumus._\n\n_Sect._ 23. But let us hear how the Bishop proveth that we should be\npraying and praising in the act of receiving the sacrament. \u201cWhatsoever\nspiritual benefit (saith he)(761) we should receive with a spiritual\nhunger and thirst, and with a spiritual appetite and desire after the\ngrace and virtue that is therein to salvation, the same we should receive\nwith prayer, which is nothing else but such an appetite and desire; but\nthe body and blood of Christ is such a benefit,\u201d &c.\n\n_Ans._ 1. Why did not he prove his proposition? Thought he his bare\nassertion should suffice? God\u2019s word is a spiritual benefit, which we\nshould receive with spiritual hunger and thirst; yet the Bishop will not\nsay that we should be praying all the while we are hearing and receiving\nit, for then could not our minds be attentive. His proposition therefore\nis false; for though prayer should go before the receiving of such a\nspiritual benefit as the word or the sacrament, yet we should not pray in\nthe act of receiving. For how can the heart attend, by serious\nconsideration, to what we hear in the word, or what is signified and given\nto us in the sacrament, if in the actions of hearing the word and\nreceiving the sacrament, it should be elevated out of the world by prayer?\n\n2. Why saith he that prayer is nothing else but a spiritual appetite or\ndesire? He thought hereby to strengthen his proposition, but we deny all.\nHe said before,(762) that every prayer is a meditation, and here he saith,\nthat prayer is nothing else but a spiritual desire. These are uncouth\ndescriptions of prayer. Prayer is not meditation, because meditation is a\ncommuning with our own souls, prayer a communing with God. Nor yet can it\nbe said that prayer is nothing else but a spiritual desire; for prayer is\nthe sending up of our desires to God, being put in order.\n\n_Sect._ 24. He speeds no better in proving that we should receive the\nsacrament with thanksgiving. \u201cWhatsoever benefit (saith he) we should\nreceive by extolling, and preaching, and magnifying, and praising the\ninestimable worth and excellency thereof, the same we ought to receive\nwith thanksgiving. But in the sacrament we should receive the blood of\nChrist with extolling and preaching,\u201d &c. The assumption he confirms by\nthe words of our Saviour, \u201cDo this in remembrance of me,\u201d and by the words\nof St. Paul, \u201cSo oft as ye shall eat this bread and drink this cup, ye\nshall declare, that is, extol, magnify, and praise the Lord\u2019s death, till\nhe come again.\u201d\n\n_Ans._ His assumption is false, neither can his proofs make it true.\n\n1. We remember Christ in the act of receiving by meditation, and not by\npraise.\n\n2. We show forth the Lord\u2019s death in the act of receiving, by using the\nsigns and symbols of his body broken, and his blood shed for us, and by\nmeditating upon his death thereby represented.\n\n3. We deny not that by praise we show forth the Lord\u2019s death also, but\nthis is not in the act of receiving. It is to be marked with Pareus,(763)\nthat the showing forth of the Lord\u2019s death, must not be restricted to the\nact of receiving the sacrament, because we do also show forth his death by\nthe preaching of the gospel, and by private and public celebration of it,\nyea, by a perpetual study of sanctification and thankfulness. So that the\nshowing forth of the Lord\u2019s death, by extolling, preaching, magnifying,\nand praising the same, according to the twenty-third section of the\nConfession of Faith, to which his argument hath reference, may not be\nexpounded of the very act of receiving the sacrament. Neither do the words\nof the institution refuse, but easily admit, another showing forth of the\nLord\u2019s death than that which is in the very act of receiving, for the word\nis not _quando_, but _quoties_. It is only said, \u201cAs often as ye eat this\nbread, and drink this cup, ye do show,\u201d &c. Which words cannot be taken\nonly of the instant of eating and drinking.\n\n_Sect._ 25. Now having so strongly proved the unlawfulness and idolatry of\nkneeling in the act of receiving the holy communion, let me add,\n_corolarii loco_, that the reader needs not to be moved with that which\nBishop Lindsey, in the tail of his dispute about the head of kneeling,\noffers at a dead lift, namely, the testimonies of some modern doctors.\n\nFor, 1, What can human testimony avail against such a clear truth? 2. We\nhave more testimonies of divines against kneeling than he hath for it. And\nhere I perceive Dr Mortoune, fearing we should come to good speed this\nway,(764) would hold in our travel: \u201cWe are not ignorant (saith he) that\nmany Protestant authors are most frequent in condemning the gesture of\nkneeling at the receiving of the holy communion.\u201d\n\n3. Testimonies against kneeling are gathered out of those very same\ndivines whom the Bishop allegeth for it; for Didoclavius(765) hath clear\ntestimonies against it out of Calvin, Beza, and Martyr, whom yet the\nBishop taketh to be for it.\n\n_Sect._ 26. Neither yet need we here to be moved with Dr Burges\u2019s(766)\nadventurous untaking to prove that, in the most ancient times, before\ncorruption of the sacrament began, the sacrament was received with an\nadoring gesture.\n\nHe shoots short of his proofs, and hits not the mark. One place in\nTertullian, _de Oratione_, he hammers upon: _Similiter de stationum diebus\nnon putant plerique sacrificiorum orationibus interveniendum, quod statio\nsolvenda sit accepto corpore Domini. Ergo devotum Deo obsequium\neucharistiae resoluit, an magis Deo obligat? Nonne solennior, erit statio\ntua, si et ad aram dei steteris? Accepto corpore Domini et reservato,\nutrumque salvum est, et participatio sacrificii, et executio officii._\n\nTo these words the Doctor giveth this sense: That many withdrew themselves\nwhen they came to the celebration of the supper, because the body of our\nLord, that is, the sacramental bread, being taken of the minister\u2019s hand,\nthe station, _i.e._, standing, must be dissolved and left; and because\nstanding on those days might not be left (as they thought), therefore they\nrather left the sacrament on those days than they would break the rule of\nstanding on those days; therefore they forbore:\n\nWhich can have no reason but this, that taking the holy things at the\ntable standing, yet they used not to partake them, _i.e._, eat the bread\nor drink the wine, in any other gesture than what was on the station days\nthen forbidden, kneeling; and that Tertullian wishes them to come, though\nthey might not then kneel, and to take the bread in public, standing at\nthe table, and reserve it, and carry it away with them, and receive it at\ntheir own houses as they desired, kneeling.\n\n_Ans._ The Doctor by this puts a weapon in our hands against himself; for\nif, when they had taken the bread of the minister\u2019s hand, their standing\nwas to be left and dissolved, and Tertullian, by commending to them\nanother gesture in the eating of the bread, not standing, then whether\nurgeth he that other gesture to be used in the public eating of the bread\nor the private? Not in the private; for his advice of reserving and eating\nit in private, cometh after, and is only put for a remedy or next best, in\ncase they would not condescend to this course in public, _quod statio\nsolvenda sit accepto corpore domini_. Needs, then, it must be understood\nof the public. Now, if in the public eating of the bread standing was to\nbe left, which gesture was to come in place of it? Not kneeling.\n\nFor, 1. Tertullian saith(767) elsewhere: _Diebus dominicis jejunare nefas\nducimus, vel de geniculis adorare; cadem immunitate a die Paschae ad\nPentcostem usque gaudemus._\n\n2. The doctor himself saith, that upon these station days kneeling was\nrestrained, not only in prayer, but in all divine service.\n\nWherefore, if, according to the Doctor\u2019s gloss, the gesture of standing\nwas left or dissolved, that gesture which had come in place of it to be\nused in the partaking of the sacrament, can hardly be imagined to have\nbeen any other nor sitting.\n\nWell, the doctor hath unhappily raised this spirit to disquiet himself:\nlet him bethink how to lay him again. If he cannot, I will assay to make\nsome help, and to lay him in this fashion. The station days were not the\nLord\u2019s days, together with those fifty betwixt Easter and Pentecost (on\nwhich both fasting and kneeling were forbidden), as the Doctor thinketh,\nbut they were certain set days of fasting; for they appointed the fourth\nand sixth day of the week (that is, Wednesday and Friday) for their\nstations, as Tertullian saith;(768) whose words we may understand by\nanother place of Epiphanus,(769) who writeth that the fast of the fourth\nand the sixth day was kept throughout all churches, and held to be an\napostolical constitution. Howbeit herein they did err; for to appoint a\ncertain time of fasting to be kept by the whole church agreeth not with\nChristian liberty, and wanteth the example of Christ and his apostles, as\nOsiander noteth.(770) Always we see what was meant by station days, to\nwit, their set days of fifty, fasting, which were called station days, by\na speech borrowed from a military custom, as Tertullian teacheth. For as\nsoldiers kept those times and places which were appointed for their\nwatches, and fasted all the while they continued in them, so did\nChristians upon their station days resort and meet in the place appointed,\nand there remained fasting till their station dissolved. The Doctor taketh\nupon him to confute those who understand by the station days set days of\nfasting; but all which he allegeth to the contrary is, that he findeth\nsomewhere in Tertullian _statio_ and _jejunia_ put for different things.\nNow this helpeth him not, except he could find that _statio_ and _stata\njejunia_ are put for different things; for no man taketh the stations to\nhave been occasional, but only set fasts. Touching the meaning, then, of\nthe words alleged by the Doctor (to give him his own reading of them,\nhowbeit some read otherwise), thus we take it. There were many who came\nnot to the sacrament upon the station days, because (in their opinion) the\nreceiving thereof should break the station, _i.e._, the service of the\nday, and that because it should break their fast, a principal duty of the\nsame. Tertullian showeth they were in error, because their partaking of\nthe sacrament should not break their station, but make it the more solemn\nand remarkable. But if they could not be drawn from that false persuasion\nof theirs, that the sacrament should break their fast, yet he wisheth them\nat least to come and stand at the table, and receive the sacrament into\ntheir hands, and take it away to eat after (for permitting whereof he had\nno warrant), so should they both partake the sacrament and also (according\nto their mind, and to their full contentment) keep their stations, which\nwere often prorogated till even,(771) but ever and at least till the ninth\nhour.(772) Finally, from this place, which the Doctor perverteth for\nkneeling, it appeareth that the gesture or posture in receiving the\nsacrament used in that place where Tertullian lived, was standing;\nbecause, speaking of the receiving of the sacrament, he saith, _Si et ad\naram Dei steteris_.\n\n_Sect._ 27. As for the rest of the testimonies Dr Burges produceth out of\nthe fathers for kneeling,(773) I need not insist upon them, for either\nthey speak of the inward adoration of the heart, which we ought to direct\nunto Christ when we receive the sacrament (and this none of us denieth),\nor else they speak of adoring the sacrament, where, by the word\n_adoration_, we may not understand any divine worship, inward or outward,\nbut a reverence of another nature called _veneration_. That this (which we\ndeny not neither), and no more, is meant by the fathers when they speak of\nthe adoration of the sacrament, Antonius de Dominis showeth more\ncopiously.(774) And thus we have suffered the impetuous current of the\nDoctor\u2019s audacious promises, backed with a verbal discourse to go softly\nby us. _Quid dignum tanto tulit hic promissor hiatu?_\n\n_Sect._ 28. Finally, If any be curious to know what gesture the ancient\nchurch did use in the receiving of the eucharist, to such I say, first of\nall, that Didoclavius maintaineth that which none of our opposites are\nable to infringe, namely, that no testimony can be produced which may\nevince that ever kneeling was used before the time of Honorius III.,\nneither is it less truly observed by the author of the _History of the\nWaldenses_,(775) that bowing of the knees before the host was then only\nenjoined when the opinion of transubstantiation got place.\n\nNext I say, the ancient gesture, whereof we read most frequently, was\nstanding. Chrysostom, complaining of few communicants, saith,(776)\n_Frustra habetur quotidiana oblatio, frustra stamus ad altare, nemo est\nqui simul participet_. The century writers(777) make out of Dionysius\nAlexandrinus\u2019s epistle to Xistus, bishop of Rome, that the custom of the\nchurch of Alexandria in receiving the sacrament, was, _ut mensae\nassisterent_. It is also noted by Hospiman,(778) that in the days of\nTertullian the Christians _stantes sacramenta percipiebant_.\n\nThirdly, I say, since we all know that the primitive Christians did take\nthe holy communion mixedly, and together with their love-feasts, in\nimitation of Christ,(779) who, whilst he did eat his other supper, did\nalso institute the eucharist; and since (as it is observed from 1 Cor. xi.\n21, 33(780)) there was a twofold abuse in the church of Corinth \u201cone in\ntheir love-feasts, whilst that which should have served for the knitting\nof the knot of love was used to cut the cords thereof, in that every one\n(as he best liked) made choice of such as he would have to sit at table\nwith him (the other either not tarried for, or shut out when they came,\nespecially the poor). The other abuse (pulled in by the former) was, for\nthat those which were companions at one table in the common feast\ncommunicated also in the sacred with the same separation, and severally\nfrom the rest of the church (and the poor especially) which was in their\nformer banquets.\u201d\n\nSince also we read that the same custom of joining the Lord\u2019s supper\ntogether with common feasts continued long after; for Socrates\nreporteth,(781) that the Egyptians adjoining unto Alexandria, together\nwith the inhabitants of Thebes, used to celebrate the communion upon the\nSunday,(782) after this manner, \u201cwhen they have banqueted, filled\nthemselves with sundry delicate dishes, in the evening, after service,\nthey use to communicate.\u201d How, then, can any man think that the gesture\nthen used in the Lord\u2019s supper was any other, than the same which was used\nin the love-feast or common supper? And what was that but the ordinary\nfashion of sitting at table? Since the Laodicean canon,(783) which did\ndischarge the love-feasts about the year 368, importeth no less than that\nthe gesture used in them was sitting _Non oportet in Basilicis seu\necclesiis. Agapen facere et intus manducare, vel accubitus sternere._ Now,\nif not only divines of our side, but Papists also, put it out of doubt\nthat Christ gave the eucharist to his apostles sitting, because being set\ndown to the preceding supper, it is said, \u201c_while as they did eat, he took\nbread_,\u201d &c. (of which things I am to speak afterward), what doth hinder\nus to gather, in like manner, that forasmuch as those primitive Christians\ndid take the Lord\u2019s supper whilst they did eat their own love-feasts,\ntherefore they sat at the one as well as the other? And so I close with\nthis collection. Whatsoever gesture in process of time crept into the\nLord\u2019s supper otherwise than sitting, of it we may truly say, \u201cfrom the\nbeginning it was not so.\u201d\n\n\n\n                                CHAPTER V.\n\n\nTHE FIFTH ARGUMENT AGAINST THE LAWFULNESS OF THE CEREMONIES TAKEN FROM THE\nMYSTICAL AND SIGNIFICANT NATURE OF THEM.\n\n\n_Sect._ 1. That mystical significations are placed in the controverted\nceremonies, and that they are ordained to be sacred signs of spiritual\nmysteries, to teach Christians their duties, and to express such holy and\nheavenly affections, dispositions, motions and desires, as are and should\nbe in them,\u2014it is confessed and avouched by our opposites. Saravia\nholdeth,(784) that by the sign of the cross we profess ourselves to be\nChristians; Bishop Mortoune calleth(785) the cross a sign of constant\nprofession of Christianity; Hooker calleth(786) it \u201cChrist\u2019s mark applied\nunto that part where bashfulness appeareth, in token that they which are\nChristians should be at no time ashamed of his ignominy;\u201d Dr Burges(787)\nmaintaineth the using of the surplice to signify the pureness that ought\nto be in the minister of God; Paybody(788) will have kneeling at the\nLord\u2019s supper to be a signification of the humble and grateful\nacknowledging of the benefits of Christ. The prayer which the English\nservice book appointeth bishops to use after the confirming of children by\nthe imposition of hands, avoucheth that ceremony of confirmation for a\nsign whereby those children are certified of God\u2019s favour and good-will\ntowards them. In the general, our opposites defend(789) that the church\nhath power to ordain such ceremonies, as by admonishing men of their duty,\nand by expressing such spiritual and heavenly affections, dispositions,\nmotions, or desires, as should be in men, do thereby stir them up to\ngreater fervour and devotion.\n\n_Sect._ 2. But against the lawfulness of such mystical and significant\nceremonies, thus we dispute: First, A chief part of the nature of\nsacraments is given unto those ceremonies when they are in this manner\nappointed to teach by their signification. This reason being alleged by\nthe _Abridgement of the Lincoln ministers_, Paybody answereth,(790) that\nit is not a bare signification that makes a thing participate of the\nsacrament\u2019s nature, but such a signification as is sacramental, both in\nwhat is signified and how. _Ans._ 1. This is but to beg the question; for\nwhat other thing is alleged by us, but that a sacramental signification is\nplaced in those ceremonies we speak of? 2. What calls he a sacramental\nsignification, if a mystical resemblance and representation of some\nspiritual grace which God hath promised in his word be not it? and that\nsuch a signification as this is placed in the ceremonies, I have already\nmade it plain, from the testimonies of our opposites. This, sure, makes\nthose ceremonies so to encroach upon the confines and precincts of the\nnature and quality of sacraments, that they usurp something more than any\nrites which are not appointed by God himself can rightly do. And if they\nbe not sacraments, yet, saith Hooker,(791) they are as sacraments. But in\nAugustine\u2019s dialect, they are not only as sacraments, but they themselves\nare sacraments. _Signa_ (saith the father) _cum ad res divinas pertinent,\nsacramenta appellantur_; which testimony doth so master Dr Burges, that he\nbreaketh out into this witless answer,(792) That the meaning of Augustine\nwas to show that the name of sacraments belongeth properly to divine\nthings, and not to all signs of holy things. I take he would have said,\n\u201cbelongeth properly to the signs of divine things.\u201d\n\nAnd here, beside that which Ames hath said against him, I add these two\nthings: 1. That this distinction cannot be conceived which the Doctor\nmaketh betwixt the signs of divine things and the signs of holy things. 2.\nThat his other distinction can as little be conceived, which importeth\nthat the name of sacraments belongeth to divine things properly, and to\nall signs of holy things improperly.\n\nLastly, If we call to mind that which hath been evinced before, namely,\nthat the ceremonies are not only thought to be mystically significant for\nsetting forth and expressing certain spiritual graces, but also operative\nand available to the begetting of those graces in us, if not by the work\nwrought, at least by the work of the worker; for example, that the sign of\nthe cross is not only thought by our opposites to signify that at no time\nwe should be ashamed of the ignominy of Christ, but is also esteemed(793)\nto be a means to work our preservation from shame, and a most effectual\nteacher to avoid that which may deservedly procure shame; and that\nbishopping is not only thought to be a sign for certifying young children\nof God\u2019s favour and good-will towards them, but also an exhibitive\nsign,(794) whereby they receive strength against sin and tentation, and\nare assisted in all virtue.\n\nIf these things, I say, we call to mind, it will be more manifest that the\nceremonies are given out for sacred signs of the very same nature that\nsacraments are of. For the sacraments are called by divines commemorative,\nrepresentative and exhibitive signs; and such signs are also the\nceremonies we have spoken of, in the opinion of Formalists.\n\n_Sect._ 3. Mystical and significant ceremonies (to proceed to a second\nreason), ordained by men, can be no other than mere delusions, and serve\nonly to feed men\u2019s minds with vain conceits. For to what other purpose do\n_signa instituta_ serve, if it be not in the power of him who gives them\ninstitution to give or to work that which is signified by them?\n\nNow, it is not in the power of prelates, nor of any man living, to give us\nthese graces, or to work them in us, which they will have to be signified\nby their mystical and symbolical ceremonies. Wherefore Beza saith(795)\nwell of such human rites as are thought to be significant: _Quum nulla res\nsignis illis subsit, propterea quod unius Dei est promittere, et suis\npromissionibus sigillum suum opponere; consequitur omnia illa commenta,\ninanes esse larvas, __ et vana opinione miseros homines illis propositis\nsignis deludi._ Dr Fulk thinks(796) he hath alleged enough against the\nsignificative and commemorative use of the sign of the cross, when he hath\nsaid that it is not ordained of Christ, nor taught by his apostles; from\nwhich sort of reasoning it followeth, that all significant signs which are\nnot ordained of Christ, nor taught by his apostles, must be vain, false,\nand superstitious.\n\n_Sect._ 4. Thirdly, To introduce significant sacred ceremonies into the\nNew Testament other than the holy sacraments of God\u2019s own institution,\nwere to reduce Judaism, and to impose upon us again the yoke of a\nceremonial law, which Christ hath taken off.\n\nUpon this ground doth Amandus Polanus reprehend the popish clergy,(797)\nfor that they would be distinguished from laics by their priestly apparel\nin their holy actions, especially in the mass: _Illa vestium sacerdotalium\ndistinctio et varietas, erat in veteri Testamento typica; veritate autem\nexhibita, quid amplius typos requirunt?_\n\nUpon this ground also doth Perkins(798) condemn all human significant\nceremonies. \u201cCeremonies (saith he) are either of figure and signification,\nor of order. The first are abrogated at the coming of Christ,\u201d &c.\n\nUpon the same ground doth Chemnitius condemn them,(799) _Quod vero\npraetenditur_, &c. \u201cBut, whereas (saith he) it is pretended that by those\nrites of men\u2019s addition, many things are probably signified, admonished\nand taught,\u2014hereto it may be answered, that figures do properly belong to\nthe Old Testament, but those things which Christ would have to be taught\nin the New Testament, he would have them delivered and propounded, not by\nshadows, but by the light of the word; and we have a promise of the\nefficacy of the word, but not of figures invented by men.\u201d\n\nUpon the same ground Junius(800) findeth fault with ceremonies used for\nsignification: _Istis elementis mundi (ut vocantur Col. ii.) Dominus et\nservator noluit nec docuit, ecclesiam suam informari_.\n\nLastly, We will consider the purpose of Christ whilst he said to the\nPharisees,(801) \u201cThe law and the prophets were until John: from that time\nthe kingdom of God is preached.\u201d He had in the parable of the unjust\nsteward, and in the application of the same, spoken somewhat contemptibly\nof riches, which, when the Pharisees heard, they derided him, and that for\nthis pretended reason (as is evident from the answer which is returned\nunto them), because the law promises the world\u2019s goods as rewards and\nblessings to the people of God, that by the temporal things which are set\nforth for types and shadows of eternal things, they might be instructed,\nhelped, and led, as it were by the hand, to the contemplation, desire and\nexpectation, of those heavenly and eternal things which are not seen. Now\nChrist did not only rip up the hypocrisy of their hearts, ver. 15, but\nalso gave a formal answer to their pretended reason, by showing how the\nlaw is by him perfected, ver. 16, yet not destroyed, ver. 17. Then will we\nobserve how he teacheth that the law and the prophets are perfected, and\nso our point shall be plain. \u201cThe law and the prophets were until John,\u201d\n_i.e._, they did typify and prophesy concerning the things of the kingdom\nuntil John; for before that time the faithful only saw those things afar\noff, and by types, shadows, and figures, and the rudiments of the world,\nwere taught to know them. \u201cBut from that time the kingdom of God is\npreached,\u201d _i.e._, the people of God are no longer to be instructed\nconcerning the things of the kingdom of God by outward signs, or visible\nshadows and figures, but only by the plain word of the gospel; for now the\nkingdom of God \u1f10\u03c5\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b9\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 is not typified as before, but plainly\npreached, as a thing exhibited to us, and present with us. Thus we see\nthat to us, in the days of the gospel, the word only is appointed to teach\nthe things belonging to the kingdom of God.\n\n_Sect._ 5. If any man reply, that though after the coming of Christ we are\nliberate from the Jewish and typical significant ceremonies, yet ought we\nto embrace those ceremonies wherein the church of the New Testament\nplaceth some spiritual signification:\n\nI answer, 1. That which hath been said in this argument holdeth good\nagainst significant ceremonies in general. Otherwise, when we read of the\nabrogation of the ceremonial law, we should only understand the abrogation\nof those particular ordinances which Moses delivered to the Jews\nconcerning the ceremonies that were to endure to the coming of Christ, and\nso, notwithstanding all this, the church should still have power to set up\nnew ceremonial laws instead of the old, even which and how many she\nlisteth.\n\n2. What can be answered to that which the _Abridgement_ propoundeth(802)\ntouching this matter? \u201cIt is much less lawful (say those ministers) for\nman to bring significant ceremonies into God\u2019s worship now than it was\nunder the law. For God hath abrogated his own (not only such as prefigured\nChrist, but such also as served by their signification to teach moral\nduties), so as now (without great sin) none of them can be continued in\nthe church, no, not for signification.\u201d Whereupon they infer: \u201cIf those\nceremonies which God himself ordained to teach his church by their\nsignification may not now be used, much less may those which man hath\ndevised.\u201d\n\n_Sect._ 6. Fourthly, Sacred significant ceremonies devised by man are to\nbe reckoned among those images forbidden in the second commandment.\nPolanus saith,(803) that _omnis figura illicita_ is forbidden in the\nsecond commandment. The Professors(804) of Leyden call it _imaginem\nquamlibet, sive mente conceptam, sive manu effictam_.\n\nI have showed elsewhere,(805) that both in the writings of the fathers,\nand of Formalists themselves, sacraments get the name of images; and why,\nthen, are not all significant and holy ceremonies to be accounted images?\nNow, the second commandment forbiddeth images made by the lust of man\n(that I may use Dr Burges\u2019s phrase(806)), therefore it forbiddeth also all\nreligious similitudes, which are homogeneal unto them. This is the\ninference of the _Abridgement_, whereat Paybody starteth,(807) and\nreplieth, that the gestures which the people of God used in circumcision\nand baptism, the rending of the garment used in humiliation and prayer,\nEzra ix. 5; 2 Kings xxii. 19, Jer. xxxvi. 24, lifting up the hands,\nkneeling with the knees, uncovering the head in the sacrament, standing\nand sitting at the sacrament, were, and are, significant in worshipping,\nyet are not forbidden by the second commandment.\n\n_Ans._ There are three sorts of signs here to be distinguished. 1. Natural\nsigns: so smoke is a sign of fire, and the dawning of the day a sign of\nthe rising of the sun. 2. Customable signs; and so the uncovering of the\nhead, which of old was a sign of preeminence, hath, through custom, become\na sign of subjection. 3. Voluntary signs, which are called _signa\ninstituta_; these are either sacred or civil. To appoint sacred signs of\nheavenly mysteries or spiritual graces is God\u2019s own peculiar, and of this\nkind are the holy sacraments. Civil signs for civil and moral uses may be,\nand are, commendably appointed by men, both in church and commonwealth;\nand thus the tolling of a bell is a sign given for assembling, and hath\nthe same signification both in ecclesiastical and secular assemblings.\nNow, besides the sacred signs of God\u2019s own institution, we know that\nnatural signs have also place in divine worship; thus kneeling in time of\nprayer signifieth the submission of our hearts and minds, the lifting up\nof our eyes and hands signifieth the elevation of our affections; the\nrending of the garments signified the rending of the heart by sorrow;\nstanding with a religious suspect to that which is before us signifieth\nveneration or reverence; sitting at table signifieth familiarity and\nfellowship. \u201cFor which of you (saith our Master), Luke xvii. 7, having a\nservant ploughing, or feeding cattle, will say unto him by and by, when he\nis come from the field, Go and sit down to meat?\u201d All these signs have\ntheir significations from nature. And if it be said that howbeit sitting\nat our common tables be a sign natural to signify familiarity amongst us,\nyet nature hath not given such a signification to sitting at the Lord\u2019s\ntable,\u2014I answer, that sitting is a natural sign of familiarity, at what\ntable soever it be used. At the heavenly table in the kingdom of glory,\nfamiliarity is expressed and signified by sitting: \u201cMany shall come from\nthe east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham,\u201d &c., Matt. xviii. 11.\nMuch more, then, at the spiritual table in the kingdom of grace.\n\nThe difference betwixt other common tables and the Lord\u2019s table can infer\nno more, but that with great humility we ought to address ourselves unto\nit; yet still we are to make use of our familiarity with Christ _ut\ntanquam in eodem toro accumbentes_, as saith Chrysostom.(808) Wherefore we\ndo not there so look to Christ in his princely throne and glorious\nmajesty, exalted far above all principalities and powers, as to forget\nthat he is our loving and kind banqueter, who hath admitted us to that\nfamiliar fellowship with him which is signified by our sitting at his\ntable.\n\nSecondly, Customable signs have likewise place in divine service; for so a\nman coming into one of our churches in time of public worship, if he see\nthe hearers covered, he knows by this customable sign that sermon is\nbegun.\n\nThirdly, Civil or moral signs instituted by men for that common order and\ndecency which is respect both in civil and sacred actions, have also place\nin the acts of God\u2019s worship. Thus a bason and a laver set before a pulpit\nare signs of baptism to be ministered; but common decency teacheth us to\nmake the same use of a bason and a laver in civility which a minister\nmaketh of them in the action of baptising. All our question is about\nsacred mystical signs. Every sign of this kind which is not ordained of\nGod we refer to the imagery forbidden in the second commandment; so that\nin the tossing of this argument Paybody is twice naught, neither hath he\nsaid aught for evincing the lawfulness of sacred significant ceremonies\nordained of men, which we impugn.\n\n_Sect._ 7. Fifthly, The significancy and teaching office of mystical\nceremonies invented by men, must be drawn under those doctrines of men\ncondemned in the gospel. Wherefore was it that the divers washings of the\nPharisees were rejected by Christ as a vain worship? Was it not because\nthey were appointed for doctrines? \u201cIn vain (saith he) do they worship me,\nteaching for doctrines the commandments of men,\u201d Mark vii. 7.\n\nThe divers washings commanded in the law were fore-signifying to the\npeople, and for teaching them what true and inward holiness God required\nof them. Now, the Pharisees, when they multiplied their washings of hands,\nof cups and pots, brazen vessels and tables, had the same respect of\nsignificancy before their eyes. _Neque enim alio spectabant_ (that I may\nuse the words of a Formalist(809)) _quam ut se sanctitatis __ studiosos\nhoc externu ritu probarent_. Neither have we any warrant to think that\nthey had another respect than this. But the error was in their addition to\nthe law, and in that they made their own ceremonial washings, which were\nonly the commandments of men, to serve for doctrines, instructions and\nsignifications. For those washings, as they were significant, and taught\nwhat holiness or cleanness should be among the people of God, they are\ncalled by the name of worship; and as they were such significant\nceremonies as were only commanded by men, they are reckoned for vain\nworship.\n\nAnd further, I demand why are the Colossians, Col. ii. 20-22, rebuked for\nsubjecting themselves to those ordinances,\u2014\u201cTouch not, taste not, handle\nnot?\u201d We see that those ordinances were not bare commandments, but\ncommandments under the colour of doctrines, to wit, as law commanded a\ndifference of meats, for signifying that holiness which God would have his\npeople formed unto; so these false teachers would have the same to be\nsignified and taught by that difference of meats and abstinence which they\nof themselves, and without the commandment of God, had ordained.\n\nMoreover, if we consider how that the word of God is given unto us \u201cfor\ndoctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,\nthat the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good\nworks,\u201d 2 Tim. iii. 16, 17, it cannot but be evident how superfluously,\nhow superstitiously, the office of sacred teaching and mystical\nsignification is given to dumb and lifeless ceremonies ordained of men,\nand, consequently, how justly they are taxed as vain worship. We hold,\ntherefore, with the worthiest of our divines,(810) _nullam doctrinam,\nnullum sacram signum debere inter pios admitti, nisi a Deo profecta esse\nconstet_.\n\n_Sect._ 8. To these reasons which I have put in order against men\u2019s\nsignificant ceremonies, I will add a pretty history before I go further.\n\nWhen the Superior of the Abbey of St. Andrews(811) was disputing with John\nKnox about the lawfulness of the ceremonies devised by the church, to\ndecore the sacraments and other service of God, Knox answered: \u201cThe church\nought to do nothing but in faith, and ought not to go before, but is bound\nto follow the voice of the true Pastor.\u201d The Superior replied, that \u201cevery\none of the ceremonies hath a godly signification, and therefore they both\nproceed from faith, and are done in faith.\u201d Knox replieth: \u201cIt is not\nenough that man invent a ceremony, and then give it a signification\naccording to his pleasure; for so might the ceremonies of the Gentiles,\nand this day the ceremonies of Mahomet be maintained. But if that anything\nproceed from faith it must have the word of God for the assurance,\u201d &c.\nThe Superior answereth: \u201cWill ye bind us so strait that we may do nothing\nwithout the express word of God? What, and I ask drink? think ye that I\nsin? and yet I have not God\u2019s word for me.\u201d\n\nKnox here telleth him, first, that if he should either eat or drink\nwithout the assurance of God\u2019s word, he sinned; \u201cfor saith not the\nApostle, speaking even of meat and drink, that the creatures are\nsanctified unto men by the word and prayer? The word is this: all things\nare clean to the clean: Now let me hear thus much of your ceremonies, and\nI shall give you the argument?\u201d\n\nBut secondly, He tells him that he compared indiscreetly together profane\nthings with holy; and that the question was not of meat and drink, wherein\nthe kingdom of God consisteth not, but of matters of religion, and that we\nmay not take the same freedom in the using of Christ\u2019s sacraments that we\nmay do in eating and drinking, because Moses commanded, \u201cAll that the Lord\nthy God commanded thee to do, that do thou to the Lord thy God; add\nnothing to it, diminish nothing from it.\u201d The Superior now saith that he\nwas dry, and thereupon desireth the grey friar Arbugkill to follow the\nargument; but he was so pressed with the same that he was confounded in\nhimself, and the Superior ashamed of him:\u2014\n\nDicite Io P\u00e6an, et Io bis dicite P\u00e6an.\n\n_Sect._ 9. As for the examples alleged by our opposites out of Scripture\nfor justifying their significant ceremonies, they have been our propugners\nof evangelical simplicity so often and so fully answered, that here I need\ndo no more but point at them. Of the days of Purim and feast of dedication\nI am to speak afterward. In the meanwhile, our opposites cannot, by these\nexamples, strengthen themselves in this present argument, except they\ncould prove that the feast of dedication was lawfully instituted, and that\nthe days of Purim were appointed for a religious festivity, and that upon\nno such extraordinary warrant as the church hath not ever and always. The\nrite which Abraham commanded his servant to use when he sware to him,\nnamely, the putting of his hand under his thigh, Gen. xxiv. 2, maketh them\nas little help; for it was but a moral sign of that civil subjection,\nreverence and fidelity which inferiors owe unto superiors, according to\nthe judgment of Calvin, Junius, Pareus, and Tremellius, all upon that\nplace. That altar which was built by the Reubenites, Gadites, and half\ntribe of Manasseh, Josh. xxii., had (as some think) not a religious, but a\nmoral use, and was not a sacred, but a civil sign, to witness that those\ntwo tribes and the half were of the stock and lineage of Israel; which, if\nit were once called in question, then their fear (deducing the connection\nof causes and consequents) led them in the end to forecast this issue: \u201cIn\ntime to come your children might speak unto our children, saying, What\nhave you to do with the Lord God of Israel? for the Lord hath made Jordan\na border betwixt us and you,\u201d &c. Therefore, to prevent all apparent\noccasions of such doleful events, they erected the pattern of the Lord\u2019s\naltar, _ut vinculum sit fratern\u00e6 conjunctionis._(812)\n\nAnd besides all this, there is nothing which can urge us to say that the\ntwo tribes and the half did commendably in the erecting of this\naltar.(813) Calvin finds two faults in their proceeding. 1. In that they\nattempted such a notable and important innovation without advising with\ntheir brethren of the other tribes, and especially without inquiring the\nwill of God by the high priest. 2. Whereas the law of God commanded only\nto make one altar, forasmuch as God would be worshipped only in one place,\nthey did inordinately, scandalously, and with appearance of evil, erect\nanother altar; for every one who should look upon it could not but\npresently think that they had forsaken the law, and were setting up a\nstrange and degenerate rite. Whether also that altar which they set up for\na pattern of the Lord\u2019s altar, was one of the images forbidden in the\nsecond commandment, I leave it to the judicious reader to ruminate upon.\nBut if one would gather from ver. 33, that the priest, and the princes,\nand the children of Israel, did allow of that which the two tribes and the\nhalf had done, because it is said, \u201cThe thing pleased the children of\nIsrael, and the children of Israel blessed God, and did not intend to go\nup against them in battle:\u201d\n\nI answer, the Hebrew text hath it thus: \u201cAnd the word was good in the eyes\nof the children of Israel,\u201d &c.; that is, the children of Israel blessed\nGod for the word which Phinehas and the ten princes brought to them,\nbecause thereby they understood that the two tribes and the half had not\nturned away from following the Lord, nor made them an altar for\nburnt-offerings or sacrifice; which was enough to make them (the nine\ntribes and a half) desist from their purpose of going up to war against\ntheir brethren, to shed their blood. Again, when Phinehas and the ten\nprinces say to the Reubenites, Gadites, and the half tribe of Manasseh,\nThis day we perceive that the Lord is among us, \u201cbecause ye have not\ncommitted this trespass against the Lord,\u201d they do not exempt them from\nall prevarication; only they say _signanter_, \u201cthis trespass,\u201d to wit, of\nturning away from the Lord, and building an altar for sacrifice, whereof\nthey were accused. Thus we see that no approbation of that which the two\ntribes and the half did, in erecting the altar, can be drawn from the\ntext.\n\n_Sect._ 10. But to proceed, our opposites allege for another example\nagainst us, a new altar built by Solomon, 1 Kings viii. 64. In which place\nthere is no such thing to be found as a new altar built by Solomon; but\nonly that he sanctified the pavement of the inner court, that the whole\ncourt might be as an altar, necessity so requiring, because the brazen\naltar of the Lord was not able to contain so many sacrifices as then were\noffered. The building of synagogues can make as little against us.\n\nFor, 1. After the tribes were settled in the land of promise, synagogues\nwere built, in the case of an urgent necessity, because all Israel could\nnot come every Sabbath day to the reading and expounding of the law in the\nplace which God had chosen that his name might dwell there. What hath that\ncase to do with the addition of our unnecessary ceremonies?\n\n2. If Formalists will make any advantage of the building of synagogues,\nthey must prove that they were founded, not upon the extraordinary warrant\nof prophets, but upon that ordinary power which the church retaineth\nstill. As for the love-feasts used in the primitive church, 1. They had no\nreligious state in divine worship, but were used only as moral signs of\nmutual charity. The Rhemists(814) will have them to be called _caenas\ndominicas_. But what saith Cartwright against them? \u201cWe grant that there\nwere such feasts used in times past, but they were called by the name of\n\u1f00\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9 or love-feasts, not by the name of the Lord\u2019s supper; neither could\none without sacrilege give so holy a name to a common feast, which never\nhad ground out of the word, and which after, for just cause, was thrust\nout by the word of God.\u201d 2. If it be thought that they were used as sacred\nsigns of Christian charity because they were eaten in the church, I\nanswer, the eating of them in the church is forbidden by the Apostle.\n\u201cWhat! (saith he) have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye\nthe church of God?\u201d _Aperte vetat_ (saith Pareus),(815) _commessationes in\necclesia, quocunque fuco pingantur. Vocabant \u1f00\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u03b1\u03c2 charitates; sod nihil\nwinus erant. Erant schismatum fomenta. Singulae enim sectae suas\ninstituebant._ And a little after: _Aliquae ecclesiae obtemperasse\nvidentur. Nam Justini temporibus Romana ecclesia \u1f00\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u03b1\u03c2 non habuit._\nConcerning the kiss of charity used in those times, 2 Cor. xiii. 22, we\nsay in like manner that it was but a moral sign of that reconciliation,\nfriendship and amity, which showed itself as well at holy assemblies as\nother meetings in that kind and courtesy, but with all chaste salutation,\nwhich was then in use.\n\n_Sect._ 11. As for the veils wherewith the Apostle would have women\ncovered whilst they were praying (that is, in their hearts following the\npublic and common prayer), or prophesying (that is, singing, 1 Sam. x. 10;\n1 Chron. xxv. 1), they are worthy to be covered with shame as with a\ngarment who allege this example for sacred significant ceremonies of human\ninstitution. This covering was a moral sign for that comely and orderly\ndistinction of men and women which civil decency required in all their\nmeetings; wherefore that distinction of habits which they used for decency\nand comeliness in their common behaviour and conversation, the Apostle\nwill have them, for the same decency and comeliness, still to retain in\ntheir holy assemblies. And further, the Apostle showeth that it is also a\nnatural sign, and that nature itself teacheth it; therefore he urgeth it\nboth by the inferiority or subjection of the woman, ver. 3, 8, 9 (for\ncovering was then a sign of subjection), and by the long hair which nature\ngives to a woman, ver. 25; where he would have the artificial covering to\nbe fashioned in imitation of the natural. What need we any more? Let us\nsee nature\u2019s institution, or the Apostle\u2019s recommendation, for the\ncontroverted ceremonies (as we have seen them for women\u2019s veils), and we\nyield the argument.\n\nLast of all, the sign of imposition of hands helpeth not the cause of our\nopposites, because it has the example of Christ and the apostles, and\ntheir disciples, which our ceremonies have not; yet we think not\nimposition of hands to be any sacred or mystical sign, but only a moral,\nfor designation of a person: let them who think more highly or honourably\nof it look to their warrants.\n\nThus have I thought it enough to take a passing view of these objected\ninstances, without marking narrowly all the impertinencies and falsehoods\nwhich here we find in the reasoning of our opposites. One word more, and\nso an end. Dr Burges would comprehend the significancy of sacred\necclesiastical ceremonies, for stirring men up to the remembrance of some\nmystery of piety or duty to God, under that edification which is required\nin things that concern order and decency by all divines.\n\nAlas! what a sorry conceit is this? Divines, indeed, do rightly require\nthat those alterable circumstances of divine worship which are left to the\ndetermination of the church be so ordered and disposed as they may be\nprofitable to this edification. But this edification they speak of is no\nother than that which is common to all our actions and speeches. Are we\nnot required to do all things unto edifying, yea, to speak as that our\nspeech may be profitable unto edifying? Now, such significations as we\nhave showed to be given to the ceremonies in question, as, namely, to\ncertify a child of God\u2019s favour and goodwill towards him,\u2014to betoken that\nat no time Christians should be ashamed of the ignominy of Christ,\u2014to\nsignify the pureness that ought to be in the minister of God,\u2014to express\nthe humble and grateful acknowledgments of the benefits of Christ,\n&c.,\u2014belong not to that edification which divines require in things\nprescribed by the church concerning order and decency, except of every\nprivate and ordinary action, in the whole course of our conversation, we\neither deny that it should be done unto edifying, or else affirm that it\nis a sacred significant ceremony.\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER VI.\n\n\nTHAT THE LAWFULNESS OF THE CEREMONIES IS FALSELY GROUNDED UPON THE HOLY\nSCRIPTURE; WHERE SUCH PLACES AS ARE ALLEGED BY OUR OPPOSITES, EITHER FOR\nALL THE CEREMONIES IN GENERAL, OR FOR ANY ONE OF THEM IN PARTICULAR, ARE\nVINDICATED FROM THEM.\n\n\n_Sect._ 1. It remaineth now to examine the warrants which our opposites\npretend for the lawfulness of the ceremonies. But I perceive they know not\nwell what ground to take hold on. For instance whereof, Hooker defendeth\nthe lawfulness of festival days by the law of nature.(816) Dr Downame\ngroundeth the lawfulness of them on the law of God,(817) making the\nobservation of the sabbaths of rest appointed by the church, such as the\nfeasts of Christ\u2019s nativity, passion, &c., to be a duty commanded in the\nlaw of God, and the not observing of them to be a thing forbidden by the\nsame law. But Bishop Lindsey proveth the lawfulness of those holidays(818)\nfrom the power of the church to make laws in such matters. \u201cAs for the\nLord\u2019s day (saith he) which has succeeded to the Jewish Sabbath, albeit\nGod hath commanded to sanctify it, yet neither is the whole public\nworship, nor any part of it appropriated to that time; but lawfully the\nsame may be performed upon any other convenient day of the week, of the\nmonth, or of the year, as the church shall think expedient. Upon this\nground Zanchius affirmed, _Ecclesi\u00e6 Christi liberum esse quos velit pr\u00e6ter\ndominicos dies sibi sanctificandos deligere_. And by this warrant did the\nprimitive church sanctify those five anniversary days of Christ\u2019s\nnativity,\u201d &c.\n\nNay, let us observe how one of them wavereth from himself in seeking here\nsome ground to rest upon. Paybody groundeth the lawfulness of kneeling at\nthe sacrament on nature, part 2, cap. 4, sect. 1, on the act of\nParliament, part 3, cap. 1, sect. 31; on an ecclesiastical canon, part 3,\ncap. 1, sect. 33, on the king\u2019s sovereign authority, part 3, cap. 1, sect.\n36. Yet again he saith, that this kneeling is grounded upon the\ncommandment of God, part 3, cap. 3, sect. 11.\n\nWell, I see our opposites sometimes warrant the lawfulness of the\nceremonies from the law of God, sometimes from the law of man, and\nsometimes from the law of nature, but I will prove that the lawfulness of\nthose ceremonies we speak of can neither be grounded upon the law of God,\nnor the law of man, nor the law of nature, and by consequence that they\nare not lawful at all, so that, besides the answering of what our\nopposites allege for the lawfulness of them, we shall have a new argument\nto prove them unlawful.\n\n_Sect._ 2. I begin with the law of God. And, first, let us see what is\nalleged from Scripture for the ceremonies in general; then, after, let us\nlook over particulars. There is one place which they will have in\nmythology to stand for the head of Medusa, and if they still object to us\nfor all their ceremonies even that of the Apostle, \u201cLet all things be done\ndecently and in order,\u201d 1 Cor. xiv. 40. What they have drawn out of this\nplace, Dr Burges(819) hath refined in this manner. He distinguished\nbetwixt _pr\u00e6ceptum_ and _probatum_, and will have the controverted\nceremonies to be allowed of God, though not commanded. And if we would\nlearn how these ceremonies are allowed of God, he gives us to\nunderstand,(820) that it is by commanding the general kind to which these\nparticulars do belong. If we ask what is this general kind commanded of\nGod, to which these ceremonies do belong? he resolves us,(821) that it is\norder and decency: And if further we demand, how such ceremonies as are\ninstituted and used to stir up men, in respect of their signification,\nunto the devout remembrance of their duties to God, are in such an\ninstitution and use, matters of mere order? as a magisterial dictator of\n_quodlibets_, he tells us(822) that they are matters of mere order, _sensu\nlargo_, in a large sense. But lastly, if we doubt where he readeth of any\nworship commanded in the general, and not commanded, but only allowed in\nthe particular, he informeth us,(823) that in the free-will offerings,\nwhen a man was left at liberty to offer a bullock, goat, or sheep at his\npleasure, if he chose a bullock to offer, that sacrifice, in that\nparticular, was not commanded, but only allowed. What should I do, but be\n_surdus contra absurdum_? Nevertheless, least this jolly fellow think\nhimself more jolly than he this, I answer, 1st, How absurd a tenet is\nthis, which holdeth that there is some particular worship of God allowed,\nand not commanded? What new light is this which maketh all our divines to\nhave been in the mist, who have acknowledged no worship of God, but that\nwhich God hath commanded? Who ever heard of commanded and allowed worship?\nAs for the instances of the free-will offerings, Ames hath answered\nsufficiently,(824) \u201cthat though the particulars were not, nor could not\nbe, determined by a distinct rule in general, yet they were determined by\nthe circumstances, as our divines are wont to answer the Papists about\ntheir vows, councils, supererogations _not by a general law, but by\nconcurrence of circumstances._ So Deut. xvi. 10, Moses showeth that the\nfreest offerings were to be according as God had blessed them, from whence\nit followeth, it had been sin for any Israelite whom God had plentifully\nblessed, to offer a pair of pigeons, instead of a bullock or two, upon his\nown mere pleasure. Where that proportion was observed, the choice of a\ngoat before a sheep, or a sheep before a goat, was no formal worship.\u201d\n\n_Sect._ 3. How will Dr Burges make it appear that the English ceremonies\ndo belong to that order and decency which is commanded? Bellarmine(825)\nwould have all the ceremonies of the church of Rome comprehended under\norder and decency, and therefore warranteth them by that precept of the\nApostle, \u201clet all things be done decently and in order.\u201d The one shall as\nsoon prove his point as the other, and that shall be never.\n\nFor, 1. The Apostle only commanded that each action and ceremony of God\u2019s\nworship be decently and orderly performed, but gives us no leave to\nexcogitate or devise new ceremonies, which have not been instituted\nbefore. He hath spoken in that chapter of assembling in the church,\nprophesying and preaching, praying and praising there.\n\nNow let all these things, and every other action of God\u2019s worship,\nceremonies and all, be done decently and in order. _Licit ergo Paulus_,\n&c. \u201cAlbeit, therefore (saith John Bastwick),(826) Paul hath committed to\nthe church the judging both of decency and order, yet hath he not granted\nany liberty of such mystical ceremonies as by their more inward\nsignification do teach the duty of piety; for since the whole liberty of\nthe church, in the matter of divine worship, is exercised only in order\nand decency, it followeth that they do impudently scorn both God and the\nScriptures, who do extend this liberty to greater things, and such as are\nplaced above us. Most certain it is, that Christ, the doctor of the\nchurch, hath, by his own written and sealed word, abundantly expounded\nunto us the will of God. Neither is there further need of any ceremonies,\nwhich by a secret virtue may instruct us: neither is it less evident that\norder consisteth not in the institution or use of new things, but only in\nthe right placing of things which have been instituted before.\u201d \u201cDecency\n(saith Balduine)(827) is opposed to levity, and order to confusion.\u201d\n_Spectat autem hic ordo potissimum ad ritus ecclesiae in officiis sacris\nin quibus nullum debet esse scandalum, nulla confusio._\n\nThen, in his judgment, order is not to the rites of the church a general\nkind, but only a concomitant circumstance; neither are the rites of the\nchurch comprehended under order as particulars under the general kind to\nwhich they belong; but order belongeth to the rites of the church as an\nadjunct to the subject. And, I pray, must not the rights of the church be\nmanaged with decency and order? If so, then must our opposites either say\nthat order is managed with order, which is to speak nonsense, or else,\nthat the rights of the church are not comprehended under order. But if\nnot, then it followeth that the rites of the church are to be managed with\nlevity, confusion, and scandal; for every action that is not done in\ndecency and in order must needs be done scandalously and confusedly. 2.\nOrder and decency, whether taken _largo_ or _stricto sensu_, always\nsignify such a thing as ought to be in all human actions, as well civil as\nsacred; for will any man say, that the civil actions of men are not to be\ndone decently and in order? The directions of order and decency(828) are\nnot (we see) _propria religionis_, but as Balduine showeth(829) out of\nGregory Nazianzen, order is in all other things as well as in the church.\nWherefore sacred significant ceremonies shall never be warranted by the\nprecept of order and decency, which have no less in civility than in\nreligion.\n\n_Sect._ 4. Now to the particulars. And first, that which Christ did, Matt.\nxix. 13, 15, cannot commend unto us the bishopping or confirmation of\nchildren by prayer and imposition of hands; for as Maldonat saith\nrightly,(830) _Hebreorum consuetudinem fuisse, ut qui majores erant et\naliqua polle bant divina gratia, manuum impositione inferioribus\nbenedicerent, constat ex_ Gen. xlviii. 14, 15, _hac ergo ratione adducti\nparentes, infantes ad Christum afferebant, ut impositis manibus illis\nbenediceret_. And as touching this blessing of children and imposition of\nhands upon them (saith Cartwright),(831) it is peculiar unto our Saviour\nChrist, used neither by his disciples nor his apostles, either before or\nafter his ascension, whereunto maketh that the children being brought,\nthat he should pray over them, he did not pray for them, but blessed them,\nthat is to say, commended them to be blessed, thereby to show his divine\npower. These being also yet infants, and in their swaddling clouts, as by\nthe word which the evangelist useth, and as by our Saviour Christ\u2019s taking\nthem into his arms, doth appear, being also, in all likelihood,\nunbaptised. Last of all, their confirmation is a notable derogation unto\nthe holy sacrament of baptism, not alone in that it presumeth the sealing\nof that which was sealed sufficiently by it; but also in that, both by\nasseveration of words, and by speciality of the minister that giveth it,\nit is even preferred unto it.\n\n_Sect._ 5. The act of Perth about kneeling would draw some commendation to\nthis ceremony from those words of the psalm, \u201cO come let us worship and\nbow down, let us kneel before the Lord our Maker,\u201d Psal. xcv. 6. Which is\nas if one should argue thus: We may worship before the Lord, therefore\nbefore a creature; we may kneel in an immediate worship of God, therefore\nin a mediate; for who seeth not that the kneeling there spoken of is a\nkneeling in the action of solemn praise and joyful noise of singing unto\nthe Lord? I wish you, my masters, more sober spirits, that ye may fear to\ntake God\u2019s name in vain, even his word which he hath magnified above all\nhis name. Dr Forbesse goeth about to warrant private baptism,(832) by\nPhilip\u2019s baptising the eunuch, there being no greater company present, so\nfar as we can gather from the narration of Luke, Acts viii.; as likewise\nby Paul and Silas\u2019s baptising the jailer and all his in his own private\nhouse, Acts xvi. Touching the first of those places, we answer, 1. How\nthinks he that a man of so great authority and charge was alone in his\njourney? We suppose a great man travelling in a chariot must have some\nnumber of attendants, especially having come to a solemn worship at\nJerusalem. 2. What Philip then did, the extraordinary direction of the\nSpirit guided him unto it, ver. 29, 39. As to the other place, there was,\nin that time of persecution, no liberty for Christians to meet together in\ntemples and public places, as now there is. Wherefore the example of Paul\nand Silas doth prove the lawfulness of the like deed in the like case.\n\n_Sect._ 6. Hooker muttereth some such matter as a commendation of the sign\nof the cross from these two places, Ezek. ix. 4; Rev. vii. 3; alleging,\nthat because in the forehead nothing is more plain to be seen than the\nfear of contumely and disgrace, therefore the Scripture describeth them\nmarked of God in the forehead, whom his mercy hath undertaken to keep from\nfinal confusion and shame.(833) Bellarmine allegeth for the cross the same\ntwo places.(834) But for answer to the first, we say, that neither the\nsign whereof we read in that place, nor yet the use of it can make aught\nfor them. As for the sign itself; albeit the ancients did interpret the\nsign of the letter _Tau_, to have been the sign of the cross, yet saith\nJunius, _Bona illorum venia; Tquidem Graecorum, Latinorumque majusculum,\ncrucis quodam modo signum videtur effingere, verum hoc ad literam\nHaebreorum_ Tau _non potest pertinere. Deinde ne ipsum quidem Grcaecorum\nLatinorumque T, formam crucis quae apud veteres in usu erat quum\nsumebantur supplicia, representat._(835)\n\nWhereupon dissenting from the ancients, he delivers his own judgment, that\n_tau_ in this place is taken _technicos_, for that sign or mark of the\nletter wherewith the Lord commanded to mark the elect for their safety and\npreservation. And so there was no mystery to be sought in that letter more\nthan in any other. As for the use of that mark wherewith the elect in\nJerusalem were at that time sealed, it was only for distinction and\nseparation. It had the same use which that sprinkling of the posts of the\ndoors had, Exod. xii. 7, only the foreheads of men and women, and not the\nposts of doors were here marked, because only the remnant according to\nelection, and not whole families promiscuously, were at this time to be\nspared, as Junius noteth.\n\nBut the use of the sign of the cross pretended by Formalists, is not to\nseparate us in the time of judgment, but to teach that at no time we ought\nto be ashamed of the ignominy of Christ.\n\nShortly, the sign wherewith they in Jerusalem were marked, was for\npreservation from judgment; but the sign of the cross is used for\npreservation from sin. Thus we see, that neither the sign nor the use of\nit, had any affinity with the cross. Now, the surest interpretation of\nthat place, Ezek. ix. 4, is to take _Tau_ for an appellative noun,\nsignifying generally and indefinitely a mark or sign, so that there is no\nmark determined by this word; only there was a commandment given to set a\ncertain mark, some sign or other, upon the foreheads of the elect. So have\nour English translators taken the place.\n\nThis exposition is confessed by Gasper Sanctius,(836) to be followed\nalmost by all the Hebrew masters, and by the most ancient interpreters, to\nwit, the Septuagint, Aquilla and Symmachus. The word beareth this gloss,\neven according to the confession of those who expound it otherwise in this\nplace, to wit, for an image or representation of the cross. _Tau_ (saith\nSanctius) _commune nomen est, quod signum indefinite significat_.(837)\n_Tau_ is expounded by Bellarmine(838) to signify _signum_ or _terminus_.\nWell then: our adversaries themselves can say nothing against our\ninterpretation of the word _tau_. We have also Buxtorff for us, who in his\nHebrew Lexicon turneth _tau_ to _signum_, and for this signification he\nciteth both this place, Ezek. ix. 4, and Job. xxxi. 35. _Taui signum\nmeum._\n\nLastly, If _tau_ be not put for a common appellative noun, signifying a\nmark or sign, but for the figure or character of the letter _tau_ as an\nimage of the cross, by all likelihood this character only should have been\nput in the Hebrew text, and not the noun fully written; _vehithvith a\ntau_, and mark a mark. As to the other place,(839) Rev. vii. 3, Pareus\nobserveth, that there is no figure or form of any sign there expressed,\nand he thinks that seal was not outward and visible, but the same whereof\nwe read, 2 Tim. ii. 19, and Rev. xiv. 1, which cannot be interpreted _de\nsigno transeunte; nam Christianum semper nomen filii, et patris in fronte\noportet gerere_, saith Junius.(840)\n\nDr Fulk, on Rev. vii. 3, saith, that the sign here spoken of is proper to\nGod\u2019s elect, therefore not the sign of the cross, which many reprobates\nhave received.\n\n_Sect._ 7. Bishop Andrews will have the feast of Easter drawn from that\nplace,(841) 1 Cor. v. 8, where he saith, there is not only a warrant, but\nan order for the keeping of it; and he will have it out of doubt that this\nfeast is of apostolical institution, because after the times of the\napostles, when there was a contention about the manner of keeping Easter,\nit was agreed upon by all, that it should be kept; and when the one side\nalleged for them St. John, and the other St. Peter, it was acknowledged by\nboth that the feast was apostolical.\n\nI answer, The testimony of Socrates deserveth more credit than the\nBishop\u2019s naked conclusion.\n\n\u201cI am of opinion (saith Socrates(842)), that as many other things crept in\nof custom in sundry places, so the feast of Easter to have prevailed among\nall people, of a certain private custom and observation.\u201d\n\nBut whereas Bishop Lindsey, in defence of Bishop Andrews, replieth, that\nSocrates propoundeth this for his own opinion only:\n\nI answer, that Socrates, in that chapter, proveth his opinion from the\nvery same ground which Bishop Andrews wresteth to prove that this feast is\napostolical. For while as in that hot controversy about the keeping of\nEaster, they of the East alleged John the apostle for their author, and\nthey of the West alleged Peter and Paul for themselves, \u201cYet (saith\nSocrates), there is none that can shew in writing any testimony of theirs\nfor confirmation and proof of their custom. And hereby I do gather, that\nthe celebration of the feast of Easter came up more of custom than by any\nlaw or canon.\u201d\n\n_Sect._ 7. Downame (as I touched before) allegeth the fourth commandment\nfor holidays of the church\u2019s institution. But Dr Bastwick allegeth more\ntruly the fourth commandment against them:(843) \u201cSix days shalt thou\nlabour.\u201d This argument I have made good elsewhere; so that now I need not\ninsist upon it. There are further two examples alleged against us for\nholidays, out of Esth. ix. 17, 18, 27, 28, and John x. 22.\n\nWhereunto we answer, 1. That both those feasts were appointed to be kept\nwith the consent of the whole congregation of Israel and body of the\npeople, as is plain from Esth. ix. 32, and 1 Maccab. iv. 59. Therefore,\nthey have no show of making aught of such feasts as ours, which are\ntyrannically urged upon such as in their consciences do condemn them.\n\n2. It appears, that the days of Purim were only appointed to be days of\ncivil mirth and gladness, such as are in use with us, when we set out\nbonfires, and other tokens of civil joy, for some memorable benefit which\nthe kingdom or commonwealth hath received. For they are not called the\nholidays of Purim, but simply the days of Purim,\u2014\u201cA day of feasting and of\nsending portions one to another,\u201d Esth. ix. 19, 22. No word of any worship\nof God in those days. And whereas it seemeth to Bishop Lindsey,(844) that\nthose days were holy, because of that rest which was observed upon them;\nhe must know that the text interpreteth itself, and it is evident from\nver. 16 and 22, that this rest was not a rest from labour, for waiting\nupon the worshipping of God, but only a rest from their enemies.\n\n_Sect._ 9. But Bishop Andrews goeth about to prove by six reasons, that\nthe days of Purim were holidays, and not days of civil joy and solemnity\nonly.(845)\n\nFirst, saith he, it is plain by verse 31, they took it in _animas_, upon\ntheir souls,\u2014a _soul matter_ they made of it: there needs no soul for\n_feria_ or _festum_, play or feasting. They bound themselves _super animas\nsuas_, which is more than _upon themselves_, and would not have been put\nin the margin, but stood in the text: thus he reprehendeth the English\ntranslators, as you may perceive.\n\n_Ans._ The Bishop could not be ignorant that _nephesch_ signifieth _corpus\nanimatum_, as well as _anima_, and that the Hebrews do not always put this\nword for our souls, but very often for ourselves. So Psal. vii. 2. and\nPsal. lix. 3, we read _naphschi_,\u2014_my soul_ for _me_; and Psal. xliv.\n25,\u2014_naphschenu, our soul_ for _we_; and Gen. xlvi. 26,\n_col-nephesch_\u2014_omnis animae_, for _omnes homines_.\n\nWhat have we any further need of testimonies? Six hundred such are in the\nholy text. And in this place, Esth. ix. 31, what can be more plain, than\nthat _nighal-naphscham, upon their soul_, is put for _nghalehem, upon\nthemselves_, especially since _nghalehem_ is found to the same purpose,\nboth in ver. 27 and 31.\n\nIf we will make the text agree well with itself, how can we but take both\nthese for one? But proceed we with the Bishop. Secondly, saith he, the\nbond of it reacheth to all that _religioni eorum voluerunt copulari_, ver.\n27, then, a matter of religion it was, had reference to that: what need\nany joining in religion for a matter of good fellowship?\n\n_Ans._ There is no word in the text of religion. Our English translation\nreads it, \u201call such as joined themselves unto them.\u201d Montanus, _omnes\nadjunctos_; Tremellius, _omnes qui essent se adjuncturi eis._ The old\nLatin version reads it indeed as the Bishop doth.\n\nBut no such thing can be drawn out of the word _hannilvim_, which is taken\nfrom the radix _lava_, signifying simply, and without any adjection,\n_adhaesit_, or _adjunxit se_. But let it be so, that the text meaneth only\nsuch as were to adjoin themselves to the religion of the Jews, yet why\nmight not the Jews have taken upon them a matter of civility, not only for\nthemselves, but for such also as were to be joined with them in religion.\nCould there be nothing promised for proselytes, but only a matter of\nreligion?\n\nAlas! Is this our antagonist\u2019s great Achilles, who is thus falling down\nand succumbing to me, a silly stripling? Yet let us see if there be any\nmore force in the remnant of his reasons.\n\nFor a third, he tells us that it is expressly termed a _rite_ and a\n_ceremony_, at verses 23 and 28, as the fathers read them.\n\nIn the 23rd verse we have no more but _susceperunt_, as Pagnini, or\n_receperunt_, as Tremellius reads it: but to read, _susceperunt in\nsolemnem ritum_, is to make an addition to the text.\n\nThe 28th verse calls not this feast a rite, but only _dies memorati_, or\n_celebres_. And what if we grant that this feast was a rite? might it not,\nfor all that, be merely civil? No, saith the Bishop, \u201crites, I trust, and\nceremonies, pertain to the church, and to the service of God.\u201d\n\n_Ans._ The version which the Bishop followed, hath a rite, not a ceremony.\nNow, of rites, it is certain that they belong to the commonwealth as well\nas to the church. For _in jure politico, sui sunt imperati et solemnes\nritus_, saith Junius.(846)\n\nFourthly, saith the Bishop, they fast and pray here in this verse (meaning\nthe 31st), fast the eve, the fourteenth, and so then the day following to\nbe holiday of course.\n\n_Ans._ The Latin version, which the Bishop followeth, and whereupon he\nbuildeth this reason, readeth the 31st verse very corruptly, and no ways\naccording to the original, as will easily appear to any who can compare\nthem together. Wherefore the best interpreters take the fasting and prayer\nspoken of verse 31, to be meant of the time before their delivery. Now,\nafter they were delivered, they decreed that the matters of their fasting\nand crying should be remembered upon the days of Purim, which were to\nsolemnise that preservation, _quam jejunio et precibus fuerant a Deo\nconsequenti_, as saith Tremellius.\n\nBut Fifthly, saith he, with fasting and prayer (here), alms also is\nenjoined (at ver. 22), these three will make it past a day of revels or\nmirth.\n\nI have answered already, that their fasting and praying are not to be\nreferred to the days of Purim, which were memorials of their delivery, but\nto the time past, when, by the means of fasting and prayer, they did\nimpetrate their delivery, before ever the days of Purim were heard of, and\nas touching alms, it can make no holiday, because much alms may be, and\nhath been given upon days of civil joy and solemnity.\n\nIf the Bishop help not himself with his sixth reason, he is like to come\noff with no great credit. May we then know what that is?\n\nLastly, saith he, as a holiday the Jews ever kept it,\u2014have a peculiar set\nservice for it in their _Seders_, set psalms to sing, set lessons to read,\nset prayers to say, good and godly all,\u2014none but as they have used from\nall antiquity.\n\n_Ans._ 1. The Bishop could not have made this word good, that the Jews did\never and from all antiquity keep the days of Purim in this fashion.\n\n2. This manner of holding that feast, whensoever it began, had no warrant\nfrom the first institution, but was (as many other things) taken up by the\nJews in after ages, and so the Bishop proveth not the point which he\ntaketh in hand, namely, that the days spoken of in this text were enacted\nor appointed to be kept as holidays.\n\n3. The service which the Jews in latter times use upon the days of Purim\nis not much to be regarded. For as Godwin noteth out of Hospinian,(847)\nthey read the history of Esther in their synagogues, and so often as they\nhear mention of Haman, they do with their fists and hammers beat upon the\nbenches and boards, as if they did knock upon Haman\u2019s head. When thus they\nhave behaved themselves, in the very time of their liturgy, like furious\nand drunken people, the rest of the day they pass over in outrageous\nrevelling. And here I take leave of the Bishop.\n\n_Sect._ 10. Thirdly, We say, whether the days of Purim were instituted to\nbe holidays or not, yet there was some more than ordinary warrant for\nthem, because Mordecai, by whose advice and direction they were appointed\nto be kept, was a prophet by the instinct and revelation of the Spirit,\nEsth. iv. 13. _Non multum fortasse aberraverimus_, saith Hospinian,(848)\n_si dicamus hoc \u00e0 Mordochc\u00e6o et Hesthera, ex peculiari Spiritus Sancti\ninstinctu factum_.\n\nBishop Lindsey believeth(849) that they had only a general warrant, such\nas the church hath still, to put order to the circumstances belonging to\nGod\u2019s worship, and all his reason is, because if the Jews had received any\nother particular warrant, the sacred story should not have passed it over\nin silence.\n\n_Ans._ Thus much we understand from the sacred story, that the Jews had\nthe direction of a prophet for the days of Purim; and that was a warrant\nmore than ordinary, because prophets were the extraordinary ministers of\nGod.\n\n_Sect._ 11. Fourthly, As touching the feast of the dedication of the altar\nby Judas Maccabeus, 1. Let us hear what Cartwright very gravely and\njudiciously propoundeth:(850) \u201cThat this feast was unduly instituted and\nungroundly, it may appear by conference of the dedication of the first\ntemple under Solomon, and of the second after the captivity returned from\nBabylon. In which dedication, seeing there was no yearly remembrance by\nsolemnity of feasts, not so much as one day, it is evident that the yearly\ncelebration of this feast for eight days, was not compassed by that Spirit\nthat Solomon and the captivity were directed by; which Spirit, when it\ndwelt more plentifully in Solomon, and in the prophets that stood at the\nstern of the captivity\u2019s dedication, than it did in Judas, it was in him\nso much the more presumptuous, as having a shorter leg than they, he durst\nin that matter overstride them, and his rashness is so much the more\naggravated, as each of them, for the building of the whole temple, with\nall the implements and furniture thereof, made no feast to renew the\nannual memory, where Judas only for renewment of the altar, and of certain\nother decayed places of the temple, instituted this great solemnity.\u201d\n\n2. The feast of the dedication was not free of Pharisaical invention. For\nas Tremellius observeth out of the Talmud,(851) _statuerunt sapientes\nillius seculi, ut recurrentibus annis, octo illi dies, &c._ Yet albeit the\nPharisees were called _sapientes Israelis_, Bishop Lindsey will not grant\nthat they were the wise men of whom the Talmud speaketh; for, saith he, it\nbehoved those who appointed festivities, not only to be wise men, but men\nof authority also.(852)\n\nBut what do we hear? Were not the Pharisees men of authority? Why, saith\nnot Christ they sat in Moses\u2019 chair? Matt. xxiii. 2. Saith not\nCalvin,(853) _In ecclesi\u00e6 regimene et scriptura interpretatione, h\u00e6c secta\nprimatum tenebat_? Saith not Camero,(854) _cum Pharis\u00e6orum pr\u00e6cipua esset\nauthoritas_ (_ut ubique docet Josephus_)? &c.\n\nDoth not Josephus speak so much of their authority, that in one place he\nsaith,(855) _Nomen igitur regni, erat penes reginam (Alexandram) penes\nPharis\u00e6os vero administratio_? And in another place,(856) _Erat enim\nqu\u00e6dam Jud\u00e6orum secta exactiorem patri\u00e6 legis cognitionem sibi vendicans_?\n&c. _Hi Pharis\u00e6i vocantur, genus hominuum astutum, arrogans, et interdum\nregibus quoque infestum, ut eos etiam aperte impugnare non vereatur?_\n\nThere is nothing alleged which can prove the lawfulness of this feast of\nthe dedication.\n\nIt is but barely and boldly affirmed by Bishop Lindsey,(857) that the\nPharisees were not rebuked by Christ for this feast, because we read not\nso much in Scripture; for there were many things which Jesus did and said\nthat are not written in Scripture, John xxi. 25; and whereas it seemeth to\nsome, that Christ did countenance and approve this feast, because he gave\nhis presence unto the same, John x. 22, 23, we must remember, that the\ncircumstances only of time and place are noted by the evangelist, for\nevidence to the story, and not for any mystery, Christ had come up to the\nfeast of tabernacles, John vii., and tarried still all that while, because\nthen there was a great confluence of people in Jerusalem. Whereupon he\ntook occasion to spread the net of the gospel for catching of many souls.\nAnd whilst John saith, \u201cIt was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication,\u201d\nhe gives a reason only of the confluence of many people at Jerusalem, and\nshoweth how it came to pass that Christ had occasion to preach to such a\ngreat multitude; and whilst he addeth \u201cAnd it was winter,\u201d he giveth a\nreason of Christ\u2019s walking in Solomon\u2019s porch, whither the Jews\u2019 resort\nwas. It was not thought beseeming to walk in the temple itself, but in the\nporch men used to convene either for talking or walking, because in the\nsummer the porch shadowed them from the heat of the sun, and in winter it\nlay open to the sunshine and to heat. Others think, that whilst he saith,\nit was winter, importeth that therefore Christ was the more frequently in\nthe temple, knowing that his time was short which he had then for his\npreaching; for in the entry of the next spring he was to suffer.\nHowsoever, it is not certain of what feast of dedication John speaketh.\nBullinger leaves it doubtful;(858) and Maldonat saith(859) that this\nopinion which taketh the dedication of the altar by Judas Maccabeus to be\nmeant by John, hath fewest authors. But to let this pass, whereas the\nRhemists allege,(860) that Christ approved this feast, because he was\npresent at it. Cartwright and Fulk answer them, that Christ\u2019s being\npresent at it proveth not his approving of it. _Non festum proprie\nhonoravit Christus_, saith Junius,(861) _sed c\u00e6tum piorum convenientem\nfesto; nam omnes ejusmodi occasiones seminandi evangelii sui observabat et\ncapiebat Christus_.\n\n_Quasi vero_ (saith Hospinian(862)) _Christus Enc\u00e6noirum casua\nHierosloymam abierit_. Nay, but he saw he had a convenient occasion, _ad\ninstituendam hominum multitudenem, ad illud festum confluentiam_.\n\nEven as Paul chose to be present at certain Jewish feasts,(863) not for\nany respect to the feasts themselves, nor for any honour which he meant to\ngive them, but for the multitudes\u2019 cause who resorted to the same, among\nwhom he had a more plentiful occasion to spread the gospel at those\nfestivities than at other times in the year.\n\nI had thought here to close this chapter; but finding that, as the parrot,\nwhich other while useth the form of a man\u2019s voice, yet being beaten and\nchaffed, returneth to his own natural voice, so some of our opposites, who\nhave been but erst prating somewhat of the language of Canaan against us,\nfinding themselves pressed and perplexed in such a way of reasoning, have\nquickly changed their tune, and begin to talk to us of warrants of another\nnature nor of the word of God. I am therefore to digress with them. And I\nperceive, ere we know well where they are, they are passed from Scripture\nto custom. For if we will listen, thus saith one of the greatest note\namong them, Bishop Andrews(864) I trow they call him: \u201cWe do but make\nourselves to be pitied other while (well said) when we stand wringing the\nScriptures (well said) to strain that out of them which is not in them\n(well said), and so can never come liquid from them (well said), when yet\nwe have for the same point the church\u2019s custom clear enough. And that is\nenough by virtue of this text\u201d (meaning 1 Cor. xi. 16). And after he\nsaith, that we are taught by the Apostle\u2019s example in \u201cpoints of this\nnature, of ceremony or circumstance, ever to pitch upon _habemus_, or _non\nhabemus talem consuetudinem_.\u201d\n\n_Ans._ 1. The text gives him no ground for this doctrine, that in matters\nof ceremony we are to pitch upon _habemus_ or _non habemus talem\nconsuetudinem_, so that he is wide away, whilst he spendeth the greatest\npart of his sermon in the pressing of this point, that the custom of the\nchurch should be enough to us in matters of ceremony, and particularly in\nthe keeping of Easter; for the custom of the church there spoken of, is\nnot concerning a point of circumstance, but concerning a very substantial\nand necessary point, namely, not to be contentious: neither doth the\nApostle urge those orders of the men\u2019s praying uncovered, and the women\u2019s\npraying veiled, from this ground, because so was the church\u2019s custom (as\nthe Bishop would have it), but only he is warning the Corinthians not to\nbe contentious about those matters, because the churches have no such\ncustom as to be contentious. So is the place expounded by Chrysostom,\nAmbrose, Calvin, Martyr, Bullinger, Marlorat, Beza, Fulk, Cartwright,\nPareus, and our own Archbishop of St. Andrews, in his sermon upon that\ntext. And for this exposition, it maketh that the Apostle, in the\npreceding part of the chapter, hath given sufficient reasons for that\norder of covering or veiling the women; wherefore, if any would contend\nabout the matter, he tells them they must contend with themselves; for\nthey nor the churches of God would not contend with them,\u2014they had no such\ncustom. But if we admit Bishop Andrews\u2019 gloss, then why doth the Apostle,\nafter he hath given good \u201creason for the veiling of women, subjoin, if any\nman seem to be contentious,\u201d &c. The Bishop resolveth us, that the\napostles saw that a wrangling wit would elude these reasons which he had\ngiven, and he had no other reasons to give, therefore he resolves all into\nthe church\u2019s practice,\u2014enough of itself to suffice any that will be wise\nto sobriety. _Ans._ If any seem to be blasphemous, we have no such custom,\nneither the churches of God. What! shall a wrangling wit elude the reasons\ngiven by the Spirit of God, in such sort, that he must give some other\nmore sufficient proof for that which he teacheth? Then the whole\nScriptures of God must yet be better proved, because the unstable do wrest\nthem, as Peter speaks, 2 Pet. iii. 16.\n\n(Transcriber\u2019s Note: There is no section 12 in the original book.)\n\n_Sect._ 13. 2. The custom of the church is not enough to pitch on, and it\nis found oftentimes expedient to change a custom of the church.\n\nBasilius Magnus(865) doth flatly refuse to admit the authority of custom:\n_Consuetudo sine veritate_ (saith Cyprian),(866) _vetustas erroris est.\nFrustra enim qui ratione vincuntur_ (saith Augustine),(867) _consuetudinem\nnobis objiciunt, quasi consuetudo major sit veritate, &c. Nullus pudor est\nad meliora transire_, saith Ambrose(868) to the Emperor Valentinian.\n_Quaelibet consuetudo_ (saith Gratian),(869) _veritati est postponenda._\n\nAnd again,(870) _Corrigendum est quod illicite admittitur, aut a\npraedecessoribus admissum invenitur_. A politic writer admonisheth(871)\n_retinere antiqua_, only with this caution, _Si proba._\n\nCalvin(872) (speaking against human ceremonies) saith, _Si objiciatur,\n&c._ \u201cIf (saith he) antiquity be objected (albeit they who are too much\naddicted to custom and to received fashions, do boldly use this buckler to\ndefend all their corruptions), the refutation is easy; for the ancients\nalso themselves, with heavy complaints, have abundantly testified that\nthey did not approve of anything which was devised by the will of men.\u201d In\nthe end of the epistle he allegeth this testimony of Cyprian: \u201cIf Christ\nalone be to be heard, then we ought not to give heed what any man before\nus hath thought fit to be done, but what Christ (who is before all) hath\ndone; for we must not follow the customs of man, but the truth of God.\u201d\n\nWhat can be more plain than that antiquity cannot be a confirmation to\nerror, nor custom a prejudice to truth?\n\nWherefore Dr Forbesse(873) also despiseth such arguments as are taken from\nthe custom of the church.\n\n_Sect._ 14. 3. There was a custom in the churches of God to give the holy\ncommunion to infants; and another custom to minister baptism only about\nEaster and Pentecost. Sundry such abuses got place in the church.\n\nIf, then, it be enough to pitch upon custom, why ought not those customs\nto have been commended and continued? But if they were commendably\nchanged, then ought we not to follow blindly the bare custom of the\nchurch, but examine the equity of the same, and demand grounds of reason\nfor it.\n\nSt. Paul (saith Dr Fulk(874)) doth give reason for that order of covering\nwomen\u2019s heads: \u201cBy whose example the preachers are likewise to endeavour\nto satisfy, by reason, both men and women, that humbly desire their\nresolution for quiet of their conscience, and not to beat them down with\nthe club of custom only.\u201d\n\n4. Whereas the custom of some churches is alleged for the ceremonies, we\nhave objected the custom of other churches against them; neither shall\never our opposites prove them to be the customs of the church universal.\n\n5. A great part of that ecclesiastical custom which is alleged for the\nceremonies, resolveth into that idolatrous and superstitious use of them\nwhich hath long continued in the kingdom of antichrist; but that such a\ncustom maketh against them, it hath been proved before.(875)\n\n6. If it were so that we ought to pitch upon the church\u2019s custom, yet\n(that I may speak with Mr Hooker) the law of common indulgence permitteth\nus to think of our own customs as half a thought better than the customs\nof others.\n\nBut why was there such a change made in the discipline, policy, and orders\nof the church of Scotland, which were agreeable to the word of God,\nconfirmed and ratified by general assemblies and parliaments, used and\nenjoyed with so great peace and purity? Our custom should have holden the\nceremonies out of Scotland, hold them in elsewhere as it may.\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER VII.\n\n\nTHAT THE LAWFULNESS OF THE CEREMONIES CANNOT BE WARRANTED BY ANY\nECCLESIASTICAL LAW, NOR BY ANY POWER WHICH THE CHURCH HATH TO PUT ORDER TO\nTHINGS BELONGING TO DIVINE WORSHIP.\n\n\n_Sect._ 1. We have proved that the ceremonies cannot be warranted by the\nlaw of God. It followeth to examine whether any law of man, or power upon\nearth, can make them lawful or warrantable unto us.\n\nWe will begin with laws ecclesiastical, where, first of all, it must be\nconsidered well what power the church hath to make laws about things\npertaining to religion and the worship of God, and how far the same doth\nextend itself. Dr Field\u2019s resolution touching this question is as\nfolloweth: \u201cThus (saith he(876)) we see our adversaries cannot prove that\nthe church hath power to annex unto such ceremonies and observations as\nshe deviseth, the remission of sins, and the working of other spiritual\nand supernatural effects, which is the only thing questioned between them\nand us about the power of the church. So that all the power the church\nhath, more than by her power to publish the commandments of Christ the Son\nof God, and by her censures to punish the offenders against the same, is\nonly in prescribing things that pertain to comeliness and order.\nComeliness requireth that not only that gravity and modesty do appear in\nthe performance of the works of God\u2019s service that beseemeth actions of\nthat nature, but also that such rites and ceremonies be used as may cause\na due respect unto, and regard of, the things performed, and thereby stir\nmen up to greater fervour and devotion.\u201d\n\nAnd after: Order requireth that there be set hours for prayer, preaching,\nand ministering the sacraments; that there be silence and attention when\nthe things are performed; that women be silent in the church; that all\nthings be administered according to the rules of discipline.\n\nThis his discourse is but a bundle of incongruities. For, 1. He saith,\nthat the church\u2019s power to annex unto the ceremonies which she deviseth\nthe working of spiritual and supernatural effects, is the only thing\nquestioned between our adversaries and us about the power of the church.\nNow, our adversaries contend with us also about the power of the church to\nmake new articles of faith, and her power to make laws binding the\nconscience, both which controversies are touched by himself.(877)\n\n2. He saith, that comeliness requireth the use of such ceremonies as may\ncause a due respect unto, and regard of, the works of God\u2019s service, and\nthereby stir men up to greater fervour and devotion. But it hath been\nalready showed(878) that the comeliness which the Apostle requireth in the\nchurch and service of God cannot comprehend such ceremonies under it, and\nthat it is no other than that very common external decency which is\nbeseeming for all the assemblies of men, as well civil as sacred.\n\n3. Whilst he is discoursing of the church\u2019s power to prescribe things\npertaining to order, contra-distinguished from her power which she hath to\npublish the commandments of Christ, he reckons forth among his other\nexamples, women\u2019s silence in the church, as if the church did prescribe\nthis as a matter of order left to her determination, and not publish it as\nthe commandment of Christ in his word.\n\n4. Whereas he saith that the church hath power to prescribe such rites and\nceremonies as may cause a due respect unto, and regard of, the works of\nGod\u2019s service, and thereby stir men up to greater fervour and devotion, by\nhis own words shall he be condemned: for a little before he reprehendeth\nthe Romanists for maintaining that the church hath power to annex unto the\nceremonies which she deviseth the working of spiritual and supernatural\neffects. And a little after he saith, that the church hath no power to\nordain such ceremonies as serve to signify, assure, and convey unto men\nsuch benefits of saving grace as God in Christ is pleased to bestow on\nthem. Now, to cause a regard of, and a respect unto the works of God\u2019s\nservice, and thereby to stir up men to fervour and devotion, what is it\nbut the working of a spiritual and supernatural effect, and the conveying\nunto men such a benefit of saving grace as God in Christ is pleased to\nbestow on them? In like manner, whereas he holdeth that the church hath\npower to ordain such ceremonies as serve to express those spiritual and\nheavenly affections, dispositions, motions, or desires, which are or\nshould be in men, in the very same place he confuteth himself, whilst he\naffirmeth that the church hath no power to ordain such ceremonies as serve\nto signify unto men those benefits of saving grace which God in Christ is\npleased to bestow on them. Now, to express such heavenly and spiritual\naffections, dispositions, motions, or desires, as should be in men, is (I\nsuppose) to signify unto men such benefits of saving grace, as God in\nChrist is pleased to bestow on them. Who dare deny it?\n\n_Sect._ 2. Bishop Lindsey\u2019s opinion touching the power of the church,(879)\nwhereof we dispute, is, that power is given unto her to \u201cdetermine the\ncircumstances which are in the general necessary to be used in divine\nworship, but not defined particularly in the word.\u201d\n\nI know the church can determine nothing which is not of this kind and\nquality. But the Prelate\u2019s meaning (as may be seen in that same epistle of\nhis) is, that whatsoever the church determineth, if it be such a\ncircumstance as is in the general necessary, but not particularly defined\nin the word, then we cannot say that the church had no power to determine\nand enjoin the same, nor be led by the judgment of our own consciences,\njudging it not expedient, but that in this case we must take the church\u2019s\nlaw to be the rule of our consciences. Now, by this ground which the\nPrelate holdeth, the church may prescribe to the ministers of the gospel\nthe whole habit and apparel of the Levitical high-priest (which were to\nJudaize). For apparel is a circumstance in the general necessary, yet it\nis not particularly defined in the word. By this ground, the church may\ndetermine that I should ever pray with my face to the east, preach\nkneeling on my knees, sing the psalms lying on my back, and hear sermons\nstanding only upon one foot. For in all these actions a gesture is\nnecessary; but there is no gesture particularly defined in the word to\nwhich we are adstricted in any of these exercises.\n\nAnd further, because _uno absurdo dato, mille sequuntur_, by this ground\nthe Prelate must say, that the church hath power to ordain three or four\nholidays every week (which ordinance, as he himself hath told us, could\nnot stand with charity, the inseparable companion of piety), for time is a\ncircumstance in the general necessary in divine worship, yet in his\njudgment we are not bound by the word to any particular time for the\nperformance of the duties of God\u2019s worship.\n\nBy this ground we were to say, that Pope Innocent III. held him within the\nbounds of ecclesiastical power, when in the great _Lateran_ council, anno\n1215, he made a decree, that all the faithful of both sexes should once in\nthe year at least, to wit, upon Easter-day, receive the sacrament of the\neucharist. From whence it hath come to pass, that the common people in the\nchurch of Rome receive the sacrament only upon Easter. Now, the time of\nreceiving the sacrament is a circumstance in the general necessary, for a\ntime it must have, but it is not particularly defined in the word. It is\nleft indefinite, 1 Cor. xi. 26, yet the church hath no power to determine\nEaster-day, either as the only time, or as the fittest time, for all the\nfaithful of both sexes to receive the eucharist. What if faithful men and\nwomen cannot have time to prepare themselves as becometh, being avocated\nand distracted by the no less necessary than honest adoes of their\nparticular callings?\n\nWhat if they cannot have the sacrament upon that day administered\naccording to our Lord\u2019s institution? What if they see Papists confirming\nthemselves in their Easter superstition by our unnecessary practice? Shall\nthey swallow these and such-like soul-destroying camels, and all for\nstraining out the gnat of communicating precisely upon Easter-day? But\nsince time is a necessary circumstance, and no time is particularly\ndefined, the Bishop must say more also, that the church may determine\nEaster-day for the only day whereupon we may receive the Lord\u2019s supper.\n\nLast of all, if the church have power to determine all circumstances in\nthe general necessary, but not particularly defined in the word, what\ncould be said against that ancient order of solemn baptizing only at the\nholidays of Easter and Pentecost (whereby it came to pass that very many\ndied unbaptized, as Socrates writeth(880))? Or, what shall be said against\nTertullian\u2019s opinion,(881) which alloweth lay men, yea, women, to baptize.\nMay the church\u2019s determination make all this good, forasmuch as these\ncircumstances of the time when, and the persons by whom, baptism should be\nministered, are in the general necessary, but not particularly defined in\nthe word? _Ite leves nugae._\n\n_Sect._ 3. Camero,(882) as learned a Formalist as any of the former,\nexpresseth his judgment copiously touching our present question. He saith,\nthat there are two sorts of things which the church commandeth, to wit,\neither such as belong to faith and manners, or such as conduce to faith\nand manners; that both are in God\u2019s word prescribed _exserte_, plainly,\nbut not one way, because such things that pertain unto faith and manners,\nare in the word of God particularly commanded, whereas those things which\nconduce to faith and manners are but generally commended unto us. Of\nthings that pertain to faith and manners, he saith, that they are most\nconstant and certain, and such as can admit no change; but as for things\nconducing to faith and manners, he saith, that they depend upon the\ncircumstances of persons, place, and time, which being almost infinite,\nthere could not be particular precepts delivered unto us concerning such\nthings. Only this is from God commended unto the church, that whatsoever\nis done publicly be done with order, and what privately be decent.\n\nThese things he so applieth to his purpose, that he determineth, in\nneither of these kinds the church hath power to make laws, because in\nthings pertaining to faith and manners the law of our Lord Jesus Christ is\nplainly expressed; and in those things, wherein neither faith nor manners\nare placed, but which conduce to faith and manners, we have indeed a\ngeneral law, not having further any particular law, for that reason\nalleged, namely, because this depends upon the circumstances.\n\nThereafter he addeth, _Quid sit fides, quid sit pietas, quid sit charitas,\nverbo Dei demonstratur. Quid ad h\u00e6c conducat, seu reputando rem in\nuniversum, seu reputando rem quatenus singulis competit, pendet ex\ncognitione circumstantiarum. Jam id definire Deus voluit esse penes\necclesiam, hae tamen lege, ut quod definit ecclesia, conveniat generali\ndefinitioni Dei._\n\nThe matter he illustrates with this one example: God\u2019s word doth define in\nthe general that we are to fast, and that publicly; but, in the\nparticular, we could not have the definition of the word, because there\nare infinite occasions of a public fast, as it is said in the schools,\n_individua esse infinita_; so that it is the church\u2019s part to look to the\noccasion, and this depends upon the consideration of the circumstances.\nThis discourse of his cannot satisfy the attentive reader, but deserveth\ncertain animadversions.\n\n_Sect_. 4. First, then, it is to be observed how he is drawn into a\nmanifest contradiction; for whereas he saith, that God\u2019s word doth\n_exserte_ and _diserte_ commend unto us _generatim_, such things as\nconduce to faith and manners, and that concerning things of this nature we\nhave a general law in Scripture, how can this stand with that which he\naddeth, namely, that it is in the church\u2019s power to define what things\nconduce to faith, piety, and charity, even _reputando rem in universum_?\n\n2. Whereas he saith that the church hath no power to make laws, neither in\nthings belonging to faith and manners, nor in things conducing to the\nsame; I would also see how this agreeth with that other position, namely,\nthat it is in the power of the church to define what things do conduce to\nfaith, piety and charity.\n\n3. What means he by his application of order to public, and decency to\nprivate actions, as if the Apostle did not require both these in the\npublic words of God\u2019s service performed in the church?\n\n4. Whereas he saith that such things as conduce to faith and manners do\ndepend upon the circumstances, and so could not be particularly defined in\nthe word, either he speaks of those things as they are defined in the\ngeneral, or as they are defined in the particular. Not the first; for as\nthey are defined in the general, they cannot depend upon changeable\ncircumstances, and that because, according to his own tenet, the word\ndefines them in the general, and this definition of the word is most\ncertain and constant, neither can any change happen unto it. Wherefore\n(without doubt) he must pronounce this of the definition of such things in\nthe particular. Now, to say that things conducing to faith and manners, as\nthey are particularly defined, do depend upon circumstances, is as much as\nto say that circumstances depend upon circumstances. For things conducing\nto faith and manners, which the church hath power to determine\nparticularly, what are they other than circumstances? Surely he who taketh\nnot Camero\u2019s judgment to be, that the church hath power to determine\nsomewhat more than the circumstances (and by consequence a part of the\nsubstance) of God\u2019s worship, shall give no sense to his words. Yet, if one\nwould take his meaning so, I see not how he can be saved from\ncontradicting himself; forasmuch as he holdeth that such things as pertain\nto faith and manners are particularly defined in the word. To say no more,\nI smell such things in Camero\u2019s opinion as can neither stand with reason\nnor with himself.\n\n5. God\u2019s word doth not only define things pertaining to faith and manners,\nbut also things conducing to the same, and that not only generally, but in\nsome respects, and sometimes, particularly. And we take for example his\nown instance of fasting. For the Scripture defineth very many occasions of\nfasting; Ezra viii. 21; 2 Chron. xx.; Jonah iii.; Joel ii.; Acts xiii. 3;\nJosh. vii. 6; Judg. xx. 16; Esth. iv. 16; Ezra ix. x.; Zech. vii. From\nwhich places we gather that the Scripture defineth fasting to be used,\n\n1. For supplication, when we want some necessary or expedient good thing.\n\n2. For deprecation, when we fear some evil.\n\n3. For humiliation, when, by our sins, we have provoked God\u2019s wrath.\nNeither can there be any occasion of fasting whereof I may not say that\neither it is particularly designed in Scripture, or else that it may be by\nnecessary consequence defined out of Scripture; or, lastly, that it is of\nthat sort of things which were not determinable by Scripture, because\ncircumstances are infinite, as Camero hath told us.\n\n_Sect._ 5. Thus having failed by those rocks of offence, I direct my\ncourse straight to the dissecting of the true limits, within which the\nchurch\u2019s power of enacting laws about things pertaining to the worship of\nGod is bounded and confined, and which it may not overleap nor transgress.\n\nThree conditions I find necessarily requisite in such a thing as the\nchurch hath power to prescribe by her laws:\n\n1st. It must be only a circumstance of divine worship; no substantial part\nof it; no sacred significant and efficacious ceremony. For the order and\ndecency left to the definition of the church, as concerning the\nparticulars of it, comprehendeth no more but mere circumstances. Bishop\nLindsey(883) doth but unskilfully confound things different when he\ntalketh of \u201cthe ceremonies and circumstances left to the determination of\nthe church.\u201d Now, by his leave, though circumstances be left to the\ndetermination of the church, yet ceremonies, if we speak properly, are\nnot.\n\nBishop Andrews avoucheth(884) that ceremonies pertain to the church only,\nand to the service of God, not to civil solemnities. But so much, I trust,\nhe would not have said of circumstances which have place in all moral\nactions, and that to the same end and purpose for which they serve in\nreligious actions, namely, for beautifying them with that decent demeanour\nwhich the very light and law of natural reason requireth as a thing\nbeseeming all human actions. For the church of Christ being a society of\nmen and women, must either observe order and decency in all the\ncircumstances of their holy actions, time, place, person, form, &c., or\nalso be deformed with that disorder and confusion which common reason and\ncivility abhorreth. Ceremonies, therefore, which are sacred observances,\nand serve only to a religious and holy use, and which may not, without\nsacrilege, be applied to another use, must be sorted with things of\nanother nature than circumstances. _Ceremonioe_, \u201cceremonies (saith Dr\nField(885)) are so named, as Livy thinketh, from a town called C\u00e6re, in\nthe which the Romans did hide their sacred things when the Gauls invaded\nRome. Others think that ceremonies are so named _a carendo_, of abstaining\nfrom certain things, as the Jews abstained from swine\u2019s flesh, and sundry\nother things forbidden by God as unclean. Ceremonies are outward acts of\nreligion,\u201d &c. _Quapropter etiam_, saith Junius,(886) _ritus et ceremonias\ninter se distincimus, quia in jure politico sunt imperati et solennes\nritus; ceremonioe vero non nisi sacroe observationes in cultu divino\nappellantur. Ceremonia_, saith Bellarmine,(887) _proprie et simpliciter\nsic vocata, est externa actio quoe non aliunde est bona et laudabilis,\nnisi quia fit ad Deum colendum._ From which words Amesius(888) concludeth\nagainst him, that he, and others with him, do absurdly confound order,\ndecency, and the like, which have the same use and praise in civil things\nwhich they have in the worship of God, with religious and sacred\nceremonies. Yet Dr Burges(889) rejecteth this distinction betwixt\ncircumstances and ceremonies, as a mere nicety or fiction. And would you\nknow his reason? \u201cFor that (saith he) all circumstances (I mean\nextrinsical) which incur not the substance of the action, when they are\nonce designed or observed purposely in reference to such a matter, of\nwhose substance they are not, they are then ceremonies.\u201d If this be not a\nnicety or fiction, I know not what is. For what means he here by a matter?\nAn action sure, or else a nicety. Well, then, we shall have now a world of\nceremonies. When I appoint to meet with another man at Berwick, upon the\n10th day of May, because the place and the day are purposely designed in\nreference to such a matter, of whose substance they are not, namely, to my\nmeeting with the other man, for talking of our business, therefore the\ntown of Berwick, and the 10th day of May, must be accounted ceremonies. To\nme it is nice, that the Doctor made it not nice, to let such a nicety fall\nfrom his pen.\n\nWhen I put on my shoos in reference to walking, or wash my hands in\nreference to eating, am I using ceremonies all the while? The Doctor could\nnot choose but say so, forasmuch as these circumstances are purposely\ndesigned and observed in reference to such matters, of whose substance\nthey are not.\n\n_Sect._ 6. 2d. That which the church may lawfully prescribe by her laws\nand ordinances, as a thing left to her determination, must be one of such\nthings as were not determinable by Scripture, on that reason which Camero\nhath given us, namely, because _individua_ are _infinita_. We mean not in\nany wise to circumscribe the infinite power and wisdom of God, only we\nspeak upon supposition of the bounds and limits which God did set to his\nwritten word, within which he would have it contained, and over which he\nthought fit that it should not exceed. The case being thus put, as it is,\nwe say truly of those several and changeable circumstances which are left\nto the determination of the church, that, being almost infinite, they were\nnot particularly determinable in Scripture; for the particular definition\nof those occurring circumstances which were to be rightly ordered in the\nworks of God\u2019s service to the end of the world, and that ever according to\nthe exigency of every present occasion and different case, should have\nfilled the whole world with books. But as for other things pertaining to\nGod\u2019s worship, which are not to be reckoned among the circumstances of it,\nthey being in number neither many, nor in change various, were most easily\nand conveniently determinable in Scripture. Now, since God would have his\nword (which is our rule in the works of his service) not to be delivered\nby tradition, but to be written and sealed unto us, that by this means,\nfor obviating Satanical subtility, and succouring human imbecility, we\nmight have a more certain way for conservation of true religion, and for\nthe instauration of it when it faileth among men,\u2014how can we but assure\nourselves that every such acceptable thing pertaining any way to religion,\nwhich was particularly and conveniently determinable in Scripture, is\nindeed determined in it; and consequently, that no such thing as is not a\nmere alterable circumstance is left to the determination of the church?\n\n_Sect._ 7. 3d. If the church prescribe anything lawfully, so that she\nprescribe no more than she hath power given her to prescribe, her\nordinance must be accompanied with some good reason and warrant given for\nthe satisfaction of tender consciences. This condition is, alas! too\nseldom looked unto by law-makers, of whom one fitly complaineth thus:\u2014\n\n\n    Lex quamvis ratio Ciceroni summa vocetur, Et bene laudetur lex que\n    ratione probatur, Invenies inter legistas raro logistas: Moris et\n    exempli leges sunt juraque templi.\n\n\nBut this fashion we leave to them who will have all their anomalies taken\nfor analogies. It becometh not the spouse of Christ, endued with the\nspirit of meekness, to command anything imperiously, and without a reason\ngiven.\n\n_Ecclesioe enim est docere primum, tuin proescribere_, saith Camero.(890)\nAnd again: _Non enim dominatur cleris, nec agit cum iis quos Christus\nredemit, ac si non possent capere quod sit religiosum, quid minus._\n\nTertullian\u2019s testimony(891) is known: _Nulla lex_, &c. \u201cNo law (saith he)\nowes to itself alone the conscience of its equity, but to those from whom\nit expects obedience. Moreover, it is a suspected law which will not have\nitself to be proved, but a wicked law, which not being proved, yet beareth\nrule.\u201d\n\nIt is well said by our divines,(892) that in rites and ceremonies the\nchurch hath no power \u201cto destruction, but to edification;\u201d and that the\nobservation of our ecclesiastical canons \u201cmust carry before them a\nmanifest utility.\u201d(893) _Piis vero fratribus durum est, subjicere se rebus\nillis quas nec rectas esse nec utiles animadvertunt_.(894) If here it be\nobjected, that some things are convenient to be done, therefore, because\nthey are prescribed by the church, and for no other reason. For example,\nin two things which are alike lawful and convenient in themselves, I am\nbound to do the one and not the other, because of the church\u2019s\nprescription. So that, in such cases, it seemeth there can be no other\nreason given for the ordinance of the church but only her own power and\nauthority to put to order things of this nature.\n\nI answer, that even in such a case as this, the conveniency of the thing\nitself is anterior to the church\u2019s determination; anterior, I say, _de\ncongruo_, though not _de facto_, that is to say, before ever the church\nprescribe it, it is such a thing as (when it falleth out to be done at\nall) may be done conveniently, though it be not (before the church\u2019s\nprescribing of it) such a thing as should and ought to be done as\nconvenient. Which being so, we do still hold that the conveniency of a\nthing must always go before the church\u2019s prescribing of it; go before, I\nmean, at least _de congruo_. Neither can the church prescribe anything\nlawfully which she showeth not to have been convenient, even before her\ndetermination.\n\n_Sect._ 8. These things being permitted, I come to extract my projection,\nand to make it evident that the lawfulness of the controverted ceremonies\ncannot be warranted by any ecclesiastical law; and this I prove by three\narguments:\u2014\n\n1st. Those conditions which I have showed to be required in that thing\nwhich the church may lawfully prescribe by a law, are not quadrant nor\ncompetent to the cross, kneeling, surplice, holidays, &c.\n\nFor, 1. They are not mere circumstances, such as have place in all moral\nactions, but sacred, mystical, significant, efficacious ceremonies, as\nhath been abundantly shown in this dispute already. For example, Dr\nBurges(895) calleth the surplice a religious or sacred ceremony. And\nagain,(896) he placeth in it a mystical signification of the pureness of\nthe minister of God. Wherefore the replier(897) to Dr Mortoune\u2019s\n_Particular Defence_ saith well, that there is a great difference betwixt\na grave civil habit and a mystical garment.\n\n2. It cannot be said that these ceremonies are of that kind of thing which\nwere not determinable by Scripture; neither will our opposites, for very\nshame, adventure to say that things of this kind, to which cross,\nkneeling, &c., do belong, viz., sacred significant ceremonies, left (in\ntheir judgment) to the definition of the church, are almost infinite, and\ntherefore could not well and easily be determined in Scripture.\n\nSince, then, such things as are not mere circumstances of worship can\nneither be many nor various (as I said before), it is manifest that all\nsuch things were easily determinable in Scripture.\n\n3. Our ceremonial laws are not backed with such grounds and reasons as\nmight be for the satisfying and quieting of tender consciences, but we are\nborne down with Will and authority; whereof I have said enough\nelsewhere.(898)\n\n_Sect._ 9. 2d. If the ceremonies be lawful to us because the law and\nordinance of the church prescribes them, then either the bare and naked\nprescription of the church, having no other warrant than the church\u2019s own\nauthority, makes them to be thus lawful; or else the law of the church, as\ngrounded upon and warranted by the law of God and nature. Not the first;\nfor divines hold,(899) _legem humanum ferri ab hominibus, cum ratione\nprocedunt ab illis aliis antegressis legibus. Nam legis humanae regula\nproxima est duplex. Una innata quam legem naturalem dicimus, altera\ninspirata, quam divinam_, &c. _Ex his ergo fontibus lex humana procedit:\nhoec incunabila illius \u00e0 quibus si aberrat, lex degener est, indigna legis\nnomine._ We have also the testimony of an adversary; for saith not Paybody\nhimself,(900) \u201cI grant it is unlawful to do in God\u2019s worship anything upon\nthe mere pleasure of man?\u201d\n\nIf they take them (as needs they must) to the latter part, then let them\neither say that the ceremonies are lawful unto us, because the church\njudgeth them to be agreeable to the law of God and nature, or because the\nchurch proveth unto us, by evident reasons, that they are indeed agreeable\nto these laws. If they yield us the latter, then it is not the church\u2019s\nlaw, but the church\u2019s reasons given for her law, which can warrant the\nlawfulness of them unto us, which doth elude and elide all that which they\nallege for the lawfulness of them from the power and authority of the\nchurch.\n\nAnd further, if any such reasons be to be given forth for the ceremonies,\nwhy are they so long kept up from us? But if they hold them at the former,\nthereupon it will follow, that it shall be lawful for us to do every thing\nwhich the church shall judge to be agreeable to the law of God and nature,\nand consequently to all the Jewish, popish, and heathenish ceremonies,\nyea, to worship images, if it happen that the church judge these things to\nbe agreeable to the law of God and nature.\n\nIt will be answered (I know), that if the church command anything\nrepugnant to God\u2019s word we are not bound to do it, nor to receive it as\nlawful, though the church judge so of it; but otherwise, if that which the\nchurch judgeth to be agreeable to the law of God and nature (and in that\nrespect prescribeth) be not repugnant to the word of God, but in itself\nindifferent, then are we to embrace it as convenient, and consonant to the\nlaw of God and nature, neither ought we to call in question the lawfulness\nof it.\n\nBut I reply, that either we must judge a thing to be repugnant or not\nrepugnant to the word, to be indifferent or not indifferent in itself,\nbecause the church judgeth so of it, or else because the church proveth\nunto us by an evident reason that it is so. If the latter, we have what we\nwould; if the former, we are just where we were: the argument is still set\nafoot; then we must receive everything (be it ever so bad) as indifferent,\nif only the church happen so to judge of it; for _quod competit alicui qua\ntale_, &c. So that if we receive anything as indifferent, for this\nrespect, because the church judgeth it to be so, then shall we receive\neverything for indifferent which the church shall so judge of.\n\n_Sect._ 10. 3d. The church is forbidden to add anything to the\ncommandments of God which he hath given unto us, concerning his worship\nand service, Deut. iv. 2; xii. 32; Prov. xxx. 6; therefore she may not\nlawfully prescribe anything in the works of divine worship, if it be not a\nmere circumstance belonging to that kind of things which were not\ndeterminate by Scripture.\n\nOur opposites have no other distinctions which they make any use of\nagainst this argument, but the very same which Papists use in defence of\ntheir unwritten dogmatical traditions, namely, that _additio corrumpens_\nis forbidden, but not _additio perficiens_: that there is not alike reason\nof the Christian church and of the Jewish; that the church may not add to\nthe essential parts of God\u2019s worship, but to the accidentary she may add.\n\nTo the first of those distinctions, we answer, 1. That the distinction\nitself is an addition to the word, and so doth but beg the question.\n\n2. It is blasphemous; for it argueth that the commandments of God are\nimperfect, and that by addition they are made perfect.\n\n3. Since our opposites will speak in this dialect, let them resolve us\nwhether the washings of the Pharisees, condemned by Christ, were\ncorrupting or perfecting additions. They cannot say they were corrupting,\nfor there was no commandment of God which those washings did corrupt or\ndestroy, except that commandment which forbiddeth men\u2019s additions. But for\nthis respect our opposites dare not call them corrupting additions, for so\nthey should condemn all additions whatsoever. Except, therefore, they can\nshow us that those washings were not added by the Pharisees for\nperfecting, but for corrupting the law of God, let them consider how they\nrank their own ceremonial additions with those of the Pharisees. We read\nof no other reason wherefore Christ condemned them but because they were\ndoctrines which had no other warrant than the commandments of men, Matt.\nxv. 9; for as the law ordained divers washings, for teaching and\nsignifying that true holiness and cleanness which ought to be among God\u2019s\npeople, so the Pharisees would have perfected the law by adding other\nwashings (and more than God had commanded) for the same end and purpose.\n\n_Sect._ 11. To the second distinction, we say that the Christian church\nhath no more liberty to add to the commandments of God than the Jewish\nchurch had; for the second commandment is moral and perpetual, and\nforbiddeth to us as well as to them the additions and inventions of men in\nthe worship of God. Nay, as Calvin noteth,(901) much more are we forbidden\nto add unto God\u2019s word than they were. \u201cBefore the coming of his\nwell-beloved Son in the flesh (saith John Knox),(902) severely he punished\nall such as durst enterprise to alter or change his ceremonies and\nstatutes,\u2014as in Saul, (1 Kings xiii.; xv.) Uzziah, Nadab, Abihu, (Lev. x.)\nis to be read. And will he now, after that he hath opened his counsel to\nthe world by his only Son, whom he commandeth to be heard, Matt, xvii.;\nand alter that, by his holy Spirit speaking by his apostles, he hath\nestablished the religion in which he will his true worshippers abide to\nthe end,\u2014will he now, I say, admit men\u2019s inventions in the matter of\nreligion? &c., 2 Cor. xi.; Col. i.; ii. For this sentence he pronounceth:\n\u2018Not that which seemeth good in thy eyes shalt thou do to the Lord thy\nGod, but that which the Lord thy God commanded thee, that do thou: Add\nnothing unto it, diminish nothing from it,\u2019 Deut. iv. 12. Which, sealing\nup his New Testament, he repeateth in these words: \u2018That which ye have,\nhold till I come,\u2019 \u201d &c., Rev. ii.\n\nWherefore, whilst Hooker saith,(903) that Christ hath not, by positive\nlaws, so far descended into particularities with us as Moses with the\nJews; whilst Camero saith,(904) _Non esse disputandum ita, ut quoniam in\nvetere Testamento, de rebus alioqui adiaphoris certa fuit lex, &c., id in\nnovo Testamento habere locum_; and whilst Bishop Lindsey saith,(905) that\nin the particular circumstances of persons by whom, place where, time\nwhen, and of the form and order how, the worship and work of the ministry\nshould be performed, the church hath power to define whatsoever is most\nexpedient, and that this is a prerogative wherein the Christian church\ndiffereth from the Jewish synagogue, they do but speak their pleasure in\nvain, and cannot make it appear that the Christian church hath any more\npower to add to the commandments of God than the synagogue had of old.\n\nIt is well said by one:(906) \u201cThere were many points of service, as\nsacrifices, washings, anniversary days, &c., which we have not; but the\ndetermination of such as we have is as particular as theirs, except\nwherein the national circumstances make impediment.\u201d For one place not to\nbe appointed for the worship of God, nor one tribe for the work of the\nministry among us, as among them, not because more power was left to the\nChristian church for determining things that pertain to the worship of God\nthan was to the Jewish, but because the Christian church was to spread\nitself over the whole earth, and not to be confined within the bounds of\none nation as the synagogue was.\n\n_Sect._ 12. Let us then here call to mind the distinction which hath been\nshowed betwixt religious ceremonies and moral circumstances; for as\ntouching moral circumstances, which serve for common order and decency in\nthe worship of God, they being so many and so alterable, that they could\nnot be particularly determined in Scripture, for all the different and\nalmost infinite cases which might occur, the Jewish synagogue had the same\npower for determining things of this nature which the church of Christ now\nhath. For the law did not define, but left to be defined by the synagogue,\nthe set hours for all public divine service,\u2014when it should begin, how\nlong it should last, the order that should be kept in the reading and\nexpounding of the law, praying, singing, catechising, excommunicating,\ncensuring, absolving of delinquents, &c., the circumstances of the\ncelebration of marriage, of the education of youth in schools and\ncolleges, &c.\n\nBut as for ceremonies which are proper to God\u2019s holy worship, shall we say\nthat the fidelity of Christ, the Son, hath been less than the fidelity of\nMoses, the servant? Heb. iii. 2, which were to be said, if Christ had not,\nby as plain, plentiful, and particular directions and ordinances, provided\nfor all the necessities of the Christian church in the matter of religion,\nas Moses for the Jewish; or if the least pin, and the meanest appurtenance\nof the tabernacle, and all the service thereof, behooved to be ordered\naccording to the express commandment of God by the hand of Moses, how\nshall we think, that in the rearing, framing, ordering, and beautifying of\nthe church, the house of the living God, he would have less honour and\nprerogative given than to his own well-beloved Son, by whom he hath spoken\nto us in these last days, and whom he hath commanded us to hear in all\nthings? Or that he will accept, at our hands, any sacred ceremony which\nmen have presumed to bring into his holy and pure worship, without the\nappointment of his own word and will revealed unto us? Albeit the worship\nof God and religion, in the church of the New Testament, be accompanied\nwithout ceremonies, _numero paucissimis, observatione facillimis,\nsignificatione proestantissimis_ (as Augustine speaketh of our\nsacraments,(907)) yet we have in Scripture, Eph. i. 18, no less particular\ndetermination and distinct direction for our few, easy, and plain\nceremonies, than the Jews had for their many heavy and obscure ones.\n\n_Sect._ 13. As for the third distinction, of adding to the accidentary\nparts of it, I remember that I heard in the logics, of _pars essentialis_\nor _physica,_ and _pars integralis_ or _mathematica_; of _pars similaris_\nand _pars dissimilaris_; of _pars continua_ and _pars discreta_; but of\n_para accidentaria_ heard I never till now. There is (I know) such a\ndistinction of _pars integralis_, that it is either _principalis_ and\n_necessaria_, or _minus principalis_ and _non necessaria_; but we cannot\nunderstand their _pars cultus accidentaria_ to be _pars integralis non\nnecessaria_, because, then, their distribution of worship into essential\nand accidentary parts could not answer to the rules of a just\ndistribution, of which one is, that _distributio debet exhaurire totum\ndistributum_. Now, there are some parts of worship which cannot be\ncomprehended in the foresaid distribution, namely, _partes integrales\nnecessarioe_. What then? Shall we let this wild distinction pass, because\nit cannot be well nor formally interpreted? Nay, but we will observe their\nmeaning who make use of it; for unto all such parts of worship as are not\nessential (and which they are pleased to call accidentary), they hold the\nchurch may make addition, whereunto I answer, 1. Let them make us\nunderstand what they mean by those essential parts to which the church may\nadd nothing, and let them beware lest they give us an identical\ndescription of the same.\n\n2. That there are many parts of God\u2019s worship which are not essential, yet\nsuch as will not suffer any addition of the church: for proof whereof I\ndemand, Were all the ceremonies commanded to be used in the legal\nsacraments and sacrifices essential parts of those worships? No man will\nsay so. Yet the synagogue was tied to observe those (and no other than\nthose) ceremonies which the word prescribed. When Israel was again to keep\nthe passover, it was said, Num. ix. 3, \u201cIn the fourteenth day of this\nmonth at even, ye shall keep it in his appointed season, according to all\nthe rites of it, and according to all the ceremonies of it, shall ye keep\nit.\u201d And again, ver. 5, \u201cAccording to all that the Lord commanded Moses,\nso did the children of Israel.\u201d _Ritibus et ceremoniis divinitus\ninstitutis, non licuit homini suo arbitrio aliquid adjicere aut\ndetrahere_, saith P. Martyr.(908)\n\n_Sect._ 14. 3. If those accidentary parts of worship, which are commanded\nin the word, be both necessary to be used _necessitate praecepti_, and\nlikewise sufficient means fully adequate and proportioned to that end, for\nwhich God hath destinated such parts of his worship as are not essential\n(which must be granted by every one who will not accuse the Scripture of\nsome defect and imperfection), then it followeth that other accidentary\nparts of worship, which the church addeth thereto, are but superfluous and\nsuperstitious.\n\n4. I call to mind another logical maxim: _Sublata una parte, tolitur\ntotum._ An essential part being taken away, _totum essentiale_ is taken\naway also. In like manner, an integrant part being taken away, _totum\nintegrum_ cannot remain behind. When a man hath lost his hand or his foot,\nthough he be still a man physically, _totum essentiale_, yet he is not a\nman mathematically, he is no longer _totum integrale_. Just so if we\nreckon any additions (as the cross, kneeling, holidays, &c.) among the\nparts of God\u2019s worship, then put the case, that those additions were taken\naway, it followeth that all the worship which remaineth still will not be\nthe whole and entire worship of God, but only a part of it, or at the\nbest, a defective, wanting, lame, and maimed worship.\n\n5. I have made it evident that our opposites make the controverted\nceremonies to be worship,(909) in as proper and peculiar sense as anything\ncan be, and that they are equalled to the chief and principal parts of\nworship, not ranked among the secondary or less principal parts of it.\n\n6. Do not our divines condemn the addition of rites and ceremonies to that\nworship which the word prescribeth, as well as the addition of other\nthings which are thought more essential? We have heard Martyr\u2019s words to\nthis purpose.\n\nZanchius will have us to learn from the second commandment,(910) in\n_externo cultu qui Deo debetur, seu in ceremonus nihil nobis esse ex\nnostro capite comminiscendum_, whether in sacraments or sacrifices, or\nother sacred things, such as temples, altars, clothes, and vessels,\nnecessary for the external worship; but that we ought to be contented with\nthose ceremonies which God hath prescribed.\n\nAnd in another place,(911) he condemneth the addition of any other rite\nwhatsoever, to those rites of every sacrament which have been ordained of\nChrist, _Si ceremoniis cujusvis sacramenti, alios addas ritus_, &c. Dr\nFulk pronounceth,(912) even of signs and rites, that \u201cwe must do in\nreligion and God\u2019s service, not that which seemeth good to us, but that\nonly which he commandeth,\u201d Deut. iv. 2; xii. 32.\n\nAnd Calvin pronounceth generally,(913) _Caenam domini rem adeo\nsacrosanctam esse, ut ullis hominum additamentis eam conspurcare sit\nnefas._\n\n_Sect._ 15. And thus have we made good our argument, that the lawfulness\nof the ceremonies cannot be warranted by any ecclesiastical law. If we had\nno more against them this were enough, that they are but human additions,\nand want the warrant of the word. When Nadab and Abihu offered strange\nfire before the Lord, and when the Jews burnt their sons and their\ndaughters in the valley of the son of Hinnon, howsoever manifold\nwickedness might have been challenged in that which they did, yet if any\nwould dispute with God upon the matter, he stoppeth their mouths with this\none answer: \u201cI commanded it not, neither came it into my heart,\u201d Lev. x.\n1; Jer. vii. 31. May we, last of all, hear what the canon law itself\ndecreeth:(914) _Is qui praeest, si praeter voluntatem Dei, vel praeter\nquod in sanctis Scripturis evidenter praecipitur, vel dicit aliquid, vel\nimperat, tanquam falsus testis Dei, aut sacrilegus habeatur._\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER VIII.\n\n\nTHAT THE LAWFULNESS OF THE CEREMONIES CANNOT BE WARRANTED BY ANY ORDINANCE\nOF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATE; WHOSE POWER IN THINGS SPIRITUAL OR ECCLESIASTICAL\nIS EXPLAINED.\n\n\n_Sect._ 1. Now are we fallen upon the stronghold of our opposites, which\nis the king\u2019s majesty\u2019s supremacy in things ecclesiastical. If they did\nmean, in good earnest, to qualify the lawfulness of the ceremonies from\nholy Scripture, why have they not taken more pains and travail to debate\nthe matter from thence? And if they meant to justify them by the laws and\nconstitutions of the church, why did they not study to an orderly\npeaceable proceeding, and to have things concluded in a lawful national\nsynod, after free reasoning and mature advisement? Why did they carry\nmatters so factiously and violently? The truth is, they would have us to\nacquiesce, and to say no more against the ceremonies, when once we hear\nthat they are enjoined by his Majesty, our only supreme governor. What I\nam here to say shall not derogate anything from his Highness\u2019s supremacy,\nbecause it includeth no such thing as a nomothetical power to prescribe\nand appoint such sacred and significant ceremonies as he shall think good.\n\nThe Archbishop of Armagh, in his speech which he delivered concerning the\nKing\u2019s supremacy (for which king James returned him, in a letter, his\nprincely and gracious thanks, for that he had defended his just and lawful\npower with so much learning and reason), whilst he treateth of the\nsupremacy, and expoundeth that title of \u201cthe only supreme governor of all\nhis Highness\u2019s dominions and countries, as well in all spiritual or\necclesiastical things or causes, as temporal,\u201d mentioneth no such thing as\nany power to dispose, by his laws and ordinances, of things external in\nthe worship of God. Neither yet shall this following discourse tend to the\ncooling and abating of that care and zeal which princes owe to the\noversight and promotion of religion. For alas! the corruptions which have\nstept into religion, and the decays which it hath felt since princes began\nto take small thought of it, and to leave the care of it to popes,\nbishops, monks, &c., can never be enough bewailed. _Nihil enim_, &c. \u201cFor\nthere is nothing (saith Zanchius(915)) more pernicious, either to the\ncommonwealth or to the church, than if a prince do all things by the\njudgment of others, and he himself understand not those things which are\npropounded to be done.\u201d\n\nNor, lastly, are we to sound an alarm of rebellion; for to say that\nsubjects are not bound to obey such laws and statutes of their prince, as\nimpose upon them a yoke of ceremonies which he hath no power to impose, is\none thing, and to say that they are not bound to subject themselves unto\nhim faithfully and loyally, is another thing. _Recte Gerson: Qui abusui\npotestatis resistit, non resistit divinae ordinationi_, saith the Bishop\nof Salisbury.(916) \u201cSubjection (saith Dr Field(917)) is required generally\nand absolutely, where obedience is not.\u201d If we have leave to speak with\ndivines,(918) the bond and sign of subjection is only homage, or the oath\nof fidelity, whereby subjects bind themselves to be faithful to their\nprince; and we take the Judge of all flesh to witness, before whose\ndreadful tribunal we must stand at that great day, how free we are of\nthoughts of rebellion, and how uprightly we mean to be his Majesty\u2019s most\ntrue and loyal subjects to the end of our lives, and to devote ourselves,\nour bodies, lives, goods, and estates, and all that we have in the world,\nto his Highness\u2019s service, and to the honour of his royal crown.\n\n_Sect._ 2. Now, for the purpose in hand, we will first examine what the\nArchbishop of Spalato saith; for he discourseth much of the jurisdiction\nand office of princes, in things and causes ecclesiastical. The title of\nthe first chapter of his sixth book, _de Rep. Eccl._, holdeth, that it is\nthe duty of princes _super ecclesiastica invigilare_; but in the body of\nthe chapter he laboureth to prove that the power of governing\necclesiastical things belongeth to princes (which is far more than to\nwatch carefully over them). This the reader will easily perceive. Nay, he\nhimself, num. 115 and 174, professeth he hath been proving, that divine\nand ecclesiastical things are to be ruled and governed by the authority\nand laws of princes. The title prefixed to the sixth chapter of that same\nbook is this, _Legibus et edictis principum laicorum, et ecclesiastica et\necclesiasticos gubernari_. So that in both chapters he treateth of one and\nthe same office of princes about things ecclesiastical.\n\nNow, if we would learn what he means by those _ecclesiastica_ which he\nwill have to be governed by princes, he resolves us(919) that he means not\nthings internal, such as the deciding of controversies in matters of\nfaith, feeding with the word of God, binding and loosing, and ministering\nof the sacraments (for _in pure spiritualibus_, as he speaketh in _Summa_,\ncap. 5,) he yieldeth them not the power of judging and defining, but only\nthings external, which pertain to the external worship of God, or concern\nexternal ecclesiastical discipline; such things he acknowledged to be _res\nspirituales_;(920) but _vera spiritualia_ he will have to comprehend only\nthings internal, which he removeth from the power of princes. Thus we have\nhis judgment as plain as himself hath delivered it unto us.\n\n_Sect._ 3. But I demand, 1. Why yieldeth he the same power to princes in\ngoverning _ecclesiastica_ which he yieldeth them in governing\n_ecclesiasticos_? For ecclesiastical persons, being members of the\ncommonwealth no less than laics, have the same king and governor with\nthem, for which reason it is (as the Bishop himself showeth out of\nMolina(921)) that they are bound to be subject to their prince\u2019s laws,\nwhich pertain to the whole commonwealth. But the like cannot be alleged,\nfor the power of princes to govern _ecclesiastica_, for the Bishop, I\ntrust, would not have said that things ecclesiastical and things civil do\nequally and alike belong to their power and jurisdiction.\n\n2. Why confoundeth he the governing of things and causes ecclesiastical\nwith watching over and taking care for the same? Let us only call to mind\nthe native signification of the word \u039a\u03c5\u03b2\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ac\u03c9, _guberno_ signifieth\nproperly to rule or govern the course of a ship; and in a ship there may\nbe many watchful and careful eyes over her course, and yet but one\ngovernor directing the same.\n\n3. Why holdeth he that things external in the worship of God are not _vera\nspiritualia_? For if they be ecclesiastical and sacred ceremonies (not\nfleshly and worldly), why will he not also acknowledge them for true\nspiritual things? And if they be not _vera spiritualia_, why calls he them\n_res spirituales_? for are not _res_ and _verum_ reciprocal as well as\n_ens_ and _verum_.\n\n4. Even as a prince in his sea voyage is supreme governor of all which are\nin the ship with him, and, by consequence, of the governor who directs her\ncourse, yet doth he not govern the actions of governing or directing the\ncourse of a ship, so, though a prince be the only supreme governor of all\nhis dominions, and, by consequence, of ecclesiastical persons in his\ndominions, yet he cannot be said to govern all their ecclesiastical\nactions and causes. And as the governor of a ship acknowledgeth his prince\nfor his only supreme governor even then whilst he is governing and\ndirecting the course of the ship (otherwise whilst he is governing her\ncourse he should not be his prince\u2019s subject), yet he doth not thereby\nacknowledge that his prince governeth his action of directing the course\nof the ship (for then should the prince be the pilot); so when one hath\nacknowledged the prince to be the only supreme governor upon earth of all\necclesiastical persons in his dominions, even whilst they are ordering and\ndetermining ecclesiastical causes, yet he hath not thereby acknowledged\nthat the prince governeth the ecclesiastical causes. Wherefore, whilst the\nBishop(922) taketh the English oath of supremacy to acknowledge the same\nwhich he teacheth touching the prince\u2019s power, he giveth it another sense\nthan the words of it can bear; for it saith not that the king\u2019s majesty is\nthe only supreme governor of all his Highness\u2019s dominions, and _of_ all\nthings and causes therein, as well ecclesiastical or spiritual as\ntemporal,\u2014but it saith that he is the only supreme governor of all his\nHighness\u2019s dominions in all things or causes, &c. Now, the spiritual\nguides of the church, substituted by Christ as deputies in his stead, who\nis the most supreme Governor of his own church, and on whose shoulder the\ngovernment resteth, Isa. ix. 6, as his royal prerogative, even then,\nwhilst they are governing and putting order to ecclesiastical or spiritual\ncauses, they acknowledge their prince to be their only supreme governor\nupon earth, yet hereby they imply not that he governeth their governing of\necclesiastical causes, as hath been shown by that simile of governing a\nship.\n\n_Sect._ 4. 5. Whereas the Bishop leaveth all things external, which\npertain to the worship of God, to be governed by princes, I object, that\nthe version of the holy Scripture out of Hebrew and Greek into the vulgar\ntongue is an external thing, belonging to the worship of God, yet it\ncannot be governed by a prince who is not learned in the original tongues.\n\n6. Whereas he yieldeth to princes the power of governing _in\nspiritualibus_, but not _in pure spiritualibus_, I cannot comprehend this\ndistinction. All sacred and ecclesiastical things belonging to the worship\nof God are spiritual things.\n\nWhat, then, understands he by things purely spiritual? If he mean things\nwhich are in such sort spiritual, that they have nothing earthly nor\nexternal in them,\u2014in this sense the sacraments are not purely spiritual,\nbecause they consist of two parts; one earthly, and another heavenly, as\nRheneus saith of the eucharist;\u2014and so the sacraments, not being things\npurely spiritual, shall be left to the power and government of princes. If\nit be said that by things purely spiritual he means things which concern\nour spirits only, and not the outward man, I still urge the same instance;\nfor the sacraments are not in this sense spiritual, because a part of the\nsacraments, to wit, the sacramental signs or elements, concern our\nexternal and bodily senses of seeing, touching, and tasting.\n\n7. The Bishop also contradicteth himself unawares; for in one place(923)\nhe reserveth and excepteth from the power of princes the judging and\ndeciding of controversies and questions of faith. Yet in another\nplace(924) he exhorteth kings, and princes to compel the divines of both\nsides (of the Roman and reformed churches) to come to a free conference,\nand to debate the matters controverted betwixt them; in which conference\nhe requireth the princes themselves to be judges.\n\n_Sect._ 5. It remaineth to try what force of reason the Bishop hath to\nback his opinion. As for the ragged rabble of human testimonies which he\nraketh together, I should but weary my reader, and spend paper and ink in\nvain, if I should insist to answer them one by one. Only thus much I say\nof all those sentences of the fathers and constitutions of princes and\nemperors about things ecclesiastical, together with the histories of the\nsubmission of some ecclesiastical causes to emperors,\u2014let him who pleaseth\nread them; and it shall appear,\n\n1. That some of those things whereunto the power of princes was applied\nwere unlawful.\n\n2. There were many of them things temporal or civil, not ecclesiastical or\nspiritual, nor such as pertain to the worship of God.\n\n3. There were some of them ecclesiastical or spiritual things, but then\nprinces did only ratify that which had been determined by councils, and\npunish with the civil sword such as did stubbornly disobey the church\u2019s\nlawful constitutions. Neither were princes allowed to do any more.\n\n4. Sometimes they interposed their authority, and meddled in causes\nspiritual or ecclesiastical, even before the definition of councils; yet\ndid they not judge nor decide those matters, but did only convocate\ncouncils, and urge the clergy to see to the mis-ordered and troubled state\nof the church, and by their wholesome laws and ordinances, to provide the\nbest remedies for the same which they could.\n\n5. At other times princes have done somewhat more in ecclesiastical\nmatters; but this was only in extraordinary cases, when the clergy were so\ncorrupted, that either through ignorance they were unable, or through\nmalice and perverseness unwilling, to do their duty in deciding of\ncontroversies, making of canons, using the keys, and managing of other\necclesiastical matters, in which case princes might and did, by their\ncoactive temporal jurisdiction, avoid disorder, error, and superstition,\nand cause a reformation of the church.\n\n6. Princes have likewise, in rightly constituted and well reformed\nchurches, by their own regal authority, straitly enjoined things\npertaining to the worship of God, but those things were the very same\nwhich God\u2019s own written word had expressly commanded.\n\n7. When princes went beyond those limits and bounds, they took upon them\nto judge and command more than God hath put within the compass of their\npower.\n\n_Sect._ 6. But as touching the passages of holy Scripture which the Bishop\nallegeth, I will answer thereto particularly. And first, he produceth that\nplace, Deut. xvii. 19, where the king was appointed to have the book of\nthe law of God with him, that he might learn to fear the Lord his God, and\nto keep all the words of this law and these statutes to do them. What\nlogic, I pray, can from this place infer that princes have the supreme\npower of governing all ecclesiastical causes? Next, the Bishop tells us of\nDavid\u2019s appointing of the offices of the Levites, and dividing of their\ncourses, 1 Chron. xxiii and his commending of the same to Solomon, 1\nChron. xxviii.; but he might have observed that David did not this as a\nking, but as a prophet, or man of God, 2 Chron. viii. 14, yea, those\norders and courses of the Levites were also commanded by other prophets of\nthe Lord, 2 Chron. xxix. 25. As touching Solomon\u2019s appointing of the\ncourses and charges of the priests, Levites, and porters, he did not of\nhimself, nor by his own princely authority, but because David, the man of\nGod, had so commanded, 2 Chron. viii. 24. For Solomon received from David\na pattern for all that which he was to do in the work of the house of the\nLord, and also for the courses of the priests and Levites, 1 Chron.\nxxviii. 11-13.\n\n_Sect._ 7. The Bishop comes on and tells us that Hezekiah did apply his\nregal power to the reformation of the Levites, and of the worship of God\nin their hands, saying, \u201cHear me, ye Levites, sanctify now yourselves, and\nsanctify the house of the Lord God of your fathers, and carry forth the\nfilthiness out of the holy place.\u201d\n\n_Ans._ He exhorted them to no more than God\u2019s law required of them, for\nthe law ordained them to sanctify themselves, and to do the service of the\nhouse of the Lord, Num. viii. 6, 11, 15; xviii. 32; so that Hezekiah did\nhere constitute nothing by his own arbitration and authority, but plainly\nshoweth his warrant, ver. 11, \u201cThe Lord hath chosen you to stand before\nhim, to serve him, and that you should minister unto him.\u201d\n\nBut the Bishop further allegeth out of 2 Chron. xxxi. that Hezekiah\nappointed the courses of the priests and Levites, every man according to\nhis service.\n\n_Ans._ He might have read 2 Chron. xxix., 25, that Hezekiah did all this\naccording to the commandment of David, and of Gad, the king\u2019s seer, and\nNathan the prophet, \u201cFor so was the commandment of the Lord by his\nprophets.\u201d And who doubteth but kings may command such things as God hath\ncommanded before them?\n\n_Sect._ 8. The next example which the Bishop allegeth is out of 2 Chron.\nxxxv. where we read that Josias did set the priests and Levites again in\ntheir charges, which example cannot prove that kings have the supreme\npower of governing ecclesiastical causes, unless it be evinced that Josias\nchanged those orders and courses of the Levites and priests which the Lord\nhad commanded by his prophets, 2 Chron. xxix. 25, and that he did\ninstitute other orders by his own regal authority, whereas the contrary is\nmanifest from the text; for Josias did only set the priests and Levites\nthose charges and courses which had been assigned unto them after the\nwriting of David and Solomon, ver. 4, and by the commandment of David, and\nAsaph, and Heman, and Jeduthun, the king\u2019s seer, ver. 15. Neither did\nJosias command the priests and Levites any other service than that which\nwas written in the book of Moses, ver. 12; so that, from his example, it\nonly followeth, that when princes see the state of ecclesiastical persons\ncorrupted, they ought to interpose their authority for reducing them to\nthose orders and functions which God\u2019s word commandeth.\n\n_Sect._ 9. Moreover, the Bishop objecteth the example of Joash, who, while\nhe yet did right in the days of Jehoiada the priest, 2 Chron. xxiv. sent\nthe priests and Levites to gather from all Israel money for repairing the\nhouse of the Lord, and when they dealt negligently in this business, he\ntransferred the charge of the same unto others, and, making himself the\nkeeper of the holy money, did both prescribe how it was to be disbursed,\nand likewise take from good Jehoiada the priest the administration of the\nsame. Now, where he hath read that Joash made himself the keeper of the\nmoney, and prescribed how it should be disbursed, also that he took the\nadministration from Jehoiada, I cannot guess; for the text hath no such\nthing in it, but the contrary, viz. that the king\u2019s scribe, and the high\npriest\u2019s officer, kept the money, and disbursed the same, as the king and\nJehoiada prescribed unto them. As to that which he truly allegeth out of\nthe holy text, I answer, 1. The collection for repairing the house of the\nLord was no human ordinance, for Joash showeth the commandment of Moses\nfor it, ver. 6, having reference to Exod. xxx. 12-14. No other collections\ndid Joash impose but those _quae divino jure debebantur_.(925) 2. As for\nthe taking of the charge of this collection from the priests, he behooved\nto do so, because they had still neglected the work, when the twenty-third\nyear of his reign was come. And so say we, that when the ministers of the\nchurch fail to do their duty, in providing that which is necessary for the\nservice of God, princes ought by some other means to cause these things be\nredressed. 3. Joash did nothing with these monies without Jehoiada, but\n_Pontifex eas primum laborantibus tribuit, tum in aedis sacrae\nrestaurationem maxime convertit_.(926) 4. And what if he had done this by\nhimself? I suppose no man will reckon the hiring of masons and carpenters\nwith such as wrought iron and brass, or the gathering of money for this\npurpose, among spiritual things or causes. 5. And if these employments\nabout Solomon\u2019s temple were not to be called spiritual or ecclesiastical,\nfar less about our material churches, which are not holy nor consecrated\nas Solomon\u2019s was for a typical use. Wherefore, without all prejudice to\nour cause, we may and do commend the building and repairing of churches by\nChristian princes.\n\n_Sect._ 10. But the Bishop returneth to another example in Solomon, which\nis the putting of Abiathar, the chief priest, from his office, and\nsurrogating of another in his place. _Ans._ Abiathar was civilly dead, as\nthe lawyers used to speak, and it was only by accident or by consequent\nthat Solomon put him from his office: he sent him away to Anathoth,\nbecause of his treasonable following and aiding of Adonijah, whereupon\nnecessarily followed his falling away from the honour, dignity, and office\nof the high priest, whence it only followeth, that if a minister be found\nguilty of _l\u00e6se_ majesty, the king may punish him either with banishment\nor proscription, or some such civil punishment, whereupon by consequence\nwill follow his falling from his ecclesiastical office and dignity. 2. As\nfor Solomon\u2019s putting of Zadok in the room of Abiathar, it maketh as\nlittle against us, for Zadok did fall to the place _jure divino_.\n\nThe honour and office of the high-priesthood was given to Eleazar, the\nelder son of Aaron, and was to remain in his family. How it came to pass\nthat it was transferred to Eli, who was of the family of Ithmar, we read\nnot. Always after that Abiathar, who was of the family of Ithamar and\ndescended of Eli, had by a capital crime fallen from it, it did of very\nright belong to Zadok, who was chief of the family of Eleazar. And so all\nthis flowed, not from Solomon\u2019s, but from God\u2019s own authority.\n\n_Sect._ 11. The Bishop remembereth another example in Hezekiah too,\ntelling us that he removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut\ndown the groves, and brake in pieces the brazen serpent, when the children\nof Israel did burn incense unto it. Now, we wish from our hearts that from\nthis example all Christian kings may learn to remove and destroy the\nmonuments of idolatry out of their dominions. And if it be said that in so\ndoing kings take upon them to govern by their princely authority an\necclesiastical or spiritual cause, it is easily answered, that when they\ndestroy idolatrous monuments, they do nothing by their own authority, but\nby the authority of God\u2019s law, which commanded to abolish such monuments,\nand to root out the very names of idols; which commandment is to be\nexecuted by the action of temporal power.\n\n_Sect._ 12. Finally, saith the Bishop, the kings of the Jews, 1 Kings\nxxiii.; 2 Chron. xix.; have in the temple propounded the law of the Lord\nto the people, renewed the covenant of religion, pulled down profane\naltars, broken down idols, slain idolatrous priests, liberated their\nkingdom from abomination, purged the temple, 2 Chron. xxxiv., xxxv.; 1\nMaccab. iv. 59; proclaimed the keeping of the passover, and of the feast\nof dedication, Esth. ix. 26 ; and have also instituted new feasts. For all\nwhich things they are in the Scriptures much praised by the Holy Spirit, 2\nChron. xxix. 2; xxxiv. 2, &c.\n\n_Ans._ True it is, Josias did read the law of the Lord to the people in\nthe temple, and made a covenant before the Lord; but, 1. he prescribed\nnothing at his own pleasure; only he required of the people to walk after\nthe Lord, and to keep his commandments. 2. Neither did he this work by\nhimself, but did convocate a council of the prophets, priests and elders\nof Israel, for the advancing of that reformation, 2 Kings xxiii. 1. 3. And\nif he had done it by himself, yet we are to remember that the reformation\nof a church generally and greatly corrupted, craveth the more immediate\nintermeddling of princes, and a great deal more than can be ordinarily and\norderly done by them in a church already reformed. The slaying of the\nidolatrous priests had also the warrant and authority of the law of God,\nwhich appointed a capital punishment for blasphemers,(927) or such as, in\ncontempt of God and to rub some ignominy upon his name, did traduce his\ndoctrine and religion, and either detract from him, and attribute to idols\nthat which appertained properly unto him, or else attributed unto him\neither by enunciation or imprecation, such things as could not stand with\nthe glory of the Godhead. Concerning the abolishing of idolatry and all\nthe relics thereof, we have answered that it was commanded by God. The\nkeeping of the passover was also commanded in the law; but publish God\u2019s\nown express ordinance.\n\nLast of all, touching two remaining examples: 1. The feast of the\ndedication was not ordained by the sole authority of Judas, but by his\nbrethren and by the whole congregation of Israel;(928) and the days of\nPurim were established by Mordecai, a prophet. Esth. ix. 20, 21. 2. We\nhave elsewhere made it evident, that the days of Purim, by their first\ninstitution, were only days of civil joy and solemnity, and that the feast\nof the dedication was not lawfully instituted.\n\n_Sect._ 13. Thus having dismissed the Bishop, we will make us for clearing\nthe purpose in hand. But before we come to show particularly what princes\nmay do, and what they may not do, in making laws about things\necclesiastical, we will first of all lay down these propositions\nfollowing:\u2014\n\n1. Whatsoever the power of princes be in things and causes ecclesiastical,\nit is not, sure, absolute nor unbounded. _Solius Dei est_ (saith\nStapleton),(929) _juxta suam sanctissimam voluntatem, uctiunes suas omnes\ndirigere, et omniafacere qu\u00e6cunquc voluit._ And again, _Vis tuam\nvoluntatem esse regulam rerum omnium, ut omnia fiant pro uuo beneplacito?_\nWhether we respect the persons or the places of princes, their power is\nconfined within certain limits, so that they may not enjoin whatsoever\nthey list. As touching their poisons, Bishop Spotswood would do no less\nthan warrant the articles of Perth by king James\u2019s personal qualities:\n\u201cHis person (saith he(930)), were he not our sovereign, gives them\nsufficient authority, being recommended by him; for he knows the nature of\nthings, and the consequences of them, what is fit for a church to have,\nand what not, better than we do all.\u201d\n\nI mean not to derogate anything from king James\u2019s duly-deserved praise,\nnor to obscure his never-dying memory; only I say, that such a prince as\nthe Bishop speaketh of, who knoweth what is fit for a church to have, and\nwhat not, better than many learned and godly pastors assembled in a synod,\nis _rara avis in terris nigroque simillima Cygno_. For a prince being but\na man, and so subject to error, being but one man, and so in the greater\nhazard of error; for _plus videns oculi, quam oculus_; and, \u201cwoe to him\nthat is alone when he falleth, for he hath not another to help him up,\u201d\nsaith the wisest of mortal kings, Eccl. iv. 10; being also compassed or\nassailed with so many tentations which other men are free of; and lastly,\nbeing so taken up and distracted with secular affairs and cares, that very\nseldom is he found well versed or singularly learned in the controversies\nof religion; may not such a one, in the common sense of Christians, be\nthought more like to fail and miscarry in his judgment about things\necclesiastical, than a whole synod, wherein there are many of the learned,\njudicious, and godly ministers of the church. Papists tell us, that they\nwill not defend the personal actions of the Pope, _quasi ipse solus\nomnibus horis sapere potuerit, id quod recte nemini concessum\nperhibetur_.(931) Their own records let the world know the abominable\nvices and impieties of popes. Witness Platina, in the life of John X.,\nBenedict IV., John XIII., Boniface VII., John XX., John XXII., Paul II.,\n&c. And further, when our adversaries dispute of the Pope\u2019s infallibility,\nthey grant, for his own person, he may be an heretic, only they hold that\nhe cannot err _\u00e8 cathedra_.\n\nAnd shall we now idolise the persons of princes more than Papists do the\npersons of popes? Or shall Papists object to us, that we extol the\njudgment of our princes to a higher degree of authority and infallibility\nthan they yield to the judgment of their popes? Alas, why would we put the\nweapons in the hands of our adversaries!\n\n_Sect._ 14. But what say we of princes in respect of their place and\ncalling? Is not their power absolute in that respect? _Recte quidam_\n(saith Saravia),(932) _illiberalis et inverecundi censet esse ingenii, de\nprencipum potestate et rebus gestis questionem movere, quando et imperator\nsacrilegium este scribit, de eo quod \u00e0 principe factum est disputare._\nCamero holdeth,(933) that in things pertaining to external order in\nreligion, kings may command what they will _pro authoritate_, and forbid\nto seek another reason beside the majesty of their authority; yea, that\nwhen they command _frivola, dura, et iniqua respectu nostri_, our\nconsciences are bound by those their frivolous and unjust commandments,\nnot only in respect of the end, because scandal should possibly follow in\ncase we obey them not, but also _jubentis respectu_, because the Apostle\nbiddeth us obey the magistrate for conscience\u2019 sake. At the reading of\nthese passages in Saravia and Camero, horror and amazement have taken hold\non me. O wisdom of God, by whom kings do reign and princes decree justice,\nupon whose thigh and vesture is written, \u201cKing of kings and Lord of\nlords,\u201d make the kings of the earth to know that their laws are but\n_regulae regulatae_, and _mensurae mensuratae_! Be wise now, therefore, O\nye kings, be instructed ye judges of the earth. Serve the Lord with fear,\nand rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, and lay down your crowns at the\nfeet of the Lamb that sits upon the throne,(934) _discite justitiam\nmoniti_, and remember that this is the beginning of wisdom, by casting\npride away, to addict yourselves to the dominion of Christ, who, albeit he\nhath given the kingdoms of this world unto your hands, and non _auferet\nmortalia, qui regna datio caelestia_, yet hath he kept the government of\nhis church upon his own shoulder, Psalm ix. 6, xxii. 21. So that _rex non\nest propie rector ecclesiae sed reipublicae, ecclesiae vero defensor est_.\nO all ye subjects of kings and princes, understand that in things\npertaining to the church and kingdom of Christ, ye are not the servants of\nmen, to do what they list, and that for their listing, 1 Cor. vii. 23. The\nApostle, Rom. xiii. urgeth, not obedience to magistrates for conscience\u2019\nsake, but only subjection for conscience\u2019 sake, for he concludeth his\nwhole purpose,(935) ver. 7, \u201cRender therefore to all their dues, tribute\nto whom tribute is due, custom to whom custom, fear to whom fear, honour\nto whom honour.\u201d(936) There is not in all that chapter one word of\nobedience to magistrates.\n\nAnd as touching the binding power of their laws, be they never so just,\nthey cannot bind you any other way, nor in respect of the general end of\nthem. For, _per se_, they cannot bind more than the church\u2019s laws can.\nWhich things Dr Forbesse(937) hath also told you out of Calvin.\n\nAnd hence it followeth, that whensoever you may omit that which princes\nenjoin, without violating the law of charity, you are not holden to obey\nthem for the majesty of princely authority. Be ashamed, O ye Formalists,\nof your ascribing to princes a jurisdiction so absolute! Bury it in the\ngrave of eternal silence. Tell it not in Rome; publish it not among the\nvassals of antichrist, lest the daughters of Babylon rejoice, lest the\nworshippers of the Beast triumph! O how small confidence have the\ncardinals, I say not now into the Pope\u2019s person, but even into his chair,\nwhen being entered in the conclave for the election of a new pope, they\nspend the whole day following in the making of laws belonging to the\nadministration and handling of all things by him who shall be advanced to\nthe popedom; which laws every one of them subscribeth, and sweareth to\nobserve, if he be made pope, as Onephrius writeth. Though the Pope\u2019s own\ncreatures, the Jesuits, in their schools and books, must dispute for his\ninfallibility _\u00e8 cathedra_, yet we see what trust the wise cardinals, shut\nup in the conclave, do put in him, with what bond they tie him, and within\nwhat bounds they confine his power. Albeit the Pope, after he is created,\nobserveth not strictly this oath, as that wise writer of the _History of\nthe Council of Trent_ noteth,(938) yet let me say once again, Shall we set\nup the power of princes higher, or make their power less limited than\nPapists do the power of popes? or shall they set bounds to popes and we\nset none to princes?\n\n_Sect._ 15. But I find myself a little digressed after the roving\nabsurdities of some opposites. Now, therefore, to return,\u2014the second\nproposition which I am here to lay down, before I speak particularly of\nthe power of princes, is this: Whatsoever princes can commendably either\ndo by themselves, or command to be done by others, in such matters as any\nway appertain to the external worship of God, must be both lawful in the\nnature of it, and expedient in the use of it; which conditions, if they be\nwanting, their commandments cannot bind to obedience.\n\nFor, 1. The very ground and reason wherefore we ought to obey the\nmagistrate(939) is, for that he is the minister of God, or a deputy set in\nGod\u2019s stead to us. Now, he is the minister of God only for our good, Rom.\nxiii. 4. Neither were he God\u2019s minister, but his own master, if he should\nrule at his pleasure, and command things which serve not for the good of\nthe subjects. Since, therefore, the commandments of princes bind only so\nfar as they are the ministers of God for our good,\u2014and God\u2019s ministers\nthey are not in commanding such things as are either in their nature\nunlawful, or in their use inconvenient,\u2014it followeth that such\ncommandments of theirs cannot bind.\n\n2. Princes cannot claim any greater power in matters ecclesiastical than\nthe apostle Paul had, or the church herself yet hath; that is to say,\nprinces may not by any temporal or regal jurisdiction, urge any ceremony\nor form of ecclesiastical policy which the Apostle once might not, and the\nchurch yet may not, urge by a spiritual jurisdiction. But neither had the\nApostle of old, nor hath the church now, power to urge either a ceremony\nor anything else which is not profitable for edifying. Paul could do\nnothing against the truth, but for the truth; and his power was given to\nhim to edification, and not to destruction, 2 Cor. xiii. 8, 10; neither\nshall ecclesiastical persons, to the world\u2019s end, receive any other power\nbeside that which is for the perfecting of the saints, and for the\nedifying of the body of Christ, Eph. iv. 12. Therefore, as the church\u2019s\npower(940) is only to prescribe that which may edify, so the power of\nprinces is in like sort given to them for edification, and not for\ndestruction; neither can they do aught against the truth, but only for the\ntruth.\n\n3. We are bound by the law of God to do nothing which is not good and\nprofitable, or edifying, 1 Cor. vi. 12; xiv. 26. This law of charity is of\na higher and straiter bond than the law of any prince in the world:\u2014\n\n\u201cThe general rule of all indifferent things, is, Let all things be done to\nedification; and, Rom. xv. 1, 2, \u2018Let every man please his neighbour to\nedification, even as Christ pleased not himself but others.\u2019 Whatsoever,\nthen, is of this rank, which either would weaken or not edify our brother,\nbe it ever so lawful, ever so profitable to ourselves, ever so powerfully\nby earthly authority enjoined,\u2014Christians, who are not born unto\nthemselves, but unto Christ, unto his church, and fellow-members, must not\ndare to meddle with it,\u201d saith one(941) well to our well to our purpose.\n\n_Sect._ 16. A third proposition I promit, which is this, Since the power\nof princes to make laws about things ecclesiastical is not absolute, but\nbound and adstricted unto things lawful and expedient, which sort of\nthings, and no other, we are allowed to do for their commandments; and\nsince princes many times may, and do, not only transgress those bounds and\nlimits, but likewise pretend that they are within the same, when indeed\nthey are without them, and enjoin things unlawful and inconvenient, under\nthe name, title, and show of things lawful and convenient; therefore it is\nmost necessary as well for princes to permit, as for subjects to take\nliberty to try and examine by the judgment of discretion, everything which\nauthority enjoineth, whether it be agreeable or repugnant to the rules of\nthe word; and if, after trial, it be found repugnant, to abstain from the\ndoing of the same.\n\nFor, 1. The word teacheth us, that the spiritual man judgeth all things, 1\nCor. ii. 15; trieth the things that are different, Phil. i. 10; hath his\nsenses exercised to discern both good and evil, Heb. v. 14; and that every\none who would hold fast that which is good, and abstain from all\nappearance of evil, must first prove all things, 1 Thess. v. 21.\n\n2. Whatsoever is not of faith is sin, Rom. xiv. 23. But whatsoever a man\ndoth without the trial, knowledge, and persuasion of the lawfulness of it\nby the word of God, that is not of faith; therefore a sin. It is the word\nof God, and not the arbitration of princes whereupon faith is grounded.\nAnd though the word may be without faith, yet faith cannot be without the\nword. By it therefore must a man try and know assuredly the lawfulness of\nthat which he doth.\n\n3. \u201cEvery one of us shall give account of himself to God.\u201d But as we\ncannot give an account to God of those actions which we have done in\nobedience to our prince, except we have examined, considered, and\nunderstood the lawfulness of the same; so an account could not be required\nof us for them, if we were bound to obey and to keep all his ordinances in\nsuch sort that we might not try and examine them, with full liberty to\nrefuse those which we judge out of the word to be unlawful or\ninconvenient; for then princes\u2019 ordinances were a most sufficient warrant\nto us: we needed try no more. Let him make an account to God of his\ncommand; we have account to make of our obedience.\n\n4. If we be bound to receive and obey the laws of princes, without making\na free trial and examining of the equity of the same, then we could not be\npunished for doing, unwillingly and in ignorance, things unlawful\nprescribed by them. Whereas every soul that sinneth shall die; and when\nthe blind leads the blind, he who is lead falls in the ditch as well as\nhis leader.\n\n5. No man is permitted to do everything which seemeth right in his eyes,\nand to follow every conceit which takes him in the head; but every man is\nbound to walk by rule, Gal. vi. 6. But the law of a prince cannot be a\nrule, except it be examined whether it be consonant to the word of God,\n_index secundum legem_, and his law is only such a rule as is ruled by a\nhigher rule. In so far as it is ruled by the own rule of it, in as far it\nis a rule to us; and in so far as it is not ruled by the own rule of it,\nin as far it is not a rule to us. _Quid ergo? an non licebit Christiano\ncuique convenientiam regulae et regulati (ut vocant) observare?_ saith\nJunius.(942)\n\n6. The rule whereby we ought to walk in all our ways, and according to\nwhich we ought to frame all our actions, is provided of God a stable and\nsure rule, that it being observed and taken heed unto, may guide and\ndirect our practice aright about all those things which it prescribeth.\nBut the law of a prince (if we should, without trial and examination, take\nit for our rule) cannot be such a stable and sure rule. For put the case\nthat a prince enjoin two things which sometimes fall out to be\nincompatible and cannot stand together, in that case his law cannot direct\nour practice, nor resolve us what to do; whereas God hath so provided for\nus, that the case can never occur wherein we may not be resolved what to\ndo if we observe the rule which he hath appointed us to walk by.\n\n7. Except this judgment of discretion which we plead for be permitted unto\nus, it will follow that in point of obedience we ought to give no less,\nbut as much honour unto princes as unto God himself. For when God\npublisheth his commandments unto us, what greater honour could we give him\nby our obedience than to do that which he commandeth, for his own sole\nwill and authority, without making further inquiry for any other reason?\n\n8. The Apostle, 1 Cor. vii. 23, forbiddeth us to be the servants of men,\nthat is, to do things for which we have no other warrant beside the\npleasure and will of men. Which interpretation is grounded upon other\nplaces of Scripture, that teach us we are not bound to obey men in\nanything which we know not to be according to the will of God, Eph. vi. 6,\n7; that we ought not to live to the lusts of men, but to the will of God,\n1 Pet. iv. 2, and that, therefore, we ought in everything to prove what is\nacceptable to the Lord, Eph. v. 20.\n\n9. They who cleanse their way must take heed thereto according to the\nword, Psal. cxix. 9; therefore, if we take not heed to our way, according\nto the word, we do not cleanse it. They who would walk as the children of\nlight, must have the word for a lamp unto their feet, and a light unto\ntheir path, Psal. cxix. 105; therefore, if we go in any path without the\nlight of the word to direct us, we walk in darkness and stumble, because\nwe see not where we go. They who would not be unwise, but walk\ncircumspectly, must understand what the will of Lord is, Eph. v. 17;\ntherefore, if we understand not what the will of the Lord is concerning\nthat which we do, we are unwise, and walk not circumspectly.\n\n10. _Dona Dei in sanctis non sunt otiosa_.(943) Whatsoever grace God\ngiveth us, it ought to be used and exercised, and not to lie idle in us;\nbut God giveth us _actionem cognoscendi, \u03c4\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c6\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 discernendi_,(944)\n&c. a certain measure of the spirit of discretion, to teach us what to\nchoose as good, and what to refuse as evil, 1 John ii. 27, \u201cThe same\nanointing teacheth you of all things;\u201d 1 Cor. ii. 15, \u201cHe that is\nspiritual judgeth all things.\u201d Therefore God would have us to exercise\nthat measure of the gift of discretion which he hath bestowed on us, in\ndiscerning of things which are propounded to us, whether they ought to be\ndone or not.\n\n11. Do not our divines plead for this judgment of private discretion which\nought to be permitted to Christians, when anything is propounded to be\nbelieved or done by them? And this their judgment is to be seen in their\nwritings against Papists about the controversies _de interpretatione\nScripturae, de fide implicita_, &c.\n\n12. The Bishop of Salisbury, in his prelections _de Judice\nControversiarum_, doth often and in many places commend unto Christians\nthe same judgment of discretion which we stand upon, and holdeth it\nnecessary for them to try and examine whatsoever either princes or\nprelates command them to do. _Coactiva_, &c. \u201cThe coactive power of a\nprince (saith he(945)), doth not absolutely bind the subject, but only\nwith this condition, except he would compel him to that which is unlawful.\nTherefore there is ever left unto subjects a power of proving and judging\nin their own mind, whether that which is propounded be ungodly and\nunlawful or not; and if it be ungodly, that which the king threateneth\nshould be suffered, rather than that which he commandeth be done. This\nAugustine hath taught,\u201d &c. And whereas it may be objected, that this\nmaketh a subject to be his prince\u2019s judge, he answereth thus.(946) _Non\nse_, &c. He maketh not himself another\u2019s judge, who pondereth and\nexamineth a sentence published by another, in so far as it containeth\nsomething either to be done or to be believed by him; but only he maketh\nhimself the judge of his own actions. For howsoever he who playeth the\njudge is truly said to judge, yet every one who judgeth is not properly\nsaid to play the judge. He playeth the judge who, in an external court\npronounceth a sentence, which by force of jurisdiction toucheth another;\nbut he judgeth, who in the inferior court of his own private conscience,\nconceiveth such a sentence of the things to be believed or done, as\npertaineth to himself alone. This latter way private men both may and\nought to judge of the sentences and decrees of magistrates, neither by so\ndoing do they constitute themselves judges of the magistrates, but judges\nof their own actions.\n\n_Sect._ 17. Finally, there is none of our opposites but saith so much as\ninferreth the necessity of this judgment of private and practical\ndiscretion; for every smatterer among them hath this much in his mouth,\nthat if the king or the church command anything unlawful, then we ought to\nobey God rather than men; but when they command things indifferent and\nlawful, then their ordinance ought to be our rule. But (good men) will\nthey tell us how we shall know whether the things which the king or the\nchurch (as they speak) do enjoin are lawful or unlawful, indifferent or\nnot indifferent? and so we shall be at a point. Dare they say, that they\nmay judge those things indifferent which our superiors judge to be such?\nand those unlawful which our superiors so judge of? Nay, then, they should\ndeliver their distinction in other terms, and say thus: If our superiors\nenjoin anything which they judge to be unlawful, and which they command us\nso to account of, then we ought to obey God rather than men; but if they\nenjoin such things as they judge to be indifferent, and which they command\nus so to account of, then we ought to obey their ordinance. Which\ndistinction, methinks, would have made Heraclitus himself to fall a\nlaughing with Democritus. What then remaineth? Surely our opposites must\neither say nothing, or else say with us, that it is not only a liberty but\na duty of inferiors, not to receive for a thing lawful that which is\nenjoined by superiors, because they account it and call it such, but by\nthe judgment of their own discretion following the rules of the word, to\ntry and examine whether the same be lawful or unlawful.\n\n_Sect._. 18. These _praecognita_ being now made good, come we to speak\nmore particularly of the power of princes to make laws and ordinances\nabout things which concern the worship of God. The purpose we will unfold\nin three distinctions: 1. Of things; 2. Of times; 3. Of ties. First, Let\nus distinguish two sorts of things in the worship of God, viz., things\nsubstantial, and things circumstantial. To things substantial we refer as\nwell sacred and significant ceremonies as the more necessary and essential\nparts of worship, and, in a word, all things which are not mere external\ncircumstances, such as were not particularly determinable within those\nbounds which it pleased God to set to his written word, and the right\nordering whereof, as it is common to all human societies, whether civil or\nsacred, so it is investigable by the very light and guidance of natural\nreason. That among this kind of mere circumstances sacred significant\nceremonies cannot be reckoned, we have otherwhere made it evident. Now,\ntherefore, of things pertaining to the substance of God\u2019s worship, whether\nthey be sacred ceremonies, or greater and more necessary duties, we say\nthat princes have not power to enjoin anything of this kind which hath not\nthe plain and particular institution of God himself in Scripture. They may\nindeed, and ought to publish God\u2019s own ordinances and commandments, and,\nby their coactive temporal power, urge and enforce the observation of the\nsame. Notwithstanding, it is a prince\u2019s duty, \u201cthat in the worship of God,\nwhether internal or external, he move nothing, he prescribe nothing,\nexcept that which is expressly delivered in God\u2019s own written word.\u201d(947)\nWe must beware we confound not things which have the plain warrant of\nGod\u2019s word with things devised by the will of man. David, Jehoshaphat,\nHezekiah, Josiah, and other kings among the people of God, did, as well\nlaudably as lawfully, enjoin and command that worship and form of religion\nwhich God, in his law and by his prophets, commanded; and forbid, avoid,\nand abolish such corruptions as God had forbidden before them, and\nappointed to be abolished; whence it followeth not that kings may enjoin\nthings which want the warrant of the word, but only this much, which all\nof us commend, viz., \u201cThat a Christian prince\u2019s office in religion,(948)\nis diligently to take care that, in his dominion or kingdom, religion out\nof the pure word of God, expounded by the word of God itself, and\nunderstood according to the first principles of faith (which others call\nthe analogy of faith), either be instituted, or, being instituted, be kept\npure, or, being corrupted, be restored and reformed, that false doctrines,\nabuses, idols, and superstitions, be taken away, to the glory of God, and\nto his own and his subjects\u2019 salvation.\u201d\n\n_Sect._ 19. But in all the Scripture princes have neither a commendable\nexample, nor any other warrant, for the making of any innovation in\nreligion, or for the prescribing of sacred significant ceremonies of men\u2019s\ndevising. Jeroboam caused a change to be made in the ceremonies and form\nof God\u2019s worship, whereas God ordained the ark of the covenant to be the\nsign of his presence, and that his glory should dwell between the\ncherubims. Jeroboam set up two calves to be the signs representative of\nthat God who brought \u201cIsrael out of Egypt;\u201d and this he means while he\nsaith, \u201cBehold thy gods,\u201d &c., 1 Kings xii. 28, giving to the signs the\nthing signified; whereas God ordained Jerusalem to be the place of\nworship, and all the sacrifices to be brought to the temple of Solomon,\nJeroboam made Dan and Bethel to be places of worship, and built there\naltars and high places for the sacrifices; whereas God ordained the sons\nof Aaron only to be his priests, Jeroboam made priests of the lowest of\nthe people, which were not of the sons of Levi; whereas God ordained the\nfeast of tabernacles to be kept on the fifteenth day of the seventh month,\nJeroboam appointed it on the fifteenth day of the eighth month. Now, if\nany prince in the world might have fair pretences for the making of such\ninnovations in religion, Jeroboam much more. He might allege for his\nchanging of the signs of God\u2019s presence, and of the place of worship, that\nsince Rehoboam\u2019s wrath was incensed against him, and against the ten\ntribes which adhered unto him (as appeareth by the accounting of them to\nbe rebels, 2 Chron. xiii. 6, and by the gathering of a huge army for\nbringing the kingdom again to Rehoboam, 2 Chron. xi. 1), it was no longer\nsafe for his subjects to go up to Jerusalem to worship, in which case God,\nwho required mercy more than sacrifice, would bear with their changing of\na few ceremonies for the safety of men\u2019s lives. For his putting down of\nthe priests and Levites, and his ordaining of other priests which were not\nof the sons of Levi, he might pretend that they were rebellious to him, in\nthat they would not assent unto his new ordinances,(949) which he had\nenacted for the safety and security of his subjects, and that they did not\nonly simply refuse obedience to these his ordinances, but in their refusal\nshow themselves so stedfastly minded, that they would refuse and withstand\neven to the suffering of deprivation and deposition; and not only so, but\nlikewise drew after them many others of the rest of the tribes to be of\ntheir judgment, 2 Chron. xi. 16, and to adhere to that manner of worship\nwhich was retained in Jerusalem. Lastly, For the change which he made\nabout the season of the feast of tabernacles, he might have this pretence,\nthat as it was expedient for the strengthening of his kingdom(950) to draw\nand allure as many as could be had to associate and join themselves with\nhim in his form of worship (which could not be done if he should keep that\nfeast at the same time when it was kept at Jerusalem); so there was no\nless (if not more) order and decency in keeping it in the eighth month,\nwhen the fruits of the ground were perfectly gathered in(951) (for\nthankful remembrance whereof that feast was celebrated) than in the\nseventh, when they were not so fully collected.\n\nThese pretences he might have made yet more plausible, by professing and\navouching that he intended to worship no idols, but the Lord only; that he\nhad not fallen from anything which was fundamental and essential in divine\nfaith and religion, that the changes which he had made were only about\nsome alterable ceremonies which were not essential to the worship of God,\nand that even in these ceremonies he had not made any change for his own\nwill and pleasure, but for important reasons which concerned the good of\nhis kingdom and safety of his subjects. Notwithstanding of all this, the\ninnovations which he made about these ceremonies of sacred signs, sacred\nplaces, sacred persons, sacred times, are condemned for this very reason,\nbecause he devised them of his own heart, 1 Kings xii. 33, which was\nenough to convince him of horrible impiety in making Israel to sin.\nMoreover, when king Ahaz took a pattern of the altar of Damascus, and sent\nit to Urijah the priest, though we cannot gather from the text that he\neither intended or pretended any other respect beside the honouring and\npleasuring of his patron and protector, the king of Assyria, 2 Kings xvi.\n10, 18 (for of his appointing that new altar for his own and all the\npeople\u2019s sacrifices, there was nothing heard till after his return from\nDamascus, at which time he began to fall back from one degree of defection\nto a greater), yet this very innovation of taking the pattern of an altar\nfrom idolaters is marked as a sin and a snare. Last of all, whereas many\nof the kings of Judah and Israel did either themselves worship in the\ngroves and the high places, or else, at least, suffer the people to do so,\nhowsoever they might have alleged(952) specious reasons for excusing\nthemselves,\u2014as namely, that they gave not this honour to any strange gods,\nbut to the Lord only; that they chose these places only to worship in\nwherein God was of old seen and worshipped by the patriarchs, that the\ngroves and the high places added a most amiable splendour and beauty to\nthe worship of God, and that they did consecrate these places for divine\nworship in a good meaning, and with minds wholly devoted to God\u2019s\nhonour,\u2014yet notwithstanding, because this thing was not commanded of God,\nneither came it into his heart, he would admit no excuses, but ever\nchallengeth it as a grievous fault in the government of those kings, that\nthose high places were not taken away, and that the people still\nsacrificed in the high places; from all which examples we learn how highly\nGod was and is displeased with men for adding any other sacred ceremonies\nto those which he himself hath appointed.(953)\n\n_Sect._ 20. Now as touching the other sort of things which we consider in\nthe worship of God, namely, things merely circumstantial, and such as have\nthe very same use and respect in civil which they have in sacred actions,\nwe hold that whensoever it happeneth to be the duty and part of a prince\nto institute and enjoin any order or policy in these circumstances of\nGod\u2019s worship, then he may only enjoin such an order as may stand with the\nobserving and following of the rules of the word, whereunto we are tied in\nthe use and practice of things which are in their general nature\nindifferent.\n\nOf these rules I am to speak in the fourth part of the dispute. And here I\nsay no more but this: Since the word commandeth us to do all things to the\nglory of God, 1 Cor. x. 31; to do all things to edifying, 1 Cor. xiv. 29;\nand to do all things in faith, and full persuasion of the lawfulness of\nthat which we do, Rom. xiv. 5, 23, therefore there is no prince in the\nworld who hath power to command his subjects to do that which should\neither dishonour God, or not honour him; or that which should either\noffend their brother, or not edify him; or, lastly, that which their\nconscience either condemneth or doubteth of. For how may a prince command\nthat which his subjects may not do? But a wonder it were if any man should\nso far refuse to be ashamed that he would dare to say we are not bound to\norder whatsoever we do according to these rules of the word, but only such\nmatters of private action wherein we are left at full liberty, there being\nno ordinance of superiors to determine our practice, and that if such an\nordinance be published and propounded unto us, we should take it alone for\nour rule, and no longer think to examine and order our practice by the\nrules of the word;\n\nFor, 1. This were as much as to say, that in the circumstances of God\u2019s\nworship we are bound to take heed unto God\u2019s rules, then only and in that\ncase when men give us none of their rules, which, if they do, God\u2019s rules\nmust give place to men\u2019s rules, and not theirs to his.\n\n2. If it were so, then we should never make reckoning to God, whether that\nwhich we had done in obedience to superiors was right or wrong, good or\nbad, and we should only make reckoning of such things done by us as were\nnot determined by a human law.\n\n3. The law of superiors is never the supreme but ever a subordinate rule,\nand (as we said before) it can never be a rule to us, except in so far\nonly as it is ruled by a higher rule. Therefore we have ever another rule\nto take heed unto beside their law.\n\n4. The Scripture speaketh most generally, and admitteth no exception from\nthe rules which it giveth: \u201cWhatsoever ye do (though commanded by\nsuperiors) do all to the glory of God. Let all things (though commanded by\nsuperiors) be done to edifying. Whatsoever is not of faith (though\ncommanded by superiors) is sin.\u201d\n\n5. We may do nothing for the sole will and pleasure of men, for this were\nto be the servants of men, as hath been shown. The Bishop of Salisbury\nalso assenteth hereunto.(954) _Non enim_ (saith he) _Deus vult, ut hominis\nalicujus voluntatem regulam nostrae voluntatis atque vitae faciamus: sed\nhoc privilegium sibi ac verbo suo reservatum voluit._ And again,(955) _Pio\nitaque animo haec consideratio semper adesse debet, utrum id quod\npraecipitur sit divino mandato contrarium necne: atque ne ex hac parte\nfallantur, adhibendum est illud judicium discretionis, quod nos tantopere\nurgemus._\n\n_Sect._ 21. These things if Saravia had considered,(956) he had not so\nabsolutely pronounced that the power of the kings may make constitutions\nof the places and times, when and where the exercises of piety may be\nconveniently had, also with what order, what rite, what gesture, what\nhabit, the mysteries shall be more decently celebrated. But what! thought\nhe this power of kings is not astricted to the rules of the word? Have\nthey any power which is to destruction and not to edification? Can they\ncommand their subjects to do anything in the circumstances of divine\nworship which is not for the glory of God, which is not profitable for\nedifying, and which they cannot do in faith? Nay, that all the princes in\nthe world have not such power as this, will easily appear to him who\nattendeth unto the reasons which we have propounded. And because men do\neasily and ordinarily pretend that their constitutions are according to\nthe rules of the word, when they are indeed repugnant to the same,\ntherefore we have also proved that inferiors may and must try and examine\nevery ordinance of their superiors, and that by the judgment of private\ndiscretion, following the rules of the word. I say following the rules of\nthe word, because we will never allow a man to follow Anabaptistical or\nSwenckfeldian-like enthusiasms and inspirations.\n\n_Sect._ 22. Touching the application of what hath been said unto the\ncontroverted ceremonies, there needs nothing now to be added. For that\nthey belong not to that sort of things which may be applied to civil uses,\nwith the same respect and account which they have being applied to\nreligious uses, the account I mean of mere circumstances serving only for\nthat common order and decency which is and should be observed in civil no\nless than in sacred actions, but that they belong to the substance of\nworship, as being sacred significant ceremonies, wherein both holiness and\nnecessity are placed, and which may not without his sacrilege be used out\nof the compass of worship, we have elsewhere plainly evinced. And this\nkind of things, whensover they are men\u2019s devices, and not God\u2019s\nordinances, cannot be lawfully enjoined by princes, as hath been showed.\n\nBut if any man will needs have these ceremonies in question to go under\nthe name of mere circumstances, let us put the case they were no other,\nyet our conforming unto them, which is urged, cannot stand with the rules\nof the word.\n\nIt could not be for the glory of God, not only for that it is offensive to\nmany of Christ\u2019s little ones, but likewise for that it ministereth\noccasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme; to atheists, because by\nthese naughty observances they see the commandments of God made of little\nor no effect, and many godly both persons and purposes despised and\ndepressed, whereat they laugh in their sleeve and say, Aha! so would we\nhave it; to Papists, because as by this our conformity they confirm\nthemselves in sundry of their errors and superstitions, so perceiving us\nso little to abhor the pomp and bravery of their mother of harlots, that\nwe care not to borrow from her some of her meretricious trinkets, they\npromise to themselves that in the end we shall take as great a draught of\nthe cup of the wine of her fornications as they themselves.\n\nNeither yet can our conforming unto the ceremonies pressed upon us be\nprofitable for edifying, for we have given sufficient demonstration of\nmanifold hurts and inconveniences ensuing thereon.\n\nNor, lastly, can we conform to them in faith; for as our consciences\ncannot find, so the word cannot afford, any warrant for them. Of all which\nthings now I only make mention, because I have spoken of them enough\notherwhere.\n\n_Sect._ 23. The second distinction which may help our light in this\nquestion about the power of princes, is of times; for when the church and\nministers thereof are corrupted and must be reformed, princes may do much\nmore in making laws about things ecclesiastical than regularly they may,\nwhen ecclesiastical persons are both able and willing to do their duty, in\nrightly taking care of all things which ought to be provided for the good\nof the church, and conservation or purgation of religion. \u201cFor (saith\nJunuis(957)) both the church, when the joining of the magistrate faileth,\nmay extraordinarily do something which ordinarily she cannot; and again,\nwhen the church faileth of her duty, the magistrate may extraordinarily\nprocure that the church return to her duty; that is, in such a case\nextraordinarily happening, these (ecclesiastical persons) and those\n(magistrates) may extraordinarily do something which ordinarily they\ncannot. For this belongeth to common law and equity, that unto\nextraordinary evils, extraordinary remedies must also be applied.\u201d We\nacknowledge that it belongeth to princes(958) \u201cto reform things in the\nchurch, as often as the ecclesiastical persons shall, either through\nignorance, disorder of the affection of covetousness, or ambition, defile\nthe Lord\u2019s sanctuary.\u201d At such extraordinary times, princes, by their\ncoactive temporal power, ought to procure and cause a reformation of\nabuses, and the avoiding of misorders in the church, though with the\ndiscontent of the clergy, for which end and purpose they may not only\nenjoin and command the profession of that faith, and the practice of that\nreligion which God\u2019s word appointeth, but also prescribe such an order and\npolicy in the circumstances of divine worship as they in their judgment of\nChristian discretion, observing and following the rules of the word, shall\njudge and try to be convenient for the present time and case, and all this\nunder the commination of such temporal losses, pains, or punishments as\nthey shall deprehend to be reasonable. But at other ordinary times, when\necclesiastical persons are neither through ignorance unable, nor through\nmalice and perverseness of affection unwilling, to put order to whatsoever\nrequireth any mutation to be made in the church and service of God, in\nthat case, without their advice and consent, princes may not make an\ninnovation of any ecclesiastical rite, nor publish any ecclesiastical law.\n\n_Sect._ 24. When Dr Field(959) speaketh of the power of princes to\nprescribe and make laws about things spiritual or ecclesiastical, he\nsaith, That the prince may, with the advice and direction of his clergy,\ncommand things pertaining to God\u2019s worship and service, both for\nprofession of faith, ministration of the sacraments, and conversation\nfitting to Christians in general, or men of ecclesiastical order in\nparticular, under the pains of death, imprisonment, banishment,\nconfiscation of goods, and the like; and by his princely power establish\nthings formerly defined and decreed, against whatsoever error and contrary\nill custom and observation. In all this the Doctor saith very right; but I\ndemand, further, these two things: 1. What if the thing have not been\ndecreed before? and what if the free assent of the clergy be not had for\nit? Would the Doctor have said that in such a case the prince hath not\npower by himself, and by his own sole authority, to enjoin it, and to\nestablish a law concerning it? For example, that king James had not power\nby himself to impose the controverted ceremonies upon the church of\nScotland at that time when as no free assent (much less the direction) of\nthe clergy was had for them, so neither had they been formerly decreed,\nbut laws and decrees were formerly made against them. If the Doctor would\nhave answered affirmatively that he had this power, then why did he, in a\nscornful dissimulation, so circumscribe and limit the power of princes, by\nrequiring a former decree, and the free assent of the clergy? If he would\nhave answered negatively, that he had no such power, we should have\nrendered him thanks for his answer. 2. Whether may the clergy make any\nlaws about things pertaining to the service of God which the prince may\nnot as well by himself, and without them, constitute and authorise? If the\naffirmative part be granted unto us, we gladly take it. But we suppose Dr\nField did, and our opposites yet do, hold the negative. Whereupon it\nfolloweth that the prince hath as much, yea, the very same power, of\nmaking laws in all ecclesiastical things which the clergy themselves have\nwhen they are convened in a lawful and free assembly, yet I guess from the\nDoctor\u2019s words that he would have replied, namely, that the difference is\ngreat betwixt the power of making laws about things ecclesiastical in the\nprince, and the same power in the clergy assembled together; for he\ndescribeth the making of a law to be the prescribing of something, under\nsome pain or punishment, which he that so prescribeth hath power to\ninflict. Whereby he would make it appear that he yieldeth not unto princes\nthe same power of spiritual jurisdiction, in making of ecclesiastical\nlaws, which agreeth to the clergy; because, whereas a council of the\nclergy may frame canons about things which concern the worship of God, and\nprescribe them under the pain of excommunication, and other ecclesiastical\ncensures, the ordinance of princes about such matters is only under the\npain of some external or bodily punishment. But I answer, _potestas_\n\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74 is one thing, and _potestas_ \u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74 is another thing. When the\nmaking of a law is joined either with the intention, or with the\ncommination of a punishment, in case of transgression, this is but\naccidental and adventitious to the law, not naturally nor necessarily\nbelonging to the essence of the same; for many laws there hath been, and\nmay be, which prescribe not that which they contain under the same pain or\npunishment. Gratian distinguisheth three sorts of laws: _Omnis_, &c.\n\u201cEvery law (saith he(960)) either permits something; for example, let a\nvalorous man seek a reward: or forbids; for example, let it be lawful to\nno man to seek the marriage of holy virgins: or punisheth; for example, he\nwho committeth murder let him be capitally punished.\u201d And in this third\nkind only there is something prescribed under a pain or punishment. It is\nlikewise holden by schoolmen,(961) that it is a law which permitteth\nsomething indifferent, as well as it which commandeth some virtue, or\nforbiddeth some vice. When a prince doth statute and ordain, that\nwhosoever, out of a generous and magnanimous spirit, will adventure to\nembark and hazard in a certain military exploit against a foreign enemy,\nwhom he intendeth to subdue, shall be allowed to take for himself in\npropriety all the rich spoil which he can lay hold on,\u2014there is nothing\nhere prescribed under some pain or punishment, yet it is a law, and\nproperly so termed. And might not the name of a law be given unto that\nedict of King Darius, whereby he decreed that all they in his dominions\nshould fear the God of Daniel, forasmuch as he is the living and eternal\nGod, who reigneth for ever, Dan. vi.; yet it prescribed nothing under some\npain or punishment to be inflicted by him who so prescribed. Wherefore,\nthough the prince publisheth ecclesiastical laws under other pains and\npunishments than the clergy doth, this showeth only that _potestas_\n\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74 is not the same, but different, in the one and in the other; yet\nif it be granted that whatsoever ecclesiastical law a synod of the clergy\nhath power to make and publish, the prince hath power to make and publish\nwithout them, by his own sole authority, it followeth, that the power of\nthe church to make laws which is called _potestas_ \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74, doth agree\nas much, as properly, and as directly to the prince, as to a whole synod\nof the church.\n\n_Sect._ 25. Now, therefore, we firmly hold, 1. That the prince may not\ninnovate any custom or rite of the church, nor publish any ecclesiastical\nlaw, without the free assent of the clergy, they being neither unable for,\nnor unwilling unto, their ecclesiastical functions and duties; yea,\nfurther, that so far as is possible, the consent of the whole church ought\nto be had whensoever any change is to be made of some order or custom in\nthe church; for that which toucheth the whole church, and is to be used by\nthe whole church, _ab omnibus etiam merito curatur_.(962) Therefore, when\nthere is any change to be made in the rites of the church, _merito fit hoc\ncum omnium ordinum ecclesiae consensu_.(963) Neither was there ever a\nrightly reformed church which was helped and not hurt by such rites and\ncustoms as, to their grief and miscontentment, princes did impose upon\nthem. Whence it was, that \u201cthey who were orthodox did ever withstand such\na magistrate as would have, by his commandments, tied the church to that\nwhich was burdensome to their consciences.\u201d(964) That such inconveniences\nmay be shunned, it is fit, that, when any change is to be made in the\npolicy of a church, not the clergy alone, but the elders also, and men of\nunderstanding among the laity, in a lawful assembly, freely give their\nvoices and consent thereunto. Good reason have our writers to hold against\nPapists, that laymen ought to have place in councils wherein things which\nconcern the whole church are to be deliberated upon. 2. Lest it be thought\nenough that princes devise, frame, and establish, ecclesiastical laws as\nthem best liketh, and then, for more show of orderly proceeding, some\nsecret and sinistrous way extort and procure the assent of the synod of\nthe church; therefore we add, that it belongeth to the synod (the clergy\nhaving the chief place therein, to give direction and advice), not to\nreceive and approve the definition of the prince in things which concern\nthe worship of God, but itself to define and determine what orders and\ncustoms are fittest to be observed in such things, that thereafter the\nprince may approve and ratify the same, and press them upon his subjects\nby his regal coactive power. To me it is no less than a matter of\nadmiration how Camero could so far forget himself as to say,(965) that in\nthings pertaining unto religion, _dirigere atque disponere penes\nmagistratum est proprie, penes ecclesiasticos ministerium atque executio\nproprie_, telling us further, that the directing and disposing of such\nthings doth then only belong to ecclesiastical persons when the church\nsuffereth persecution, or when the magistrate permitteth that the matter\nbe judged by the church.\n\nOur writers have said much of the power of the church to make laws, but\nthis man (I perceive) will correct them all, and will not acknowledge that\nthe church hath any power of making laws about things pertaining to\nreligion (except by accident, because of persecution or permission), but\nonly a power of executing what princes please to direct. More fully to\ndeliver our mind, we say, that in the making of laws about things which\nconcern the worship of God, the prince may do much _per actus imperatos_,\nbut nothing _per actus elicitos_. For the more full explanation of which\ndistinction, I liken the prince to the will of man; the ministers of the\nchurch to man\u2019s particular senses; a synod of the church to that internal\nsense which is called _sensus communis_; the fountain and original of all\nthe external things and actions ecclesiastical, or such as concern the\nworship of God, to the objects and actions of the particular senses; and\nthe power of making ecclesiastical laws to that power and virtue of the\ncommon sense, whereby it perceiveth, discerneth, and judgeth of the\nobjects and actions of all the particular senses. Now as the will\ncommandeth the common sense to discern and judge of the actions and\nobjects of all the particular senses, thereafter commandeth the eye to\nsee, and the ear to hear, the nose to smell, &c., yet it hath not power by\nitself to exercise or bring forth any of these actions, for the will can\nneither see nor yet judge of the object and action of sight, &c. So the\nprince may command a synod of the church to judge of ecclesiastical things\nand actions, and to define what order and form of policy is most\nconvenient to be observed in things pertaining to divine worship, and\nthereafter he may command the particular ministers of the church to\nexercise the works of their ministry, and to apply themselves unto that\nform of church regiment and policy which the synod hath prescribed, yet he\nmay not by himself define and direct such matters, nor make any laws\nthereanent.\n\n_Sect._ 26. For proof of these things I add, 1. Politic government,\n_versatur circa res terrenas et hominem externum_ (saith one of our\nwriters(966)); _magistratus_ (saith another(967)) _instituti sunt \u00e0 Deo\nrerum humanarum __ quae hominum societati necessariae sunt respectu, et ad\ncarum curam_; but they are ecclesiastical ministers who are \u201cordained for\nmen in things pertaining to God,\u201d Heb. v. 1, that is, in things which\npertain unto God\u2019s worship. It belongeth not therefore to princes to\ngovern and direct things of this nature, even as it belongeth not to\npastors to govern and direct earthly things which are necessary for the\nexternal and civil society of men, I mean ordinarily and regularly, for of\nextraordinary cases we have spoken otherwise. But according to the common\norder and regular form we are ever to put this difference betwixt civil\nand ecclesiastical government, which one of our best learned divines hath\nexcellently conceived after this manner:(968) _Altera differentia_, &c.,\n\u201cThe other difference (saith he) taken from the matter and subject of the\nadministrations. For we have put in our definition human things to be the\nsubject of civil administration, but the subject of ecclesiastical\nadministration we have taught to be things divine and sacred. Things\ndivine and sacred we call both those which God commandeth for the\nsanctification of our mind and conscience as things necessary, and also\nthose which the decency and order of the church requireth to be ordained\nand observed for the profitable and convenient use of the things which are\nnecessary; for example, prayers, the administration of the word and\nsacraments, ecclesiastical censure, are things necessary, and essentially\nbelonging to the communion of saints; but set days, set hours, set places,\nfasts, and if there be any such like, they belong to the decency and order\nof the church, without which the church cannot be well edified, nor any\nparticular member thereof rightly fashioned and fitly set in the body. But\nhuman things we call such duties as touch the life, the body, goods, and\ngood name, as they are expounded in the second table of the Decalogue, for\nthese are the things in which the whole civil administration standeth.\nBehold how the very circumstances which pertain to ecclesiastical order\nand decency are exempted from the compass of civil government.\u201d\n\n2. \u201cNatural reason (saith the Bishop of Salisbury) telleth,(969) that to\njudge of everything, and to instruct others, belongeth to them who before\nothers take pains and study to the care and knowledge of the same, so\nphysicians judge which meat is wholesome, which noisome. Lawyers declare\nwhat is just, what unjust, and in all arts and sciences, they who\nprofessedly place their labour and study in the polishing and practising\nof the same, both use and ought to direct the judgments of others.\u201d Since\ntherefore(970) the ministers of the church are those _quibus ecclesiae\ncura incumbit vel maxime_, since they do above and before the civil\nmagistrate devote themselves to the care and knowledge of things\npertaining to God and his worship, whereabout they profess to bestow their\nordinary study and painful travail, were it not most repugnant to the law\nof natural reason to say that they ought not to direct, but be directed\nby, the magistrate in such matters?\n\n3. The ministers of the church are appointed to be \u201cwatchmen in the city\nof God,\u201d Mic. vii. 4, and \u201coverseers of the flock,\u201d Acts xx. 28; but when\nprinces do, without the direction and definition of ministers, establish\ncertain laws to be observed in things pertaining to religion, ministers\nare not then watchmen and overseers, because they have not the first\nsight, and so cannot give the first warning of the change which is to be\nmade in the church. The watchmen are upon the walls, the prince is within\nthe city. Shall the prince now view and consider the breaches and defects\nof the city better and sooner than the watchmen themselves? Or shall one,\nwithin the city, tell what should be righted and helped therein, before\nthem who are upon the walls? Again, the prince is one of the flock, and is\ncommitted, among the rest, to the care, attendance, and guidance of the\noverseers; and, I pray, shall one of the sheep direct the overseers how to\ngovern and lead the whole flock, or prescribe to them what orders and\ncustoms they shall observe for preventing or avoiding any hurt and\ninconvenience which may happen to the flock?\n\n4. Christ hath ordained men of ecclesiastical order, not only \u201cfor the\nwork of the ministry,\u201d(971) that is, for preaching the word and\nministering the sacraments, for warning and rebuking them who sin, for\ncomforting the afflicted, for confirming the weak, &c., but also for\nproviding whatsoever concerneth either the private spiritual good of any\nmember of the church, which the Apostle calleth \u201cthe perfecting of the\nsaints,\u201d or the public spiritual good of the whole church, which he\ncalleth the \u201cedifying of the body of Christ,\u201d Eph. iv. 12. Since,\ntherefore, the making of laws about such things, without which the worship\nof God cannot be orderly nor decently (and so not rightly) performed,\nconcerneth the spiritual good and benefit of the whole church, and of all\nthe members thereof, it followeth that Christ hath committed the power of\njudging, defining, and making laws about those matters, not to\nmagistrates, but to the ministers of the church.\n\n5. The Apostle, speaking of the church ministers, saith, \u201cObey them that\nhave the rule over you, and submit yourselves for they watch for your\nsouls as they that must give account,\u201d Heb. xiii. 17. Whence we gather,\nthat in things pertaining to God, and which touch the spiritual benefit of\nthe soul, the ministers of the church ought to give direction, and to be\nobeyed, as those who, in things of this nature, have the rule over all\nothers of the church (and by consequence over princes also), so that it be\nin the Lord. And lest this place and power which is given to ministers,\nshould either be abused by themselves to the commanding of what they will,\nor envied by others, as too great honour and pre-eminence, the Apostle\nshoweth what a painful charge lieth on them, and what a great reckoning\nthey have to make. They watch for your souls, saith he, not only by\npreaching and warning every one, and by offering up their earnest prayers\nto God for you, but likewise by taking such care of ecclesiastical\ndiscipline, order, and policy, that they must provide and procure\nwhatsoever shall be expedient for your spiritual good, and direct you in\nwhat convenient and beseeming manner you are to perform the works of God\u2019s\nworship, as also to avoid and shun every scandal and inconveniency which\nmay hinder your spiritual good. And of these things, whether they have\ndone them or not, they must make account before the judgment seat of the\ngreat Bishop of your souls. Surely, if it belong to princes to do fine and\nordain what order and policy should be observed in the church, what forms\nand fashions should be used, for the orderly and right managing of the\nexercises of God\u2019s worship, how scandals and misorders are to be shunned,\nhow the church may be most edified, and the spiritual good of the saints\nbest helped and advanced, by wholesome and profitable laws, concerning\nthings which pertain to religion, then must princes take also upon them a\ngreat part of that charge of pastors, to watch for the souls of men, and\nmust liberate them from being liable to a reckoning for the same.\n\n_Sect._ 27. 6. Constantine the Great, Theodosius, both the one and the\nother, Martianus, Charles the Great, and other Christian princes, when\nthere was any change to be made of ecclesiastical rites, did not, by their\nown authority, imperiously enjoin the change, but convocate synods for\ndeliberating upon the matter, as Balduine noteth.(972) The great Council\nof Nice was assembled by Constantine, not only because of the Arian\nheresy, but, also (as Socrates witnesseth(973)), because of the difference\nabout the keeping of Easter; and though the bishops, when they were\nassembled, did put up to him libels of accusation, one against another, so\nthat there could be no great hope of their agreement upon fit and\nconvenient laws; yet, notwithstanding, he did not interpone his own\ndefinition and decree, for taking up that difference about Easter, only he\nexhorted the bishops convened in the council to peace, and so commended\nthe whole matter to be judged by them.\n\n7. We have for us the judgment of worthy divines. A notable testimony of\nJunius we have already cited. Danaeus will not allow princes by themselves\nto make laws about ecclesiastical rites,(974) but this he will have done\nby a synod. _Porro quod ad ritus,_ &c. \u201cFurthermore (saith he), for rites\nand ceremonies, and that external order which is necessary in the\nadministration of the church, let a synod of the church convene, the\nsupreme and godly magistrate both giving commandment for the convening of\nit, and being present in it; and let that synod of the church lawfully\nassembled define what should be the order and external regiment of the\nchurch. This decree of the ecclesiastical synod shall the godly and\nsupreme magistrate afterward confirm, stablish, and ratify by his edict.\u201d\nJoh. Wolphius observeth of king Joash,(975) that he did not by himself\ntake order for the reparation of the temple, nor define what was to be\ndone unto every breach therein, but committed this matter to be directed\nand cared for by the priests, whom it chiefly concerned, commanding them\nto take course for the reparation of the breaches of the house,\nwheresoever any breach should be found, and allowing them money for the\nwork. Whereupon he further noteth, that as the superior part of man\u2019s soul\ndoth not itself hear, see, touch, walk, speak, but commandeth the ears,\neyes, hands, feet, and tongue, to do the same; so the magistrate should\nnot himself either teach or make laws, but command that these things be\ndone by the doctors and teachers. Cartwright and Pareus upon Heb. xiii.\n17, tell the Papists, that we acknowledge princes are holden to be\nobedient unto pastors in things that belong unto God, if they rule\naccording to the word, which could not be so, if the making of laws about\nthings pertaining to God and his worship did not of right and due belong\nunto pastors, but unto princes themselves. Our Second Book of Discipline,\nchap. 12, ordaineth, \u201cThat ecclesiastical assemblies have their place,\nwith power to the kirk to appoint times and places convenient for the\nsame, and all men, as well magistrates as inferiors, to be subject to the\njudgment of the same in ecclesiastical causes.\u201d Balduine holdeth,(976)\nthat a prince may not by himself enjoin any new ecclesiastical rite, but\nmust convocate a synod for the deliberation and definition of such things.\nAnd what mean our writers when they say,(977) that kings have no spiritual\nbut only a civil power in the church? As actions are decerned by the\nobjects, so are powers by the actions: if, therefore, kings do commendably\nby themselves make laws about things pertaining to God\u2019s worship, which is\na spiritual action, then have they also a spiritual power in the church;\nbut if they have no spiritual power, that is, no power of spiritual\njurisdiction, how can they actually exercise spiritual jurisdiction? That\nthe making of laws about things pertaining to God\u2019s worship is an action\nof spiritual jurisdiction, it needeth no great demonstration; for, 1. When\na synod of the church maketh laws about such things, all men know that\nthis is an action of spiritual jurisdiction flowing from that power of\nspiritual jurisdiction which is called _potestas_ \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74. And how then\ncan the prince\u2019s making of such laws be called an action of civil, not of\nspiritual jurisdiction? I see not what can be answered, except it be said,\nthat the making of those laws by a synod is an action of spiritual\njurisdiction, because they are made and published with the commination of\nspiritual and ecclesiastical punishments in case of transgression, but the\nmaking of them by the prince is an action of jurisdiction only, because he\nprescribeth and commandeth, under the pain of some temporal loss or\npunishment. But I have already confuted this answer, because\nnotwithstanding of the different punishments which the one and the other\nhath power to threaten and inflict, yet, at least, that part of spiritual\njurisdiction which we call _potestas_ \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74 remaineth the same in\nboth, which power of making laws must not (as I show) be confounded with\nthat other power of judging and punishing offenders. 2. Actions take their\nspecies or kind from the object and the end, when other circumstances\nhinder not. Now, a prince\u2019s making of laws about things pertaining to\nreligion, is such an action of jurisdiction, as hath both a spiritual end,\nwhich is the edification of the church and spiritual good of Christians,\nand likewise a spiritual object; for that all things pertaining to divine\nworship, even the very external circumstances of the same, are rightly\ncalled things spiritual and divine, not civil or human, our opposites\ncannot deny, except they say, not only that such things touch the lives,\nbodies, estates, or names of men, and are not ordained for the spiritual\nbenefit of their souls, but also that the synod of the church, whose power\nreacheth only to things spiritual, not civil or human, can never make laws\nabout those circumstances which are applied unto, and used in the worship\nof God; and as the prince\u2019s making of laws about things of this nature, is\nin respect of the object and end, an action of spiritual jurisdiction, so\nthere is no circumstance at all which varieth the kind, or maketh it an\naction of civil jurisdiction only. If it be said, that the circumstance of\nthe person changeth the kind of the action, so that the making of laws\nabout things pertaining to religion, if they be made by ecclesiastical\npersons, is an action of spiritual jurisdiction; but if, by the civil\nmagistrate, an action of civil jurisdiction, this were a most extremely\nunadvised distinction; for so might Uzziah the king have answered for\nhimself, 2 Chron. xxvi. 18, that, in burning incense, he did not take upon\nhim to execute the priest\u2019s office, because he was only a civil person; so\nmay the Pope say, that he might not take upon him the power of emperors\nand monarchs, because he is an ecclesiastical person. Many things men do\n_de facto_, which they cannot _de jure_. Civil persons may exercise a\nspiritual jurisdiction and office, and, again, ecclesiastical persons may\nexercise a civil jurisdiction _de facto_, though not _de jure_. Wherefore\nthe prince\u2019s making of laws about things spiritual remaineth still an\naction of spiritual jurisdiction, except some other thing can be alleged\nto the contrary, beside the circumstance of the person. But some man,\nperadventure, will object that a prince, by his civil power, may enjoin\nand command not only the observation of those ecclesiastical rites which a\nsynod of the church prescribeth, but also that a synod (when need is)\nprescribe new orders and rites, all which are things spiritual and divine.\nAnd why then may he not, by the same civil power, make laws about the\nrites and circumstances of God\u2019s worship, notwithstanding that they are\n(in their use and application to the actions of worship) things spiritual,\nnot civil.\n\n_Ans._ The schoolmen say,(978) that an action proceedeth from charity two\nways, either _elicitive_ or _imperative_, and that those actions which are\nimmediately produced and wrought out by charity, belong not to other\nvirtues distinct from charity, but are comprehended under the effects of\ncharity itself, such as are the loving of good and rejoicing for it. Other\nactions, say they, which are only commanded by charity, belong to other\nspecial virtues distinct from charity. So, say I, an action may proceed\nfrom a civil power either _elicitive_ or _imperative_. _Elicitive_ a civil\npower can only make laws about things civil or human; but _imperative_ it\nmay command the ecclesiastical power to make laws about things spiritual,\nwhich laws thereafter it may command to be observed by all who are in the\nchurch.\n\n_Sect._ 28. 8. Our opposites themselves acknowledge no less than that\nwhich I have been pleading for. \u201cTo devise new rites and ceremonies (saith\nDr Bilson(979)), is not the prince\u2019s vocation, but to receive and allow\nsuch as the Scriptures and canons commend, and such as the bishops and\npastors of the place shall advise.\u201d And saith not the Bishop of\nSalisbury,(980) _Ceremonias utiles et decoras excogitare, ad\necclesiasticos pertinet; tamen easdem comprobare, et toti populo\nobservandas imponere, ad reges spectat_? Camero saith,(981) that it is the\npart of a prince to take care for the health of men\u2019s souls, even as he\ndoth for the health of their bodies, and that as he provideth not for the\ncuring or preventing of bodily diseases directly and by himself, but\nindirectly and by the physicians, so he should not by himself prescribe\ncures and remedies for men\u2019s spiritual maladies. _Perinde principis est\ncurare salutem animarum, ac ejusdem est saluti corporum prospicere: non\nest autem principis providere ne morbi grassentur directe, esset enim\nmedicus, at indirecte tamen princeps id studere debet._ Whence it\nfolloweth, that even as when some bodily sickness spreadeth, a prince\u2019s\npart is not to prescribe a cure, but to command the physicians to do it;\njust so, when any abuse, misorder, confusion, or scandal in the church,\nrequireth or maketh it necessary that a mutation be made of some rite or\norder in the same, and that wholesome laws be enacted, which may serve for\nthe order, decency, and edification of the church, a prince may not do\nthis by himself, but may only command the pastors and guides of the\nchurch, who watch for the souls of men as they who must give account, to\nsee to the exigency of the present state of matters ecclesiastical, and to\nprovide such laws as they, being met together in the name of the Lord,\nshall, after due and free deliberation, find to be convenient, and which,\nbeing once prescribed by them, he shall by his royal authority confirm,\nestablish, and press.\n\n_Sect._ 29. Needs now it must be manifest, that the lawfulness of our\nconforming unto the ceremonies in question can be no way warranted by any\nordinance of the supreme magistrate, or any power which he hath in things\nspiritual or ecclesiastical; and if our opposites would ponder the reasons\nwe have given, they should be quickly quieted, understanding that, before\nthe prince\u2019s ordinance about the ceremonies can be said to bind us, it\nmust first be showed that they have been lawfully prescribed by a synod of\nthe church, so that they must retire and hold them as the church\u2019s\nordinance. And what needeth any more? Let us once see any lawful ordinance\nof the synod or church representative for them, we shall, without any more\nado, acknowledge it to be out of all doubt that his Majesty may well urge\nconformity unto the same.\n\nNow, of the church\u2019s power we have spoken in the former chapter; and if we\nhad not, yet that which hath been said in this chapter maketh out our\npoint. For it hath been proved, that neither king nor church hath power to\ncommand anything which is not according to the rules of the word; that is,\nwhich serveth not for the glory of God, which is not profitable for\nedifying, and which may not be done in faith; unto which rules, whether\nthe things which are commanded us be agreeable or not, we must try and\nexamine by the private judgment of Christian discretion, following the\nlight of God\u2019s word.\n\n_Sect._ 30. Resteth the third distinction, whereof I promised to speak,\nand that was of ties or bonds. _Quoedam obligatio_, &c. \u201cSome bond (saith\nGerhard(982)) is absolute, when the law bindeth the conscience simply, so\nthat, in no respect, nor in no case, without the offence of God and wound\nof conscience, one may depart from the prescript thereof; but another bond\nis hypothetical, when it bindeth not simply, but under a condition, to\nwit, if the transgression of the law be done of contempt,\u2014if for the cause\nof lucre or some other vicious end,\u2014if it have scandal joined with it.\u201d\nThe former way, he saith that the law of God and nature bindeth, and that\nthe law of the civil magistrate bindeth the latter way; and with him we\nhold that whatsoever a prince commandeth his subjects in things any way\npertaining to religion, it bindeth only this latter way, and that he hath\nnever power to make laws binding the former way, for confirmation\nwherefore we say,\n\n1. The laws of an ecclesiastical synod, to the obedience whereof, in\nthings belonging to the worship of God, we are far more strictly tied than\nto the obedience of any prince in the world, who (as hath been showed) in\nthis sort of things hath not such a vocation nor power to make laws. The\nlaws, I say, of a synod cannot bind absolutely, but only conditionally, or\nin case they cannot be transgressed without violating the law of charity,\nby contempt showed or scandal given, which, as I have made good in the\nfirst part of this dispute, so let me now produce for it a plain testimony\nof the Bishop of Salisbury,(983) who holdeth that the church\u2019s rites and\nordinance do only bind in such sort, _ut si extra_, &c., \u201cThat if, out of\nthe case of scandal or contempt, through imprudence, oblivion, or some\nreasonable cause enforcing, they be omitted, no mortal sin is incurred\nbefore God; for as touching these constitutions, I judge the opinion of\nGerson to be most true, to wit, that they remain inviolated so long as the\nlaw of charity is not by men violated about the same.\u201d Much less, then,\ncan the laws of princes about things spiritual or ecclesiastical bind\nabsolutely, and out of the case of violating the law of charity.\n\n2. If we be not bound to receive and acknowledge the laws of princes as\ngood and equitable, except only in so far as they are warranted by the law\nof God and nature, then we are not bound in conscience to obey them,\nexcept only conditionally, in case the violating of them include the\nviolating of the law of God and nature; but the former is true, therefore\nthe latter. It is God\u2019s peculiar sovereignty, that his will is a rule\nruling, but not ruled, and that therefore a thing is good because God will\nhave it to be good. Man\u2019s will is only such a rule as is ruled by higher\nrules, and it must be known to be _norma recta_ before it can be to us\n_norma recti_.\n\n3. If we be bound to try and examine, by the judgment of discretion\n(following the rules of the word), whether the things which princes\ncommand be right, and such as ought to be done; and if we find them not to\nbe such, to neglect them, then their laws cannot bind absolutely and by\nthemselves, (else what need were there of such trial and examination?) but\nonly conditionally, and in case they cannot be neglected without violating\nsome other law, which is of a superior bond. But the former we have proved\nby strong reasons, therefore the latter standeth sure.\n\n4. If neither princes may command, nor we do anything which is not lawful\nand expedient, and according to the other rules of the word, then the laws\nof princes bind not absolutely, but only in case the neglecting of them\ncannot stand with the law of charity and the rules of the word; but the\nformer hath been evinced and made good, therefore the latter necessarily\nfolloweth.\n\n5. If the laws of princes could bind absolutely and simply, so that in no\ncase, without offending God and wounding our conscience, we could neglect\nthem, this bond should arise either from their own authority, or from the\nmatter and thing itself which is commanded, but from neither of these it\ncan arise, therefore from nothing. It cannot arise from any authority\nwhich they have, for if, by their authority, we mean their princely\npre-eminence and dignity, they are princes when they command things\nunlawful as well as when they command things lawful, and so if, because of\ntheir pre-eminence their laws do bind, then their unlawful ordinances do\nbind no less than if they were lawful; but if by their authority we mean\nthe power which they have of God to make laws, this power is not absolute\n(as hath been said) but limited; therefore from it no absolute bond can\narise, but this much at the most, that \u201ckings on earth must be\nobeyed,(984) so far as they command in Christ.\u201d\n\nNeither yet can the bond be absolute in respect of the thing itself which\nis commanded.\n\nWhen princes publish the commandments of God, the things themselves bind\nwhether they should command them or not, but we speak of such things as\nGod\u2019s word hath left in their nature indifferent, and of such things we\nsay, that if being enjoined by princes they did absolutely bind, then they\nshould be in themselves immutably necessary, even secluding as well the\nlaws of princes which enjoin them, as the end of order, decency, and\nedification, whereunto they are referred. To say no more, hath not Dr\nForbesse told us in Calvin\u2019s words,(985) _Notatu dignum_, &c.? \u201cIt is\nworthy of observation, that human laws, whether they be made by the\nmagistrate or by the church, howsoever they be necessary to be observed (I\nspeak of such as are good and just), yet they do not, therefore, by\nthemselves bind the conscience, because the whole necessity of observing\nthem looketh to the general end, but consisteth not in the things\ncommanded.\u201d\n\n6. Whatsoever bond of conscience is not confirmed and warranted by the\nword is, before God, no bond at all. But the absolute bond wherewith\nconscience is bound to the obedience of the laws of princes is not\nconfirmed nor warranted by the word; therefore the proposition no man can\ndeny, who acknowledged that none can have power or dominion over our\nconsciences but God only, the great Lawgiver, who alone can save and\ndestroy, James iv. 12. Neither doth any writer, whom I have seen, hold\nthat princes have any power over men\u2019s consciences, but only that\nconscience is bound by the laws of princes, for this respect, because God,\nwho hath power over our consciences, hath tied us to their laws. As to the\nassumption, he who denyeth it must give instance to the contrary. If those\nwords of the Apostle be objected, Rom. xiii. 5, \u201cYe must needs be subject,\nnot only for wrath, but also for conscience\u2019 sake.\u201d\n\nI answer, 1. The Apostle saith not that we must obey, but that we must be\nsubject, for conscience\u2019 sake; and how oft shall we need to tell our\nopposites that subjection is one thing, and obedience another?\n\n2. If he had said that we must obey for conscience\u2019 sake, yet this could\nnot have been expounded of an absolute bond of conscience, but only of an\nhypothetical bond, in case that which the magistrate commandeth cannot be\nomitted without breaking the law of charity. If it be said again, that we\nare not only bidden be subject, but likewise to obey magistrates, Tit.\niii. 1: _Ans._ And who denyeth this? But still I ask, are we absolutely\nand always bound to obey magistrates? Nay, but only when they command such\nthings as are according to the rules of the word, so that either they must\nbe obeyed or the law of charity shall be broken; in this case, and no\nother, we are bidden obey.\n\n_Sect._ 31. Thus have we gained a principal point, viz., that the laws of\nprinces bind not absolutely but conditionally, not _propter se_, but\n_propter aliud_. Whereupon it followeth, that except the breach of those\nceremonial ordinances wherewith we are pressed include the breach of the\nlaw of charity, which is of a superior bond, we are not holden to obey\nthem. Now that it is not the breach, but the obedience of those ordinances\nwhich violateth the law of charity, we have heretofore made manifest, and\nin this place we will add only one general: Whensoever the laws of princes\nabout things ecclesiastical do bind the conscience conditionally, and\nbecause of some other law of a superior bond, which cannot be observed if\nthey be transgressed (which is the only respect for which they bind, when\nthey bind at all), then the things which they prescribe belong either to\nthe conservation or purgation of religion; but the controverted ceremonies\nbelong to neither of these, therefore the laws made thereanent bind not,\nbecause of some other law which is of a superior bond. As to the\nproposition, will any man say that princes have any more power than that\nwhich is expressed in the twenty-fifth article of the Confession of Faith,\nratified in the first parliament of king James VI., which saith thus:\n\u201cMoreover, to kings, princes, rulers, and magistrates, we affirm that\nchiefly and most principally, the conservation and the purgation of the\nreligion appertains, so that not only they are appointed for civil policy,\nbut also for maintenance of the true religion, and for suppressing of\nidolatry and superstition whatsoever?\u201d _Hoc nomine_, saith Calvin,(986)\n_maxime laudantur sancti reges in scriptura, quod Dei cultum corruptum vel\neversum restituerint, vel curam gesserint religionis, ut sub illis pura et\nincolumis floreret_. The twenty-first Parliament of king James, holden at\nEdinburgh 1612, in the ratification of the acts and conclusions of the\nGeneral Assembly, kept in Glasgow 1610, did innovate and change some words\nof that oath of allegiance which the General Assembly, in reference to the\nconference kept 1751, ordained to be given to the person provided to any\nbenefice with cure, in the time of his admission, by the ordinate. For the\nform of the oath, set down by the Act of the Assembly, beginneth thus: \u201cI,\nA. B., now nominate and admitted to the kirk of D., utterly testify and\ndeclare in my conscience, that the right excellent, right high, and mighty\nprince, James VI., by the grace of God king of Scots, is the only lawful\nsupreme governor of this realm, as well in things temporal as in the\nconservation and purgation of religion,\u201d &c. But the form of the oath set\ndown by the Act of Parliament beginneth thus: \u201cI, A. B., now nominate and\nadmitted to the kirk of D., testify and declare in my conscience, that the\nright excellent, &c., is the only lawful supreme governor of this realm,\nas well in matters spiritual and ecclesiastical, as in things temporal,\u201d\n&c. Yet I demand, whether or not do the _matters spiritual and\necclesiastical_, of which the Act of Parliament speaketh, or those _all\nspiritual or ecclesiastical things or causes_, of which the English oath\nof supremacy speaketh, comprehend any other thing than is comprehended\nunder _the conservation and purgation of religion_, whereof the Act of\nAssembly speaketh? If it be answered affirmatively, it will follow that\nprinces have power to destruction, and not to edification only; for\nwhatsoever may edify or profit the church, pertaineth either to the\nconservation or the purgation of religion. If negatively, then it cannot\nbe denied that the conservation and purgation of religion do comprehend\nall the power which princes have in things ecclesiastical.\n\n_Sect._ 32. Now to the assumption. And first, that the controverted\nceremonies pertain not to the conservation of religion, but contrariwise\nto the hurt and prejudice of the same, experience hath, alas! made it too\nmanifest; for O what a doleful decay of religion have they drawn with them\nin this land! Let them who have seen Scotland in her first glory tell how\nit was then, and how it is now. Idle and idol-like bishopping hath shut\ntoo the door of painful and profitable catechising.(987) The keeping of\nsome festival days is set up instead of the thankful commemoration of\nGod\u2019s inestimable benefits, howbeit the festivity of Christmas hath\nhitherto served more to bacchanalian lasciviousness than to the\nremembrance of the birth of Christ.(988) The kneeling down upon the knees\nof the body hath now come in place of that humiliation of the soul\nwherewith worthy communicants addressed themselves unto the holy table of\nthe Lord; and, generally, the external show of these fruitless observances\nhath worn out the very life and power of religion. Neither have such\neffects ensued upon such ceremonies among us only, but let it be observed\neverywhere else, if there be not least substance and power of godliness\namong them who have most ceremonies, whereunto men have, at their\npleasure, given some sacred use and signification in the worship of God;\nand most substance among them who have fewest shows of external rites. No\nman of sound judgment (saith Beza(989)) will deny, _Jesum Christum quo\nnudior_, &c., \u201cthat Jesus Christ, the more naked he be, is made the more\nmanifest to us; whereas, contrariwise, all false religions use by certain\nexternal gesturings to turn away men from divine things.\u201d Zanchius saith\nwell of the surplice and other popish ceremonies,(990) _Quod haec nihil ad\npietatem accendendam, multum autem ad restinguendam valeant_.\nBellarmine,(991) indeed, pleadeth for the utility of ceremonies, as things\nbelonging to the conservation of religion. His reason is, because they set\nbefore our senses such an external majesty and splendour, whereby they\ncause the more reverence. This he allegeth for the utility of the\nceremonies of the church of Rome. And I would know what better reason can\nbe alleged for the utility of ours. But if this be all, we throw back the\nargument, because the external majesty and splendour of ceremonies doth\ngreatly prejudge and obscure the spirit and life of the worship of God,\nand diverteth the minds of men from adverting unto the same, which we have\noffered to be tried by common experience. Durand himself, for as much as\nhe hath written in the defence of ceremonies, in his unreasonable\n_Rationale_, yet he maketh this plain confession:(992) _Sane in primitiva\necclesia, sacrificium fiebat in vasis ligneis et vestibus communibus: tunc\nenim erant lignei calices et aurei sacerdotes: nunc vero \u00e8 contra est._\nBehold what followeth upon the majesty and splendour which ceremonies\ncarry with them, and how religion, at its best and first estate, was\nwithout the same!\n\n_Sect._ 33. Neither yet do the ceremonies in question belong to the\npurgation of religion; for wheresoever religion is to be purged in a\ncorrupted church, all men know that purgation standeth in putting\nsomething away, not in keeping it still; in voiding somewhat, nor in\nretaining it; so that a church is not purged, but left unpurged, when the\nunnecessary monuments of bypast superstition are still preserved and kept\nin the same. And as for the church of Scotland, least of all could there\nbe any purgation of it intended by the resuming of those ceremonies; for\nsuch was the most glorious and ever memorable reformation of Scotland,\nthat it was far better purged than any other neighbour church. And of Mr\nHooker\u2019s jest we may make good earnest; for, in very deed, as the\nreformation of Geneva did pass the reformation of Germany, so the\nreformation of Scotland did pass that of Geneva.\n\n_Sect._ 34. Now hitherto we have discoursed of the power of princes, in\nmaking of laws about things which concern the worship of God; for this\npower it is which our opposites allege for warrant, of the controverted\nceremonies, wherefore to have spoken of it is sufficient for our present\npurpose. Nevertheless, because there are also other sorts of\necclesiastical things beside the making of laws, such as the vocation of\nmen of ecclesiastical order, the convocation and moderation of councils,\nthe judging and deciding of controversies about faith, and the use of the\nkeys, in all which princes have some place and power of intermeddling, and\na mistaking in one may possibly breed a mistaking in all; therefore I\nthought good here to digress, and of these also to add somewhat, so far as\nprinces have power and interest in the same.\n\n\n\n                              DIGRESSION I.\n\n\nOF THE VOCATION OF MEN OF ECCLESIASTICAL ORDER.\n\n\nIn the vocation and calling of ecclesiastical persons, a prince ought to\ncarry himself _ad modum procurantis speciem, non designantis individuum_.\nWhich shall be more plainly and particularly understood in these\npropositions which follow.\n\n_Propos._ 1. Princes may and ought to provide and take care that men of\nthose ecclesiastical orders, and those only which are instituted in the\nNew Testament by divine authority, have vocation and office in the church.\n\nNow, beside the apostles, prophets, and evangelists, which were not\nordained to be ordinary and perpetual offices in the church, there are but\ntwo ecclesiastical orders or degrees instituted by Christ in the New\nTestament,(993) viz., elders and deacons. _Excellenter canones duos tantum\nsacros ordines appellari censet, diaconatus scilicet et presbyteratus,\nquia hos solos primitiva ecclesia legitur habuisse, et de his solis\npreceptum apostoli habemus_, saith the Master of sentences.(994) As for\nthe order and decree of bishops superior to that of elders, that there is\nno divine ordinance nor institution for it, it is not only holden by\nCalvin, Beza, Bucer, Martyr, Sadeel, Luther, Chemnitius, Gerhard,\nBalduine, the Magdeburgians, Musculus, Piscator, Hemmingius, Zanchius,\nPolanus, Junius, Pareus, Fennerus, Danaeus, Morney, Whittakers, Willets,\nPerkins, Cartwright, the Professors of Leyden, and the far greatest part\nof writers in reformed churches, but also by Jerome, who, upon Tit. i.,\nand in his epistle to Evagrius, speaketh so plainly, that the Archbishop\nof Spalato is driven to say,(995) _Deserimus in hac parte Hieronymum,\nneque ei in his dictis assentimus_; also by Ambrose on 1 Tim. iii.;\nAugustine in his Book of Questions out of both Testaments, quest. 101;\nChrysostom on 1 Tim. iii.; Isidore, dist. 21, cap. 1; the Canon Law, dist.\n93, cap. 24, and dist. 95, cap. 5; Lombard., lib. 4, dist. 24. And after\nhim, by many schoolmen, such as Aquinas, Alensis, Albertus, Bonaventura,\nRichardus, and Dominicus Soto, all mentioned by the Archbishop of Spalato,\nlib. 2, cap. 4, num. 25. Gerhard(996) citeth for the same judgment,\nAnselmus, Sedulius, Primasius, Theophylactus, Oecumenius, the Council of\nBasil, Arelatensis, J. Parisiensis, Erasmus, Medina, and Cassander, all\nwhich authors have grounded that which they say upon Scripture; for beside\nthat Scripture maketh no difference of order and degree betwixt bishops\nand elders, it showeth also that they are one and the same order. For in\nEphesus and Crete, they who were made elders were likewise made bishops,\nActs xx. 17, 28; Tit. i. 5, 7. And the Apostle, Phil. i. 1, divideth the\nwhole ministry in the church of Philippi into two orders, bishops and\ndeacons. Moreover, 1 Tim. iii., he giveth order only for bishops and\ndeacons, but saith nothing of a third order. Wherefore it is manifest,\nthat beside those two orders of elders and deacons, there is no other\necclesiastical order which hath any divine institution, or necessary use\nin the church; and princes should do well to apply their power and\nauthority to the extirpation and rooting out of popes, cardinals,\npatriarchs, primates, archbishops, bishops, suffragans, abbots, deans,\nvice-deans, priors, archdeacons, subdeacons, abbots, chancellors,\nchantors, subchantors, exorcists, monks, eremites, acoloths, and all the\nrabble of popish orders, which undo the church, and work more mischief in\nthe earth than can be either soon seen or shortly told.\n\nBut, contrariwise, princes ought to establish and maintain in the church,\nelders and deacons, according to the apostolical institution. Now elders\nare either such as labour in the word and doctrine, or else such as are\nappointed for discipline only. They who labour in the word and doctrine\nare either such as do only teach, and are ordained for conserving, in\nschools and seminaries of learning, the purity of Christian doctrine, and\nthe true interpretation of Scripture, and for detecting and confuting the\ncontrary heresies and errors, whom the Apostle calleth doctors or\nteachers; or else they are such as do not only teach, but also have a more\nparticular charge to watch over the flock, to seek that which is lost, to\nbring home that which wandereth, to heal that which is diseased, to bind\nup that which is broken, to visit every family, to warn every person, to\nrebuke, to comfort, &c., whom the Apostle called sometimes pastors, and\nsometimes bishops or overseers. The other sort of elders are ordained only\nfor discipline and church government, and for assisting of the pastors in\nruling the people, overseeing their manners, and censuring their faults.\nThat this sort of elders is instituted by the Apostle, it is put out of\ndoubt, not alone by Calvin, Beza, and the divines of Geneva, but also by\nChemnitius (_Exam._ part 2, p. 218), Gerhard (_Loc. Theol._, tom. 6, p.\n363, 364), Zanchius (in 4 _Proec._, col. 727), Martyr (in 1 Cor. xii. 28),\nBullinger (in 1 Tim. v. 17), Junius (_Animad. in Bell._, contr. 5, lib. 1,\ncap. 2), Polanus (_Synt._, lib. 7, cap. 11), Pareus (in Rom. xii. 8; 1\nCor. xii. 28), Cartwright (on 1 Tim. v. 17), the Professors of Leyden\n(_Syn. Pur. Theol._ disp. 42, thes. 20), and many more of our divines, who\nteach that the Apostle, 1 Tim. v. 17, directly implieth that there were\nsome elders who ruled well, and yet laboured not in the word and doctrine;\nand those elders he meaneth by them that rule, Rom. xii. 8; and by\n_governments_, 1 Cor. xii. 28, where the Apostle saith not, _helps in\ngovernments_, as our new English translation corruptly readeth, but\n_helps, governments_, &c. plainly putting governments for a different\norder from helps or deacons. Of these elders(997) speaketh Ambrose,(998)\nas Dr Fulk also understandeth him,(999) showing that with all nations\neldership is honourable; wherefore the synagogue also, and afterwards the\nchurch, hath had some elders of the congregation, without whose council\nand advice nothing was done in the church; and that he knew not by what\nnegligence this had grown out of use, except it had been by the\nsluggishness of the teachers, or rather their pride, whilst they seemed to\nthemselves to be something, and so did arrogate the doing of all by\nthemselves.\n\nDeacons were instituted by the apostles(1000) for collecting, receiving,\nkeeping, and distributing ecclesiastical goods, which were given and\ndedicated for the maintenance of ministers, churches, schools, and for the\nhelp and relief of the poor, the stranger, the sick, and the weak; also\nfor furnishing such things as are necessary to the ministration of the\nsacrament.(1001) Besides which employments, the Scripture hath assigned\nneither preaching, nor baptising, nor any other ecclesiastical function to\nordinary deacons.\n\n_Propos._ 2. Princes, in their dominions, ought to procure and effect,\nthat there be never wanting men qualified and fit for those ecclesiastical\nfunctions and charges which Christ hath ordained, and that such men only\nbe called, chosen, and set apart for the same.\n\nThere are two things contained in this proposition. 1. That princes ought\nto procure that the church never want men qualified and gifted for the\nwork and service of the holy ministry, for which end and purpose they\nought to provide and maintain schools and colleges, entrusted and\ncommitted to the rule and oversight of orthodox, learned, godly, faithful,\nand diligent masters, that so qualified and able men may be still\nfurnished and sent to take care that the ministers of the church neither\nwant due reverence, 1 Tim. v. 17; Heb. xiii. 17, nor sufficient\nmaintenance, 1 Cor. ix., that so men be not scarred from the service of\nthe ministry, but rather encouraged unto the same, 2 Chron. xxxi. 4.\n\n2. That princes ought also to take order and course, that well-qualified\nmen, and no others, be advanced and called to bear charge and office in\nthe church, for which purpose they should cause not one disdainful\nprelate, but a whole presbytery or company of elders, to take trial of him\nwho is to be taken into the number of preaching elders, and to examine\nwell the piety of his life, the verity of his doctrine, and his fitness to\nteach. And further, that due trial may be continually had of the growth or\ndecay of the graces and utterance of every pastor, it is the part of\nprinces to enjoin the visitation of particular churches, and the keeping\nof other presbyterial meetings, likewise the assembling of provincial, and\nnational synods, for putting order to such things as have not been helped\nin the particular presbyteries. And as for the other sort of elders,\ntogether with deacons, we judge the ancient order of this church to have\nbeen most convenient for providing of well-qualified men for those\nfunctions and offices; for the eighth head of the First Book of\nDiscipline, touching the election of elders and deacons, ordaineth that\nonly men of best knowledge and cleanest life be nominate to be in\nelection, and that their names be publicly read to the whole church by the\nminister, giving them advertisement that from among them must be chosen\nelders and deacons, that if any of these nominate be noted with public\ninfamy, he ought to be repelled; and that if any man know others of better\nqualities within the church than those that be nominate, they shall be put\nin election, that the church may have the choice.\n\nIf these courses, whereof we have spoken, be followed by Christian\nprinces, they shall, by the blessing of God, procure that the church shall\nbe served with able and fit ministers; but though thus they may _procurare\nspeciem_, yet they may not _designare individuum_, which now I am to\ndemonstrate.\n\n_Propos._ 3. Nevertheless,(1002) princes may not design nor appoint such\nor such particular men to the charge of such or such particular churches,\nor to the exercise of such or such ecclesiastical functions, but ought to\nprovide that such an order and form be kept in the election and ordination\nof the ministers of the church, as is warranted by the example of the\napostles and primitive church.\n\nThe vocation of a minister in the church is either inward or outward. The\ninward calling which one must have in finding himself, by the grace of\nGod, made both able and willing to serve God and his church faithfully in\nthe holy ministry, lieth not open to the view of men, and is only manifest\nto him from whom nothing can be hid; the outward calling is made up of\nelection and ordination: that signified in Scripture by _cheirotonia_ this\nby _cheirothesia_ concerning which things we say with Zanchius,(1003)\n_Magistratus_, &c.: \u201cIt pertaineth to a Christian magistrate and prince to\nsee for ministers unto his churches. But how? Not out of his own\narbitrement, but as God\u2019s word teacheth; therefore let the Acts of the\nApostles and the epistles of Paul be read, how ministers were elected and\nordained, and let them follow that form.\u201d\n\nThe right of election pertaineth to the whole church, which as it is\nmaintained by foreign divines who write of the controversies with Papists,\nand as it was the order which this church prescribed in the Books of\nDiscipline, so it is commended unto us by the example of the apostles, and\nof the churches planted by them. Joseph and Matthias were chosen and\noffered to Christ by the whole church, being about 120 persons, Acts i.\n15, 23; the apostles required the whole church and multitude of disciples,\nto choose out from among them seven men to be deacons, Acts vi. 2, 3; the\nHoly Ghost said to the whole church at Antioch, being assembled together\nto minister unto the Lord, \u201cSeparate me Barnabas and Saul,\u201d Acts xiii. 1,\n2; the whole church chose Judas and Silas to be sent to Antioch, Acts xv.\n22; the brethren who travelled in the church\u2019s affairs were chosen by the\nchurch, and are called the church\u2019s messengers, 2 Cor. viii. 19, 23; such\nmen only were ordained elders by Paul and Barnabas who were chosen and\napproved by the whole church, their suffrages being signified by the\nlifting up of their hands, Acts xiv. 23. Albeit, Chrysostom and other\necclesiastical writers use the word _cheirotonia_ for ordination and\nimposition of hands, yet when they take it in this sense, they speak it\nfiguratively and synecdochically, as Junius showeth.(1004) For these two,\nelection by most voices, and ordination by laying on of hands, were joined\ntogether, did cohere, as an antecedent and a consequent, whence the use\nobtained, that the whole action should be signified by one word, _per\nmodum intellectus_, collecting the antecedent from the consequent, and the\nconsequent from the antecedent. Nevertheless, according to the proper and\nnative signification of the word, it noteth the signifying of a suffrage\nor election by the lifting up of the hand, for _cheimotonehin_ is no other\nthing nor _chehiras tehinein_ or _hanatehineiu_ to lift or hold up the\nhands in sign of a suffrage; and so Chrysostom himself useth the word when\nhe speaketh properly, for he saith that the senate of Rome took upon him\n_cheirosoiehin theohne_; that is (as D. Potter turneth his words(1005)),\nto make gods by most voices.\n\nBellarmine(1006) reckoneth out three significations of the word\n_cheirosoiehin_: 1. To choose by suffrages; 2. Simply to choose which way\nsoever it be; 3. To ordain by imposition of hands. Junius answereth\nhim,(1007) that the first is the proper signification; the second is\nmetaphorical; the third synecdochical.\n\nOur English translators, 2 Cor. i. 19, have followed the metaphorical\nsignification, and in this place, Acts xiv. 23, the synecdochical. But\nwhat had they to do either with a metaphor or a synecdoche when the text\nmay bear the proper sense? Now that Luke, in this place, useth the word in\nthe proper sense, and not in the synecdochical, Gerhard(1008) proveth from\nthe words which he subjoineth, to signify the ordaining of those elders by\nthe laying on of hands; for he saith that they prayed, and fasted, and\ncommended them to the Lord, in which words he implieth the laying on of\nhands upon them, as may be learned from Acts vi. 6, \u201cWhen they had prayed,\nthey laid their hands on them;\u201d Acts xiii. 3, \u201cWhen they had fasted, and\nprayed, and laid their hands on them;\u201d so Acts viii. 15, 17, prayer and\nlaying on of hands went together. Wherefore by _cheirotouh\u00easagtes_ Luke\npointeth at the election of those elders by voices, being, in the\nfollowing words, to make mention of their ordination by imposition of\nhands.\n\nCartwright(1009) hath for the same point other weighty reasons: \u201cIt is\nabsurd (saith he) to imagine that the Holy Ghost, by Luke, speaking with\nthe tongues of men, that is to say, to their understanding, should use a\nword in that signification in which it was never used before his time by\nany writer, holy or profane, for how could he then be understood, if using\nthe note and name they used, he should have fled from the signification\nwhereunto they used it, unless therefore his purpose was to write that\nwhich none could read? It must needs be that as he wrote so he meant the\nelection by voices. And if Demosthenes, for knowledge in the tongue, would\nhave been ashamed to have noted the laying down of hands by a word that\nsignifieth the lifting of them up, they do the Holy Ghost (which taught\nDemosthenes to speak) great injury in using this impropriety and\nstrangeness of speech unto himself, which is yet more absurd, considering\nthat there were both proper words to utter the laying on of hands by, and\nthe same also was used in the translation of the LXX, which Luke, for the\nGentiles\u2019 sake, did, as it may seem (where he conveniently could), most\nfollow. And yet it is most of all absurd that Luke, which straiteneth\nhimself to keep the words of the seventy interpreters, when as he could\nhave otherwise uttered things in better terms than they did, should here\nforsake the phrase wherewith they noted the laying on of hands, being most\nproper and natural to signify the same. The Greek Scholiast also, and the\nGreek Ignatius, do plainly refer this word to the choice of the church by\nvoices.\u201d\n\nBut it is objected, that Luke saith not of the whole church, but only of\nPaul and Barnabas, that they made them by voices elders in every city.\n\n_Ans._ But how can one imagine that betwixt them two alone the matter went\nto suffrages? Election by most voices, or the lifting up of the hand in\ntaking of a suffrage, had place only among a multitude assembled together.\nWherefore we say with Junius,(1010) that \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u1f76\u03bd is both a common\nand a particular action whereby a man chooseth, by his own suffrage in\nparticular, and likewise with others in common, so that in one and the\nsame action we cannot divide those things which are so joined together.\n\nFrom that which hath been said, it plainly appeareth that the election of\nministers, according to the apostolic institution, pertaineth to the whole\nbody of that church where they are to serve; and that this was the\napostolic and primitive practice, it is acknowledged even by some of the\nPapists, such as Lorinus, Salmeron, and Gaspar Sanctius, all upon Acts\nxiv. 23. The canon law(1011) itself commendeth this form and saith,\n_Electio clericorum est petitio plebis_. And was he not a popish\narchbishop(1012) who condescended that the city of Magedeburg should have\n_jus vocandi ac constituendi ecclesiae ministros_? Neither would the city\naccept of peace without this condition.\n\nThat in the ancient church, for a long time, the election of ministers\nremained in the power of the whole church or congregation, it is evident\nfrom Cypr., lib. 1, epist. 4, 68; August., epist. 106; Leo I., epist. 95;\nSocrat., lib. 4, cap. 30; and lib. 6, cap. 2; Possidon, _in Vita Aug._,\ncap. 4. The testimonies and examples themselves, for brevity\u2019s cause, I\nomit. As for the thirteenth canon of the Council of Laodicea, which\nforbiddeth to permit to the people the election of such as were to\nminister at the altar, we say with Osiander,(1013) that this canon cannot\nbe approved, except only in this respect, that howbeit the people\u2019s\nelection and consent be necessary, yet the election is not wholly and\nsolely to be committed to them, excluding the judgment and voice of the\nclergy. And that this is all which the Council meant, we judge with\nCalvin(1014) and Gerhard.(1015) That this is the true interpretation of\nthe canon, Junius(1016) proveth both by the words \u1f44\u03c7\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd,\n_permittere turbis_, for \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd signifieth to quit and leave the whole\nmatter to the fidelity and will of others; and, likewise, by the common\nend and purpose of that Council which was to repress certain faults of the\npeople which had prevailed through custom. Indeed, if the whole matter\nwere altogether left to the people, contentions and confusions might be\nfeared; but whilst we plead for the election of the people, we add,\n\n1. Let the clergy of the adjacent bounds, in their presbyterial assembly,\ntry and judge who are fit for the ministry; thereafter let a certain\nnumber of those who are by them approven as fit, be offered and propounded\nto the vacant church, that a free election may be made of some one of that\nnumber, providing always that if the church or congregation have any real\nreason for refusing the persons nominate and offered unto them, and for\nchoosing of others, their lawful desires be herein yielded unto.\n\n2. Even when it comes to the election,(1017) yet _populus non solus\njudicat, sed proeunte et moderante actionem clero et presbyterio_, let the\nelders of the congregation, together with some of the clergy concurring\nwith them, moderate the action, and go before the body of the people.\n\nWould to God that these things were observed by all who desire the worthy\noffice of a pastor; for neither the patron\u2019s presentation, nor the\nclergy\u2019s nomination, examination and recommendation, nor the bishop\u2019s\nlaying on of hands and giving of institution, nor all these put together,\ncan make up to a man\u2019s calling to be a pastor to such or such a particular\nflock, without their own free election. Even, as in those places where\nprinces are elected, the election gives them _jus ad rem_ (as they speak),\nwithout which the inauguration can never give them _jus in re_; so a man\nhath, from his election, power to be a pastor so far as concerneth _jus ad\nrem_, and ordination only applieth him to the actual exercising of his\npastoral office, which ordination ought to be given unto him only who is\nelected, and that because he is elected. And of him who is obtruded and\nthrust upon a people, without their own election, it is well said by\nZanchius, that he can neither with a good conscience exercise his\nministry, nor yet be profitable to the people, because they will not\nwillingly hear him, nor submit themselves unto him.\n\nFurthermore, because patronages and presentation to benefices do often\nprejudge the free and lawful election which God\u2019s word craveth, therefore\nthe Second Book of Discipline, chap. 12, albeit it permitteth and alloweth\nthe ancient patrons of prebendaries, and such benefices as have not _curam\nanimarum_, to reserve their patronages, and to dispone thereupon to\nbenefices that have _curam animarum_, may have no place in this light of\nreformation. Not that we think a man presented to a benefice that hath\n_curam animarum_ cannot be lawfully elected, but because of the often and\nordinary abuse of this unnecessary custom, we could wish it abolished by\nprinces.\n\nIt followeth to speak of ordination, wherein, with Calvin,(1018)\nJunius,(1019) Gersom Burer,(1020) and other learned men, we distinguish\nbetwixt the act of it and the rite of it. The act of ordination standeth\nin the mission to the deputation of a man to an ecclesiastical function,\nwith power and authority to perform the same; and thus are pastors\nordained when they are sent to a people with power to preach the word,\nminister the sacraments, and exercise ecclesiastical discipline among\nthem. For \u201cHow shall they preach except they be sent?\u201d Rom. x. 15. Unto\nwhich mission or ordination neither prayer nor imposition of hands, nor\nany other of the church\u2019s rites, is essential and necessary, as the\nArchbishop of Spalato showeth,(1021) who placeth the essential act of\nordination in _missione potestativa_, or a simple deputation and\napplication of a minister to his ministerial function with power to\nperform it. This may be done, saith he, by word alone, without any other\nceremony, in such sort that the fact should hold, and the ordination thus\ngiven should be valid enough. When a man is elected by the suffrages of\nthe church, then his ordination is _quasi solennis missio in possessionem\nhonoris illius, ex decreto_, saith Junius.(1022) Chemnitius noteth,(1023)\nthat when Christ, after he had chosen his twelve apostles, ordained them\nto preach the gospel, to cast out devils, and to heal diseases, we read of\nno ceremony used in this ordination, but only that Christ gave them power\nto preach, to heal, and to cast out devils, and so sent them away to the\nwork. And howsoever the church hath for order and decency used some rite\nin ordination, yet there is no such rite to be used with opinion of\nnecessity, or as appointed by Christ or his apostles. When our writers\nprove against Papists that order is no sacrament, this is one of their\narguments, that there is no rite instituted in the New Testament to be\nused in the giving of orders. Yet because imposition of hands was used in\nordination not only by the apostles, who had power to give extraordinarily\nthe gifts of the Holy Ghost, but likewise by the presbytery or company of\nelders; and Timothy did not only receive the gift that was in him, by the\nlaying on of Paul\u2019s hands. 2 Tim. i. 16, as the mean, but also with the\nlaying on of the hands of the presbytery, 1 Tim. iv. 14, as the rite and\nsign of his ordination; therefore the church, in the after ages, hath\nstill kept and used the same rite in ordination, which rite shall, with\nour leave, be yet retained in the church, providing, 1. It be not used\nwith opinion of necessity; for that the church hath full liberty either to\nuse any other decent rite (not being determined by the word to any one),\nor else to use no rite at all, beside a public declaration that the person\nthere presented is called and appointed to serve the church in the\npastoral office, together with exhortation to the said person, and the\ncommending of him to the grace of God, the church not being tied by the\nword to use any rite at all in the giving of ordination. 2. That it be not\nused as a sacred significant ceremony to represent and signify either the\ndelivering to the person ordained authority to preach and to minister the\nsacraments, or the consecration and mancipation of him to the holy\nministry; or, lastly, God\u2019s bestowing of the gifts of his Spirit upon him,\ntogether with his powerful protection and gracious preservation in the\nperforming of the works of his calling, but only as a moral sign, solemnly\nto assign and point out the person ordained; which, also, was one of the\nends and uses whereunto this rite of laying on of hands was applied by the\napostles themselves, as Chemnitius showeth.(1024) And so Joshua was\ndesigned and known to the people of Israel as the man appointed to be the\nsuccessor of Moses, by that very sign, that Moses laid his hands on him,\nDeut. xxxiv.\n\nAs a sacred significant ceremony we may not use it, 1. Because it hath\nbeen proved,(1025) that men may never, at their pleasure, ascribe to any\nrite whatsoever, a holy signification of some mystery of faith or duty of\npiety. The apostles, indeed, by laying on of their hands, did signify\ntheir giving of the gift of the Holy Ghost; but, now, as the miracle, so\nthe mystery hath ceased, and the church not having such power to make the\nsignification answer to the sign, if now a sacred or mystical\nsignification be placed in the rite, it is but an empty and void sign, and\nrather minical than mystical. 2. All such sacred rites as have been\nnotoriously abused to superstition, if they have no necessary use, ought\nto be abolished, as we have also proven;(1026) therefore, if imposition of\nhands in ordination be accounted and used as a sacred rite, and as having\na sacred signification (the use of it not being necessary), it becometh\nunlawful, by reason of the bygone and present superstitious abuse of the\nsame in Popery.\n\nNow the right and power of giving ordination to the ministers of the\nchurch belongeth primarily and wholly to Christ, who communicateth the\nsame with his bride the church. Both the bridegroom for his part, and the\nbride for her part, have delivered this power of ordination to the\npresbytery _jure_ DIVINO. Afterward the presbytery conferred, _jure\nhumano_, this power upon them, who were specially called bishops, whence\nthe tyrannical usurpation of bishops hath in process followed, claiming\nthe proper right and ordinary position of that which at first they had\nonly by free concession; and thus that great divine, Franciscus\nJunius,(1027) deriveth the power of ordination. All which, that it may be\nplain unto us, let us observe four several passages.\n\n1. The whole church(1028) hath the power of ordination communicated to her\nfrom Christ, to whom it wholly pertaineth; for, 1. It is most certain (and\namong our writers agreed upon) that, to the whole church collectively\ntaken, Christ hath delivered the keys of the kingdom of heaven with power\nto use the same, promising that whosoever the church bindeth on earth,\nshall be bound in heaven, and whosoever she looseth on earth, shall be\nloosed in heaven, Matt. xviii. 18; therefore he hath also delivered unto\nthe whole church power to call and ordain ministers for using the keys,\notherwise the promise might be made void, because the ministers which she\nnow hath may fail. 2. Christ hath appointed a certain and an ordinary way\nhow the church may provide herself of ministers, and so may have ever in\nherself the means of grace and comfort sufficient to herself, according to\nthat of the Apostle, 1 Cor. iii. 21, 22, \u201cAll things are yours, whether\nPaul or Apollos,\u201d &c. But if she had not the power of ordaining ministers\nunto herself when she needeth, then might she sometimes be deprived of\nsuch an ordinary and certain way of providing herself. 3. When the\nministry of the church faileth or is wanting, Christian people have power\nto exercise that act of ordination which is necessary to the making of a\nminister. Dr Fulk(1029) showeth out of Ruffinus and Theodoret, that\n\u00c6desius and Frumentius, being but private men, by preaching of the gospel,\nconverted a great nation of the Indians; and that the nation of the\nIberians being converted by a captive woman, the king and the queen became\nteachers of the gospel to the people. And might not, then, the church in\nthose places both elect and ordain ministers?\n\n2. The church hath, by divine institution, delivered the power of\nordaining ordinary ministers to the presbytery, whereof the church\nconsisteth _repr\u00e6sentative_. And so saith Pareus,(1030) that the power of\nmission (which is _ordination_) belongeth to the presbytery. _Scriptura_,\nsaith Balduine,(1031) _ordinationem tribuit toti presbyterio, non seorsim\nepiscopo_. With whom say the Professors of Leyden in like manner.(1032)\nNow when the divines of Germany and Belgia speak of a presbytery, they\nunderstand such a company as hath in it both those two sorts of elders\nwhich we speak of, viz., some who labour in the word and doctrine, whom\nthe Apostle calleth bishops, and others who labour only in discipline. The\napostolic and primitive times knew neither parishional nor diocesan\nchurches. Christians lived then in cities only, not in villages, because\nof the persecution; and it is to be remembered, that in Rome, Corinth,\nEphesus, Colosse, Philippi, Thessalonica, and such other cities inhabited\nby Christians, there were more pastors than one. The Apostle called unto\nhim the elders (not elder) of the church of Ephesus, Acts xx. 17; he\nwriteth to the bishops (not bishop) of the church at Philippi, Phil. i. 1;\nhe biddeth the Thessalonians know them (not him) which laboured among\nthem, 2 Thess. v. 12. Now that number of pastors or bishops which was in\none city, did in common govern all the churches within the city, and there\nwas not any one pastor who, by himself, governed a certain part of the\ncity particularly assigned to his charge, to which purpose the Apostle\nexhorteth the elders of the church at Ephesus, to take heed to all the\nflock, \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff3 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bc\u03b9\u1ff3, Acts xx. 28. And to the same purpose it is said by\nJerome,(1033) that before schemes and divisions were, by the devil\u2019s\ninstigation, made in religion, _communi presbyterorum consilio ecclesi\u00e6\ngubernabantur_.\n\nThis number of preaching elders in one city, together with those elders\nwhich, in the same city, laboured for discipline only, made up that\ncompany which the Apostle,(1034) 1 Tim. iv. 14, calleth a presbytery, and\nwhich gave ordination to the ministers of the church. To the whole\npresbytery, made up of those two sorts of elders, belonged the act of\nordination, which is mission, howbeit the right,(1035) which was\nimposition of hands, belonged to those elders alone which laboured in the\nword and doctrine. And so we are to understand that which the Apostle\nthere saith of the presbytery\u2019s laying on of hands upon Timothy. As for Dr\nDowname\u2019s(1036) two glosses upon that place, which he borroweth from\nBellarmine, and whereby he thinketh to elude our argument, we thank Dr\nForbesse(1037) for confuting them. _Quod autem_, &c.: \u201cBut whereas (saith\nhe) some have expounded the presbytery in this place to be a company of\nbishops, except by bishops thou would understand presbyteries, it is a\nviolent interpretation, and an insolent meaning, and whereas others have\nunderstood the degree itself of eldership, this cannot stand, for the\ndegree hath not hands, but hands are men\u2019s.\u201d Wherefore the Doctor himself,\nby the presbytery whereof the Apostle speaketh, understandeth (as we do)\n_confessus presbyterorum_.\n\nBut since we cannot find, in the apostles\u2019 times, any other presbytery or\nassembly of elders beside that which hath been spoken of, how cometh it,\nnay, some say that the church of Scotland, and other reformed churches,\ndid appoint two sorts of presbyterial assemblies, one (which here we call\nsessions) wherein the pastor of the parish, together with those elders\nwithin the same, whom the Apostle calleth governments and presidents, put\norder to the government of that congregation, another (which here we\npresbyteries) wherein the pastors of sundry churches, lying near together,\ndo assemble themselves? Which difficulty yet more increaseth, if it be\nobjected that neither of these two doth in all points answer or conform\nitself unto that primitive form of presbytery whereof we speak. _Ans._ The\ndivision and multiplication of parishes, and the appointment of particular\npastors to the peculiar oversight of particular flocks, together with the\nplantation of churches in villages as well as in cities, hath made it\nimpossible for us to be served with that only one form of presbytery which\nwas constitute in the apostles\u2019 times. But this difference of the times\nbeing (as it ought to be) admitted, for an inevitable cause of the\ndifferences of the former, both those two forms of presbyterial meetings\nappointed by the church of Scotland do not only necessarily result from\nthat one apostolic form, but likewise (the actions of them both being laid\ntogether) do accomplish all these ordinary ecclesiastical functions which\nwere by it performed.\n\nAnd first, Sessions have a necessary use, because the pastors and those\nelders who assist them in the governing of their flocks must, as well\nconjunctly as severally, as well publicly as privately, govern, admonish,\nrebuke, censure, &c. As for presbyteries, because the parishes being\ndivided in most places, there is but one pastor in a parish, except there\nshould be a meeting of a number of pastors out of divers parishes, neither\ncould trial be well had of the growth or decay of the gifts, graces, and\nutterance of every pastor, for which purpose the ninth head of the First\nbook of Discipline appointed the ministers of adjacent churches to meet\ntogether at convenient times, in towns and public places, for the exercise\nof prophecying and interpreting of Scripture, according to that form\ncommended to the church at Corinth, 1 Cor. xiv. 29-32. For yet could the\nchurches be governed by the common council and advice of presbyteries,\nwhich being necessary by apostolic institution, and being the foundation\nand ground of our presbyteries, it maketh them necessary too.\n\n3. After the golden age of the apostles was spent and away, presbyteries,\nfinding themselves disturbed with emulations, contentions, and factions,\nfor unity\u2019s sake, chose one of their number to preside among them, and to\nconfer, in name of the rest, the rite and sign of initiation (which was\nimposition of hands) on them whom they ordained ministers. This honour did\nthe presbyters yield to him who was specially and peculiarly called\nbishop, _jure humano_; yet the act of ordination they still reserved in\ntheir own power. And wheresoever the act doth thus remain in the power of\nthe whole presbytery, the conferring of the outward sign or rite by one in\nthe name of the rest, none of us condemneth, as may be seen in Beza,\nDidoclavius, and Gersom Bucer. Neither is there any more meant by\nJerome(1038) when he saith, \u201cWhat doth a bishop (ordination being\nexcepted) which a presbyter may not do?\u201d For, 1. He speaketh not of the\nact of ordination, which remained in the power of the presbytery, but of\nthe outward sign or rite, which synedochically he calls ordination.(1039)\n2. He speaketh only of the custom of that time, and not of any divine\ninstitution; for that the imposition of hands pertained to the bishop\nalone, not by divine institution, but only by ecclesiastical custom,\nJunius proveth(1040) out of Tertullian, Jerome and Ambrose.\n\n4. Afterward bishops began to appropriate to themselves that power which\npertained unto them _jure devoluto_, as if it had been their own _jure\nproprio_. Yet so that some vestiges of the ancient order have still\nremained; for both Augustine and Ambrose (whose words, most plain to this\npurpose, are cited by Dr Forbesse(1041)) testify that, in their time, in\nAlexandria and all Egypt, the presbyters gave ordination when a bishop was\nnot present. The canon law(1042) ordaineth that, in giving of ordination,\npresbyters lay on their hands, together with the bishop\u2019s hands. And it is\nholden by many Papists (of whom Dr Forbesse(1043) allegeth some for the\nsame point) that any simple presbyter (whom they call a priest) may, with\nthe Pope\u2019s commandment or concession, give valid ordination. That which\nmaketh them grant so much is, because they dare not deny that presbyters\nhave the power of ordination _jure divino_. Yet saith Panormitanus,(1044)\n_Olim presbytery in communi regebant ecclesiam, et ordinabant sacradotes._\nThe Doctor himself holdeth, that one simple presbyter howsoever having, by\nvirtue of his presbyterial order, power to give ordination, _quod ad actum\nprimum sive aptitudinem_, yet _quo ad exercitium_ cannot validly give\nordination without a commission from the bishop or from the presbytery, if\neither there be no bishop, or else he be a heretic or wolf. But I would\nlearn why may not the presbytery validly ordain, either by themselves, or\nby any one presbyter with commission and power from them, even where there\nis a bishop (and he no heretic) who consenteth not thereto; for the\nDoctor(1045) acknowledgeth, that not only _quo ad aptitudinem_, but even\n_quo ad plenariam ordinationis executionem_, the same power pertaineth to\nthe presbytery _collegialiter_, which he allegeth (but proveth not) that\nthe apostles gave to bishops _personaliter_.\n\nNow from all these things princes may learn how to reform their own and\nthe prelates\u2019 usurpation, and how to reduce the orders and vocation of\necclesiastical persons unto conformity with the apostolic and primitive\npattern, from which if they go on either to enjoin or to permit a\ndeparting, we leave them to be judged by the King of terrors.\n\n\n\n                              DIGRESSION II.\n\n\nOF THE CONVOCATION AND MODERATION OF SYNODS.\n\n\nTouching the convocation of synods, we resolve with the Professors of\nLeyden,(1046) that if a prince do so much as tolerate the order and\nregiment of the church to be public, his consent and authority should be\ncraved, and he may also design the time, place, and other circumstances;\nbut much more,(1047) if he be a Christian and orthodox prince, should his\nconsent, authority, help, protection, and safeguard be sought and granted.\nAnd that according to the example, both of godly kings in the Old\nTestament, and of Christian emperors and kings in the New.(1048) Chiefly,\nthen, and justly(1049) the magistrate may and ought to urge and require\nsynods, when they of the ecclesiastical order cease from doing their duty.\n_Veruntamen si contra_,(1050) &c. \u201cNevertheless (say they), if,\ncontrariwise, the magistrate be an enemy and persecutor of the church and\nof true religion, or cease to do his duty; that is, to wit, in a manifest\ndanger of the church, the church notwithstanding ought not to be wanting\nto herself, but ought to use the right and authority of convocation, which\nfirst and foremost remaineth with the rulers of the church, as may be\nseen, Acts xv.\u201d\n\nBut that this be not thought a tenet of anti-episcopal writers alone, let\nus hear what is said by one of our greatest opposites:(1051) _Neque\ndefendimus ita_, &c.: \u201cNeither do we so defend that the right of\nconvocating councils pertaineth to princes, as that the ecclesiastical\nprelates may no way either assemble themselves together by mutual consent,\nor be convocated by the authority of the metropolitan, primate, or\npatriarch. For the apostles did celebrate councils without any convocation\nof princes. So many councils that were celebrate before the first Nicea,\nwere, without all doubt, gathered together by the means alone of\necclesiastical persons; for to whom directly the church is fully\ncommitted, they ought to bear the care of the church. Yet princes in some\nrespect indirectly, for help and aid, chiefly then when the prelates\nneglect to convocate councils, or are destitute of power for doing of the\nsame, of duty may, and use to convocate them.\u201d Where we see his judgment\nto be, that the power of convocating councils pertaineth directly to\necclesiastical persons, and to princes only indirectly, for that they\nought to give help and aid to the convocation of the same, especially when\nchurchmen either will not or cannot assemble themselves together. His\nreasons whereupon he groundeth his judgment are two, and those strong\nones.\n\n1. The apostolical councils, Acts vi. 2; iv. 16, and so many as were\nassembled before the first council of Nice, were not convocated by\nprinces, but by ecclesiastical persons without the leave of princes;\ntherefore, in the like cases, the church ought to use the like liberty,\nthat is, when there is need of synods, either for preventing or reforming\nsome corruptions in the doctrine or policy of the church; and for avoiding\nsuch inconveniences as may impede the course of the gospel (princes in the\nmeantime being hostile opposites to the truth of God and to the purity of\nreligion), then to convocate the same without their authority and leave.\n\n2. The church is fully committed (and that directly) to the ministers whom\nChrist hath set to rule over the same; therefore they ought to take care\nand to provide for all her necessities as those who must give account, and\nbe answerable to God for any hurt which she receiveth in things spiritual\nor ecclesiastical, for which (when they might) they did not provide a\nremedy, which being so, it followeth, that when princes will neither\nconvocate synods, nor consent to the convocating of them, yet if the\nconvocating of a synod be a necessary mean for healing of the church\u2019s\nhurt, and ecclesiastical persons be able (through the happy occasion of a\nfit opportunity) synodically to assemble themselves, in that case they\nought by themselves to come together, unless one would say that princes\nalone, and not pastors, must give account to God how it hath gone with the\nchurch in matters spiritual and ecclesiastical.\n\nIf it be objected that our divines maintain against Papists, that the\nright and power of convocating synods pertaineth to princes: _Ans._, And\nso say I; but for making the purpose more plain I add three directions: 1.\nIn ordinary cases, and when princes are not enemies to the truth and\npurity of the gospel, ecclesiastical persons should not do well to\nassemble themselves together in a synod, except they be convocate with the\nauthority or consent of princes. Yet, as Junius showeth,(1052) in\nextraordinary cases, and when the magistrate will not concur nor join with\nthe church, the church may well assemble and come together beside his\nknowledge, and without his consent, for that extraordinary evils must have\nextraordinary remedies. 2. Ecclesiastical persons may convocate councils\nsimply, and by a spiritual power and jurisdiction; but to convocate them\nby a temporal and coactive power, pertaineth to princes only.\n\u201cEcclesiastical power (saith the Archbishop of Spalato(1053)) may appoint\nand convocate councils; but yet the ecclesiastical power itself cannot,\nwith any effect or working, compel bishops, especially if the bishops of\nanother province, or kingdom, or patriarchship, be to be convocated. For\nbecause the church can work by her censures, and deprive them who refuse\nof her communion, if they come not, yet they shall not therefore come to\nthe council if they contemn the censure; therefore that no man may be able\nto resist, it is necessary that they be called by a coactive authority,\nwhich can constrain them who gainstand, both with banishments and bodily\npunishments, and compel the bishops, not only of one province, but also of\nthe whole kingdom or empire, to convene.\u201d 3. In the main and substantial\nrespects, the convocations of councils pertaineth to the ministers of the\nchurch, that is, as councils are ecclesiastical meetings, for putting\norder to ecclesiastical matters, they ought to be assembled by the\nspiritual power of the ministers, whose part it is to espy and note all\nthe misorders and abuses in the church, which must be righted; but because\ncouncils are such meetings as must have a certain place designed for them\nin the dominions and territories of princes, needing further, for their\nsafe assembling, a certification of their princely protection; and,\nfinally, it being expedient for the better success of councils, that\nChristian princes be present therein, either personal or by their\ncommissioners, that they may understand the councils, conclusions, and\ndecrees, and assenting unto the same, ratify and establish them by their\nregal and royal authority, because of these circumstances it is, that the\nconsent and authority of Christian princes is, and ought to be, sought and\nexpected for the assembling of synods.\n\nAs for the right of presidency and moderation, we distinguish, with\nJunius,(1054) two sorts of it, both which have place in councils, viz.,\nthe moderation of the ecclesiastical action, and the moderation of the\nhuman order; and with him we say, that in councils, the whole\necclesiastical action ought to be moderated by such a president as is\nelected for the purpose; even as Hosius, bishop of Corduba, was chosen to\npreside in the first council of Nice: which office agreeth not with\nprinces; for in the point of propounding rightly the state of questions\nand things to be handled, and of containing the disputation in good order,\n_certe pr\u00e6sidere debet persona ecclesiastica, in sacris literis erudita_,\nsaith the Archbishop of Spalato.(1055) The presiding and moderating in the\nhuman order, that is, by a coactive power to compass the turbulent, to\navoid all confusion and contention, and to cause a peaceable proceeding\nand free deliberation, pertaineth indeed to princes, and so did\nConstantine preside in the same council of Nice.\n\n\n\n                             DIGRESSION III.\n\n\nOF THE JUDGING OF CONTROVERSIES AND QUESTIONS OF FAITH.\n\n\nThere is a twofold judgment which discerneth and judgeth of faith. The one\nabsolute, whereby the Most High God, whose supreme authority alone bindeth\nus to believe whatsoever he propoundeth to be believed by us, hath in his\nwritten word pronounced, declared, and established, what he would have us\nto believe concerning himself or his worship; the other limited and\nsubordinate, which is either public or private. That which is public is\neither ordinary or extraordinary. The ministerial or subordinate public\njudgment, which I call ordinary, is the judgment of every pastor or\ndoctor, who, by reason of his public vocation and office, ought by his\npublic ministry to direct and instruct the judgments of other men in\nmatters of faith, which judgment of pastors and doctors is limited and\nrestricted to the plain warrants and testimonies of Holy Scripture, they\nthemselves being only the ambassadors(1056) of the Judge to preach and\npublish the sentence which he hath established, so that a pastor is not\nproperly _judex_ but _index_. The subordinate public judgment, which is\nextraordinary, is the judgment of a council assembled for the more public\nand effectual establishment and declaration of one or more points of faith\nand heads of Christian doctrine, and that in opposition to all contrary\nheresy or error, which is broached and set a-foot in the church. From\nwhich council,(1057) no Christian man who is learned in the Scriptures may\nbe excluded, but ought to be admitted to utter his judgment in the same;\nfor in the indagation or searching out of a matter of faith, they are not\nthe persons of men which give authority to their sayings, but the reasons\nand documents which every one bringeth for his judgment. The subordinate\njudgment, which I call private, is the judgment of discretion whereby\nevery Christian,(1058) for the certain information of his own mind, and\nthe satisfaction of his own conscience, may and ought to try and examine,\nas well the decrees of councils as the doctrines of particular pastors,\nand in so far to receive and believe the same, as he understandeth them to\nagree with the Scriptures.\n\nBesides these, there is no other kind of judgment which God hath allowed\nto men in matters of faith, which being first observed, we say next,\nconcerning the part of princes, that when questions and controversies of\nfaith are tossed in the church, that which pertaineth to them is, to\nconvocate a council for the decision of the matter, civilly to moderate\nthe same, by causing such an orderly and peaceable proceeding as is alike\nnecessary in every grave assembly, whether of the church or of the\ncommonwealth; and, finally, by their coactive temporal power to urge and\nprocure that the decrees of the council be received, and the faith therein\ncontained professed, by their subjects.\n\nBut neither may they, by their own authority and without a council, decide\nany controverted matter of faith, nor yet having convocated a council, may\nthey take upon them to command, rule, order, and dispose the disputes and\ndeliberations according to their arbitrement; nor, lastly, may they, by\nvirtue of their regal dignity, claim any power to examine the decrees\nconcluded in the council, otherwise than by the judgment of private\ndiscretion which is common to every Christian.\n\nFirst, I say, they may not by themselves presume, publicly and judicially,\nto decide and define any matter of faith, which is questioned in the\nchurch; but this definition they ought to remit unto a lawful and free\ncouncil. Ambrose would not come to the court to be questioned and judged\nby the emperor Valentinian in a matter of faith, whenever he heard that\nemperors judged bishops in matters of faith, seeing, if that were granted,\nit would follow that laymen should dispute and debate matters, and bishops\nhear, yea, that bishops should learn of laymen.\n\nThe true ground of which refusal (clear enough in itself) is darkened by\nDr Field,(1059) who allegeth, 1. That the thing which Valentinian took on\nhim was, to judge of a thing already resolved in a general council called\nby Constantine, as if it had been free, and not yet judged of at all. 2.\nThat Valentinian was known to be partial; that he was but a novice; and\nthe other judges which he meant to associate himself suspected; but\nhowsoever these circumstances might serve the more to justify Ambrose\u2019s\nnot compearing to be judged in a matter of faith by Valentinian, yet the\nDoctor toucheth not that which is most considerable, namely, the reason\nwhich he alleged for his not compearing, because it hath been at no time\nheard of that emperors judged bishops in matters of faith, and if that\nwere granted, it would follow that bishops should learn of laymen; which\nreason holdeth ever good, even though the thing hath not been formerly\njudged by a council.\n\nAnd, furthermore, if those (which the Doctor mentioneth) were the true\nreasons of his refusing to be judged by Valentinian, then why did he\npretend another reason (whereof we have heard), and not rather defend\nhimself with the real and true reason? Wherefore we gather, that the\nreason which made Ambrose refuse to be judged by him was no other than\nthis, because he considered that princes, neither by themselves, nor by\nany whom they please to choose, may, without a lawfully assembled and free\ncouncil, usurp a public judgment and decisive sentence in controversies of\nfaith, which, if they arrogate to themselves, they far exceed the bounds\nof their vocation; for it is not said of princes, but of priests, that\ntheir lips should preserve knowledge, and that they should seek the law\nfrom their mouths, Mal. ii. 7. And the priests did Jehoshaphat set in\n\u201cJerusalem, for the judgment of the Lord, and for controversies,\u201d 2 Chron.\nxix. 8, 10, and for judging betwixt law and commandment, statutes and\njudgments.\n\nIn the meanwhile we deny not but that in extraordinary cases, when lawful\ncouncils cannot be had, and when the clergy is universally corrupted\nthrough gross ignorance, perverse affections, and incorrigible negligence,\nin such a case the prince, notwithstanding the defect of the ordinary and\nregular judges, may yet, by the power of the civil sword, repress and\npunish so many as publish and spread such doctrines as both he and other\nChristians, by the judgment of discretion, plainly understand from\nScripture to be heretical.\n\nNext, I say, that the prince, having assembled a council, may not take so\nmuch upon him as imperiously to command what he thinketh good in the\ndisputes and deliberations, and to have everything ordered, disposed, and\nhandled according to his mind. \u201cTo debate and define theological\ncontroversies, and to teach what is orthodoxal, what heretical, is the\noffice of divines, yet, by a coactive authority, to judge this orthodox\nfaith to be received by all, and heretical pravity to be rejected, is the\noffice of kings, or the supreme magistrates, in every commonwealth,\u201d saith\nthe Bishop of Salisbury.(1060) And, again,(1061) \u201cIn searching, directing,\nteaching, divines ordinarily, and by reason of their calling, ought to go\nbefore kings themselves; but in commanding, establishing, compelling,\nkings do far excel:\u201d where he showeth how, in defining of the\ncontroversies of religion, in one respect ecclesiastical persons, and in\nanother respect kings, have the first place.\n\nIn the debating of a question of faith, kings have not, by virtue of their\nprincely vocation, any precedency or chief place, the action being merely\necclesiastical. For howbeit kings may convocate a council, preside also\nand govern the same as concerning the human and political order, yet,\nsaith Junius,(1062) _Actiones, deliberationes, et definitiones, ad\nsubstantiam rei ecclesiasticae pertinentes, a sacerdotio sunt, a caetu\nservoram Dei, quibus rei suoe administrationem mandavit Deus._ And, with\nhim, the Archbishop of Spalato saith, in like manner,(1063) that howbeit\nChristian princes have convocated councils, and civilly governed the same,\nyet they had no power nor authority in the very discussing, handling and\ndeciding of matters of faith.\n\nWhat then? In the handling of controversies of faith, have princes no\nplace nor power at all beside that of political government only? Surely,\nby virtue of their princely authority, they have no other place in the\nhandling of these matters. Yet, what if they be men of singular learning\nand understanding in the Scriptures? Then let them propound their own\nsuffrage, with the grounds and reasons of it, even as other learned men in\nthe council do. But neither as princes, nor as men singularly learned, may\nthey require that others in the council shall dispute and debate matters,\nand that they themselves shall sit as judges having judicial power of a\nnegative voice; for in a council no man\u2019s voice hath any greater strength\nthan his reasons and probation have. _Non enim admitto_, &c: \u201cFor I admit\nnot in a council (saith the same prelate(1064)) some as judges, others as\ndisputators, for I have showed that a conciliary judgment consisteth in\nthe approbation of that sentence which, above others, hath been showed to\nhave most weight, and to which no man could enough oppose. Wherefore no\nman in the council ought to have a judiciary voice, unless he be withal a\ndisputator, and assigns a reason wherefore he assigns to that judgment and\nrepels another, and that reason such a one as is drawn from the Scripture\nonly, and from antiquity.\u201d\n\nLastly, I hold, that, after the definition and decision of a council,\nprinces may not take upon them, by any judicial power or public vocation,\nto examine the same, as if they had authority to pronounce yet another\ndecisive sentence, either ratifying or reversing what the council hath\ndecreed. Most certain it is, that, before princes give their royal assent\nunto the decrees of any council whatsoever, and compel men to receive and\nacknowledge the same, they ought, first of all, carefully to try and\nexamine them whether they agree with the Scriptures or not; and, if they\nfind them not to agree with the Scriptures, then to deny their assent and\nauthority thereto. But all the princes do not by any judicial power or\npublic authority, but only by the judgment of private discretion, which\nthey have as Christians, and which, together with them, is common also to\ntheir subjects; for neither may a master of a family commend to his\nchildren and servants the profession of that faith which is published by\nthe decrees of a council, except, in like manner, he examine the same by\nthe Scriptures.\n\n\n\n                              DIGRESSION IV.\n\n\nOF THE POWER OF THE KEYS, AND ECCLESIASTICAL CENSURES.\n\n\nEcclesiastical censures and punishments, wherewith delinquents are bound,\nand from which, when they turn penitents, they are loosed, are of two\nsorts: either such as are common, and agree unto all, as excommunication\nand absolution; or such as are peculiar, and agree only to men of\necclesiastical order, as suspension, deprivation, &c.\n\nAs touching the power of the keys, to bind and loose, excommunicate and\nabsolve; first of all, princes are to remember, that neither they may, by\nthemselves, exercise this power (for _regum est corporalem irrogare\npaenam; sacerdotum spiritualem inferre vindictam_(1065)), nor yet by their\ndeputies or commissioners in their name, and with authority from them;\nbecause, as they have not themselves the power of the keys, so neither can\nthey communicate the same unto others. Secondly, Forasmuch as princes are\nthe wardens, defenders, and revengers of both the Tables, they ought,\ntherefore, to provide and take course that neither laymen be permitted to\nhave and exercise, the power of excommunication, nor yet that the prelates\nthemselves be suffered, in their particular dioceses, to appropriate this\npower and external jurisdiction, as peculiar to themselves; but that it\nremain in their hands to whom it pertaineth by divine institution. What a\nwoeful abuse is it, that, in our neighbour churches of England and\nIreland, the bishop\u2019s vicar-general, or official, or commissary, being\noftentimes such a one as hath never entered into any holy orders, shall\nsit in his courts to use (I should have said abuse) the power of\nexcommunication and absolution? And what though some silly presbyter be\npresent in the court? Doth not the bishop\u2019s substitute, being a layman,\nexamine and judge the whole matter, decree, and give sentence what is to\nbe done? Hath he not the presbyter\u2019s tongue tied to his belt? And what\ndoth the presbyter more but only pronounce the sentence according to that\nwhich he who sitteth judge in the court hath decreed and decerned? As\ntouching the prelates themselves, I pray, by what warrant have they\nappropriated to themselves the whole external jurisdiction of binding and\nloosing, excommunicating and absolving? But that we may a little scan this\ntheir usurpation, and discover the iniquity thereof to the view of the\nprinces, whose part it is to cause the same to be reformed, let us\nconsider to whom Christ himself, who hath the key of David (Rev. iii. 7),\nwho openeth and no man shutteth, and shutteth and no man openeth, hath\ncommitted this power of the keys to be used on earth. And, first, Let us\ndistinguish betwixt the power itself, and the execution of it.\n\nThe power and authority of binding and loosing Christ hath delivered to\nthe whole church, that is, to every particular church collectively taken.\n\u201cThe authority of excommunication pertaineth to the whole church,\u201d saith\nDr Fulk.(1066) _Jus excommunicandi_, saith Balduine,(1067) _non est penes\nquamvis privatum, sive ex ordine sit ecclesiastico, sive politico_, &c.\n_Sed hoc jus pertiner ad totam ecclesiam._ So say Zanchius (in 4 Praec.,\ncol. 756), Polanus (_Synt._, lib. 7, cap. 18), Pareus (in 1 Cor. v., _De\nExcom._), Cartwright (on 1 Cor. v. 4), Perkins (on Jude 3): and,\ngenerally, all our sound writers. The Magdeburgians(1068) cite, for the\nsame judgment, Augustine and Primatius. Gerhard(1069) citeth also some\npopish writers assenting hereunto. The reasons which we give for\nconfirmation hereof are these:\u2014\n\n1. It pertaineth to the whole church, collectively taken, to deny her\nChristian communion to such wicked persons as add contumacy to their\ndisobedience: therefore, it pertaineth to the whole church to\nexcommunicate them. Again, it pertaineth to the whole church to admit and\nreceive one into her communion and familiar fellowship: therefore, to the\nwhole church it likewise pertaineth to cast one out of her communion.\nSure, the sentence of excommunication is pronounced in vain, except the\nwhole church cut off the person thus judged from all communion with her:\nand the sentence of absolution is to as little purpose pronounced, except\nthe whole church admit one again to have communion with her. Shortly, the\nwhole church hath the power of punishing a man, by denying her communion\nunto him: therefore, the whole church hath the power of judging that he\nought to be so punished. The whole church hath the power of remitting this\npunishment again: therefore, the whole church hath the power of judging\nthat it ought to be remitted.\n\n2. The Apostle, in 1 Cor. v., showeth that the Israelites\u2019 purging away of\nleaven out of their dwellings in the time of the passover, was a figure of\nexcommunication, whereby disobedient and obstinate sinners, who are as\nleaven to infect other men, are to be avoided and thrust out of the\nchurch. Now, as the purging away of the leaven did not peculiarly belong\nunto any one, or some few, among the Israelites, but unto the whole\ncongregation of Israel; so the Apostle, writing to the whole church of\nCorinth, even to as many as should take care to have the whole lump kept\nunleavened, saith to them all, \u201cKnow ye not that a little leaven leaveneth\nthe whole lump? Purge out, therefore, the old leaven. Put away from among\nyourselves that wicked person,\u201d 1 Cor. v. 6, 7, 13.\n\n3. Christ hath delivered the power of binding and loosing to every\nparticular church or congregation, collectively taken, which thus we\ndemonstrate:\u2014If our brother who trespasseth against us will neither be\nreclaimed by private admonition, nor yet by a rebuke given him before some\nmore witnesses, then, saith Christ, \u201cTell it unto the church; but if he\nneglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a\npublican. Verily, I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall\nbe bound in heaven, and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed\nin heaven,\u201d Matt. xviii. 17, 18: where he showeth, that, in the Christian\nchurch (which he was to plant by the ministry of the apostles),\nexcommunication was to be used as the last remedy for curing of the most\ndeadly and desperate evils; which excommunication he setteth forth by\nallusion unto the order and custom of the Jews in his time, among whom\nthey who were cast out, and excommunicate from the synagogue, were\naccounted as heathens and publicans. And so when he saith, \u201cLet him be\nunto thee as an heathen man and a publican,\u201d he presupposeth that the\nchurch hath excommunicated him for his contumacy, which he hath added to\nhis disobedience. For, as Pareus saith,(1070) \u201cIf by me, and thee, and\nevery one, he is to be accounted for such a man, it must needs be that the\njudgment of the church be, by public declaration, made known to me, and\nthee, and every one. And this meaning is thoroughly drawn out of the\nfollowing verse\u2014\u2018For whatsoever ye shall bind on earth,\u2019 &c.; therefore,\nthe church ought first to bind him before he ought to be accounted by me\nor thee for one bound, that is, excommunicate.\u201d Now, what meaneth Christ\nby the church, to which he giveth the power of binding and loosing? Not\nthe church universal, sure; for I cannot tell the church universal\n(whether it be understood _collective_ or _representative_) whensoever my\nbrother trespasseth against me, and will not be reformed. He meaneth,\ntherefore, the particular church, whereof, for the time, it shall happen\none to be a member. \u201cThe power of the keys (saith Perkins(1071)) is given\nto all ministers, churches, and congregations.\u201d Neither could there,\notherwise, an ordinary, perpetual, and ready course be had, for the\ncorrecting of all public contumacy and scandal, by the means of\necclesiastical discipline. But it will be said, when he biddeth us tell\nthat particular church whereof we are members, he meaneth not that we\nshould tell the whole body of that church _collective_, but that we should\ntell the governors of the church, who are the church _representative_.\n\nHow, then, is this place alleged to prove that the whole church\n_collective_ hath power and authority to bind and loose?\n\n_Ans._ Christ meaneth, indeed, that we should tell those governors who\nrepresent the church; but whilst he calleth them by the name of the\nchurch, and sendeth us to them as to those who represent the church, he\nplainly insinuateth that they exercise the power of the keys (as in his\nname, so) in the name of the church, and that this power and authority\npertaineth to the whole church, even as when one man representeth another\nman\u2019s person, whatsoever power he exerciseth _eo nomine_, doth first of\nall agree to the man who is represented.\n\n4. The Apostle, in his own proper person, writing to the whole church at\nCorinth, 1 Cor. v. 4, 5, will have them (being gathered together) to\ndeliver that incestuous person to Satan; therefore, every particular\nchurch or congregation hath power to excommunicate such a contumacious\nsinner as that incestuous person was. It is the common answer of Papists,\nthat albeit the Apostle commanded the act should be done in face of the\nchurch, yet the judgment and authority of giving sentence was in himself\nalone, and not in the church of Corinth, whereupon they would make it to\nfollow, that the power of excommunication pertaineth to the bishop alone,\nand not the church. And the same answer doth Saravia return to Beza;(1072)\nbut, howsoever, the Apostle saith, that he had already judged concerning\nthe incestuous person, yet he did not hereby seclude the church of Corinth\nfrom the authority of excommunicating him. \u201cIt is to be observed (saith\nCalvin(1073)) that Paul, albeit he was an apostle, doth not for his own\nwill excommunicate alone, but communicateth his council with the church,\nthat the thing may be done by common authority. Himself, indeed, goeth\nbefore and showeth the way, but whilst he adjoineth to himself other\npartakers, he signifieth sufficiently that it is not the private power of\none man.\u201d Nay, let us farther observe with Junius,(1074) that the apostles\nhath a twofold power: one common to them with other presbyters, 1 Pet. v.\n1; another, singular, proper, and extraordinary, which they had as\napostles. By this singular power Paul saith, \u201cWhat will ye? shall I come\nunto you with a rod?\u201d 1 Cor. iv. 21; but by the common power it was that\nhe said, \u201cWhen ye are gathered together, and my spirit,\u201d &c., 1 Cor. v. 4.\nBy no other power than that which was common to him with the rest of the\npresbyters or bishops in Corinth did he judge the incestuous person to be\nexcommunicated; and thus, as though he had been present in body among the\nother presbyters of that church, and assembled together with them in their\nordinary council or consistory (in which _fuerunt liberi apostoli, alii\nvero presbyteri ex vocatione propria, et necessitate officii_(1075)), so\nhe both pronounceth(1076) his own judgment, and likewise goeth before, by\npronouncing that judgment which was to be in common by them pronounced.\nFurthermore, that the Apostle would not have that incestuous man to be\nexcommunicate by his own authority alone, but by the authority of the\nchurch of Corinth, thus it appeareth:\n\n1. The Apostle challengeth and condemneth the Corinthians, 1 Cor. v. 2, 6,\n9, because they had not excommunicate him before his writing unto them,\nwhich he would never have done if that church had not had power and\nauthority of excommunication.\n\n2. Howbeit the Apostle gave his judgment, that he should be excommunicate,\nbecause he ought not to have been tolerated in the church, yet, for all\nthat, he should not have been indeed excommunicate and thrust out of the\nchurch of Corinth, except the ministers and elders of that church had, in\nname of the whole body of the same, judicially cast him forth and\ndelivered him to Satan, which plainly argueth that he should not have been\nexcommunicate by the Apostle\u2019s authority alone, but by the authority of\nthe church of Corinth.\n\n3. The Apostle only showeth that he should be excommunicate, but referreth\nthe giving of sentence and judgment upon him to the Corinthians; for he\nsaith not that the Corinthians, being gathered together, should declare or\nwitness that such an one was delivered to Satan by Paul\u2019s own power and\nauthority, but that they themselves should deliver him to Satan, ver. 4,\n5. And again, \u201cPurge out, therefore, the old leaven; put away from among\nyourselves that wicked person,\u201d ver. 7, 13. But, saith Saravia,(1077)\n_partes apostoli in illa actione fuerunt authoritatis, ecclesiae vero\nCorinthiacae, obedientiae. Ans._ That the action was done by the authority\nof the church of Corinth, it is manifest both from that which hath been\nsaid, and likewise if further we consider that the Apostle ascribeth to\nthe Corinthians as much authority in this action as he assumeth to\nhimself. For he saith of himself, that he had judged concerning him that\nhad done this deed, ver. 3; and so he saith of them, \u201cDo not ye judge them\nthat are within?\u201d ver. 12. Where he speaketh not of the judgment of\nprivate discretion (for so they might have judged them that were without\nalso), but even of the external and authoritative judgment of\necclesiastical discipline. The Apostle, indeed, saith, 2 Cor. ii. 9, that\nhe wrote to the Corinthians to excommunicate that person, that he might\nknow them, whether they were obedient in all things; but this proveth not\nthat the authority of the excommunication was not theirs; for their part\nin this action proceeded both from authority and from obedience: from\nauthority, absolutely; from obedience in, in some respect. _De jure_ they\nhad no liberty nor power not to excommunicate him, but were bound to do\nthat which Paul pointed out to be their duty, and in that respect he\ncalleth them obedient; yet absolutely and _de facto_ it was free to them\n(notwithstanding of Paul\u2019s writing to them) either to excommunicate him or\nnot to excommunicate him, and if they had not by their authority\nexcommunicate him, he had not been at all excommunicate by any virtue of\nPaul\u2019s adjudging of him.\n\n4. When the Corinthians proceeded to excommunicate him, the Apostle\ncalleth this a censure which was inflicted of many, ver. 6, which could\nnot be said if he was to be excommunicate by the Apostle\u2019s authority\nalone.\n\n5. The Apostle, ver. 7, writeth again to the Corinthians, to forgive the\nincestuous man, to receive him into their communion, and to remit the\npunishment of his excommunication, because he was won to repentance. And\nhe addeth, ver. 10, \u201cTo whom ye forgive anything, I forgive also.\u201d Now,\nwho can remit the punishment and save one from underlying the censure,\nexcept such as have the power and authority of judgment?\n\nHitherto we have proven that the power of binding and loosing pertaineth\nto every particular church collectively taken; but the execution and\njudicial exercising of this power pertaineth to that company and assembly\nof elders in every church which the Apostle, 1 Tim. iv. 14, calleth a\npresbytery. In Scotland we call it a session; in France it is called a\nconsistory; in Germany and Belgia, according to the Scripture phrase, it\nis termed a presbytery. It is made up of the pastor or pastors of every\ncongregation, together with those governing elders which labour there (not\nin doctrine, but) in discipline only, of which things we have spoken\nbefore.(1078) That unto this company or consistory of elders pertaineth\nthe power of binding and loosing, it is averred by the best divines:\nCalvin (on Matt. viii. 17, 18, _et Lib. Epist._, col. 168, 169), Beza\n(_Contra Saraviam de Divers. Minist. Grad._), Zanchius (in 4 _Praec._,\ncol. 756), Junius (_Animad. in Bell._, cont. 5, lib. 1, cap. 14, nota 28),\nPolanus (_Synt._, lib. 7, cap. 18), Tilen (_Synt._, part 2, disp. 28), the\nProfessors of Leyden (_Syn. Pur. Theol._, disp. 48), Gerhard (_Loc.\nTheol._, tom. 6, p. 137, 138), Balduine (_de Cas. Cons._, lib. 4, cap. 11,\ncas. 11), Pareus (in Matt, xviii. 17, 18; and in 1 Cor. v.), Cartwright\n(in Matt. xviii., sect. 7), Fennerus (_Theol._, lib. 7, cap. 7, p. 152,\n153), Alstedius (_Theol. Casuum_, cap. 27), Dan\u00e6us (_Pol. Christ._, lib.\n6, p. 452, 464), Hemmingius (_Enchirid._, class. 3, cap. 11, p. 388),\nMartyr (in 1 Cor. v.), and sundry others. Bullinger recordeth(1079) that\nthis was the manner of the particular churches in Helvetia, to choose unto\nthemselves a certain senate of elders, or company of the best men in the\nchurch, which might, according to the canon of holy Scripture, exercise\nthe discipline of excommunication, which form is well warranted by the\nScriptures; for when Christ committeth the authority of binding and\nloosing unto the church, Matt. viii. 17, 18, however the power and\nauthority itself pertain to any particular church collectively taken, as\nhath been said, yet the execution of the same is committed to the\nconsistory or senate of elders which representeth that church, and which\nPaul calleth a presbytery. Zanchius saith that Chrysostom,(1080)\nBullinger, and all good interpreters, understand the presbytery to be\nthere meant by Christ when he saith, \u201cTell the church.\u201d Chrysostom saith\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03af\u03b4\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9, that is, saith Junius,(1081) the ecclesiastical\nsanhedrim made up of pastors and elders. Thus Camero likewise expoundeth\nthe place.(1082) _Ecclesi\u00e6 nomine_, saith he, _videtur Christus\nsignificasse collegium presbyterorum qui ecelesi\u00e6 Christian\u00e6 erant\npr\u00e6futuri, cujus presbyterii mentio fit_, 1 Tim. iv. Now if Christ hath\ncommitted the power of excommunication unto the church, what have bishops\nto say for themselves who appropriate this power unto themselves, each one\nin his diocese? For when we cannot give the name of the church unto a\nbishop,(1083) because he is but one man, and the church is a company of\nmany men; nay, nor yet can we give the name of the church unto a company\nof bishops, for if they might be called the church, it should be for this\nrespect alone, because they represent the church: but _soli episcopi_,\n&c., \u201cBishops alone (saith Gerhard(1084)), or they who teach, cannot\nrepresent the church, since hearers also pertain to the definition\nthereof, but the presbytery can represent the church, whereunto not only\nthey pertain who labour in the word, but also elders or governors put in\nauthority for expeding of ecclesiastical matters in name of the whole\nchurch:\u201d we grant, then, that by the church, Christ meaneth that company\nof church governors whereby a certain particular church is\nrepresented;(1085) but forasmuch as the church consisteth of two integrant\nparts, viz., pastors and sheep, teachers and hearers, we therefore deny\nthat the representative church whereof Christ speaketh, can be any other\nthan that ecclesiastical consistory whereof we have spoken.\n\nMoreover, albeit the Apostle wrote to the whole church of Corinth to\ndeliver the incestuous man to Satan, because the matter could not be\notherwise done, but only in the name and with the consent of that whole\nchurch; yet he never meant that the common promiscuous multitude should,\nby their suffrages and voices, examine and judge that cause. But, saith\nCalvin,(1086) \u201cBecause the multitude, unless it be governed by council,\nnever doth anything moderately nor gravely, there was ordained in the\nancient church (meaning the apostolic church) a presbytery; that is, a\ncompany of elders which, by the consent of all, had the first judgment and\nexamination of things; from it the matter was carried to the people, but\nbeing already determined before.\u201d Again, when the Apostle writeth to them\nin his second epistle that they should forgive him, because he hath\nrepented, thus he reasoneth: \u201cSufficient to such a man is this censure\nwhich was inflicted of many,\u201d 2 Cor. ii. 6. Which words, that we may the\nbetter understand, it is worthy of observation (which not Calvin\nonly,(1087) but Saravia also noteth(1088)), that it appeareth from this\nplace, he was not to excommunicate, but, by sharp rebukes, timeously win\nto repentance, whereby the Apostle showeth it to be needless, yea, most\ninconvenient, to proceed against him to the extremity of discipline. The\nword \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03af\u03b1, there used by the Apostle, signifieth rebuke, reprehension,\nor chiding, saith Dr Fulk;(1089) and so Scapula taketh it to be the same\nwith \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03af\u03bc\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 and to signify another thing than \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03af\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd or \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1.\nBeza and Tremellius turn \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c0\u03bc\u03af\u03b1 by _increpatio_; Ar. Montanus readeth\n_objurgatio_. This chiding or threatening of the man proceeded not from\nthe whole church of Corinth, but only from many therein, as is plain from\nthe text, and as Saravia also granteth.(1090) And who were the \u03c0\u03bb\u03ad\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u03c2,\nthose _many_ of whom the Apostle speaketh? Not such as, from Christian and\nbrotherly charity, did privately chide and rebuke him, for the matter was\nnot then depending in private rebukes, but by the Apostle\u2019s direction it\nwas brought to the church\u2019s part and to public discipline, the scandal\nitself being so public and notoriously manifest; they were, therefore,\nsuch as had public office and authority to chide him. And who were those\nbut the consistory of pastors and elders which represented the whole\nchurch, and were set in authority for judging and managing of things\npertaining to ecclesiastical discipline? They (no doubt) being met\ntogether, called the man before them, and did most sharply rebuke him and\nchide with him, and threatened that they would not only debar him from the\nLord\u2019s table (which is called lesser excommunication, but more properly a\nstep or degree tending next to excommunication), but also wholly cast him\nout of the church and deliver him to Satan. Whereupon the man being made\nto see the grievousness of his sin, and the terrible punishment which was\nto follow upon it, becometh most sorrowful, humble, and penitent. And this\nmoved the Apostle to say, \u201cSufficient to such a man,\u201d &c., as if he would\nsay, What needeth him now to be excommunicate, and so to be corrected and\nput to shame by you all, when every one of you shall deny to him your\nChristian communion, as one wholly cast out of the church? Is it not\nenough that many among you, even your whole presbytery, hath put him to\nsuch public shame by their sharp reprehensions, and to so great fear by\ntheir dreadful threatenings? And since, through the blessing of God upon\nthese means, he is already win to repentance, why would you have him yet\nmore publicly corrected and rejected by all and every one.\n\nAnd further, the Apostle addeth, that now they should not only forgive and\ncomfort him, ver. 7, but also confirm (\u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9) their love towards him,\nver. 8. Now \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03bf\u03c9 signifieth to confirm or ratify by authority; and so\nChemnitius,(1091) Bullinger,(1092) and Cartwright,(1093) expoundeth it in\nthis place. It cometh from \u03ba\u1fe6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, _authority_, whence cometh also \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2,\na _lord_, or one having authority. As, therefore, the presbytery, or\ncompany of pastors and elders, had, by their authority, established that\nhe was to be excommunicate, and determined to proceed to the execution of\nextreme discipline against him, so now the Apostle would have them, by the\nsame authority, to ratify and establish the remission of this punishment\nunto him, and to decree that the church should not deny her communion unto\nhim. For this authority of binding and loosing, though it pertained to the\nwhole church, _in actu primo sive in esse_, yet it pertained to the\npresbytery alone, _in actu secundo sive in operara_; and even as the act\nof speaking pertaineth to a man, as _principium quod_, but to the tongue\nalone, as _principium quo_; so albeit the power of the keys doth primarily\nand principally belong to the church, collectively taken, yet the actual\nexecution of this power belongeth only to the presbytery which\nrepresenteth the church, and unto which the church hath committed her\nauthority to bind and loose. Wherefore, since the Apostle writeth to the\nwhole church of Corinth to confirm, by their authority, their love to the\npenitent man; and since this authority, in the actual execution of it\n(which the Apostle craveth) did not agree to that whole church,\ncollectively taken, we must needs understand his meaning to be, that their\nlove towards that man, and their forgiving of him, should be ratified and\nconfirmed by the authority of those church governors, _qui ecclesiae nomen\nad coetum repraesentant, totius nimirum presbyterii authoritate atque\nconsensu_.\n\nThus have we showed that the actual use of the keys, or the execution of\nthe authority of binding and loosing, pertaineth to that ecclesiastical\nsenate in every particular church, which the Apostle calleth a presbytery.\nFor further illustration of the truth whereof, I add these four\nobservations:\u2014\n\n1. We must distinguish(1094) a twofold power of the keys: the one is\nexecuted in doctrine; the other in discipline: the one _concionalis_; the\nother _judicialis_. Touching the former, we grant it is proper for pastors\nalone, whose office and vocation it is, by the preaching and publishing of\nGod\u2019s word, to shut the kingdom of heaven against impenitent and\ndisobedient men, and to open it unto penitent sinners; to bind God\u2019s heavy\nwrath upon the former, and (by application of the promises of mercy) to\nloose the latter from the sentence and fear of condemnation. When we\nascribe the power of binding and loosing to that whole consistory, wherein\ngoverning elders are joined together with pastors, we mean only of the\nkeys of external discipline, which are used in ecclesiastical courts and\njudicatories.\n\n2. When we teach that the pastor or pastors of every particular church and\ncongregation, with the elders of the same, being met together, have power\nto bind and loose, we understand this only of such places wherein a\ncompetent number of understanding and qualified men may be had to make up\nan eldership; otherwise let there be one eldership made up of two or three\nof the next adjacent parishes, according as was ordained by the Church of\nScotland, in the 7th chapter of the Second Book of Discipline. _Sine\ntotius_ &c.: \u201cWithout the consent of some whole church (saith\nZanchius(1095)) no man ought to be excommunicate. Yea, I add, if it be a\nsmall church, and not consisting of many learned and skilful men,\nexcommunication ought not to be done, except the neighbour churches be\nasked counsel of.\u201d And, as touching the pastor\u2019s part, Calvin saith well,\n_Nunquam_, &c.:(1096) \u201cI never thought it expedient the liberty of\nexcommunicating should be permitted to every pastor.\u201d The fear of great\ninconveniences, which he thought likely to follow upon such a custom, if\nonce it were permitted, makes him confess, in that epistle, that he durst\nnot advise Liserus to excommunicate any man without taking counsel of\nother pastors. Now, I much marvel what butt Dr Forbesse(1097) shot at when\nhe entitleth one of his chapters _De Potestate Excommunicandi_, and then,\nin the body of the chapter, doth no more at all but only quote those two\ntestimonies of Zanchius and Calvin; both of which do utterly condemn the\nusurpation of bishops who appropriate to themselves the power of\nexcommunication, and ascribe this power to the consistory of pastors and\nelders in every particular church; and, in the forequoted places, do only\n(for preventing of abuses) set some bounds to the execution of their\npower; which bounds we also think good to be kept, viz., that if a church\nbe so small that it hath not so many well-qualified men as may be\nsufficient to assist the pastor in the government thereof, then let one\ncommon eldership be made up out of it and some other neighbour churches:\nby which means it shall moreover come to pass (which is the other caution\nto be given), that not every pastor (no not with the elders of his\ncongregation) shall be permitted to have full liberty of binding and\nloosing, but shall, in those matters, receive counsel and advice from\nother pastors. Howbeit, for this latter purpose, the church of Scotland\nhath profitably provided another remedy also, namely, that, in certain\nchief places, all the pastors in the adjacent bounds shall, at set and\nordinary times, assemble themselves (which assemblies, in this nation, we\ncall presbyteries), that so the churches may be governed _communi\npresbyterorum consilio_, as Jerome speaketh of the primitive times of the\nchurch.\n\n3. Though the execution of the discipline of excommunication and\nabsolution pertain to the consistory of the pastor and elders in every\nchurch, yet this discipline is to be by them executed in name of the whole\nchurch.(1098) Saravia is bold to affirm,(1099) that he who receiveth a\nsinner, or casteth him out of the church, doeth this in the name and\nauthority of God alone. We have proven, by strong arguments, that the\nauthority of excommunication pertaineth to the whole church; which, though\nhe contradicteth, yet, in one place,(1100) forgetting himself, he\nacknowledges that the authority of the church of Corinth was to intervene\nin the excommunication of the incestuous man. Wherefore, as in the name of\nGod, so in the name and authority of the whole church, must one be cast\nout or received.\n\n4. To the right execution of this discipline the manifest consent of the\nwhole church is also necessary:(1101) the truth whereof, beside that it\nappeareth from that which hath been said concerning the church\u2019s\nauthority, it is further confirmed, if we consider either the importance\nof the thing, or the good of the person. Touching the importance of the\nthing, _Gravissima_, &c.: \u201cMost weighty matters in the church,\u201d saith\nGerhard,(1102) and the same saith Zanchius also,(1103) \u201cought not to be\nundertaken without the consent of the whole ecclesiastical body;\u201d and, as\nPope Leo writeth, \u201cSuch things as pertain unto all ought to be done with\nthe consent of all. But what can be more weighty, and what doth more\npertain to the body of the church, than to cut off some member from the\nbody?\u201d And, touching the good of the person, Augustine showeth(1104) that\nthen only a sinner is both stricken with fear and healed with shame, when,\nseeing himself anathematised by the whole church, he cannot find a fellow\nmultitude together wherewith he may rejoice in his sin and insult upon\ngood men. And that otherwise, if the tares grow so rank that they cannot\nbe pulled up, and if the same evil disease take hold of so very many that\nthe consent of the church cannot be had to the excommunication of a wicked\nperson, then good men must grieve and groan, and endure what they cannot\nhelp. Therefore that excommunication may fruitfully succeed, the consent\nof the people is necessary: _Frustra enim ejicitur ex ecclesia, et\nconsortio fidelium privatur, quem populus, abigere, et a quo abstinere\nrecuset._(1105) Howbeit, even in such cases, when the consent of the\nchurch cannot be had to the execution of this discipline, faithful pastors\nand professors must, every one for his own part, take heed that he have no\nfellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but even reprove them;\nyea, they ought, _in. sensu negativo_, excommunicate those who should be\n(but are not) excommunicate positively, which negative excommunication is\nnot an ecclesiastical censure, but either a bare punishment, or a cautel\nand animadversion; and so saith the Archbishop of Spalato,(1106) not only\none brother may refuse to communicate with another, but a people, also,\nmay refuse to communicate with their pastor, which he confirmeth by\ncertain examples. But the public censure of positive excommunication\nshould not be inflicted without the church\u2019s consent, for the reasons\nforesaid. Cyprian writeth to Cornelius, bishop of Rome, that he had much\nlaboured with the people that peace might be given to them who had fallen;\nthat is, that they might be again received into the communion of the\nchurch; which, if he might have done by himself, why did he labour and\ndeal so much with the people in that business? And as they were not\nreceived into the church\u2019s communion without the people\u2019s consent, so\nneither were they without their consent excommunicate. Chrysostom\nshoweth,(1107) concerning his time, that when one was to be excommunicate,\nthe whole church was humbled in prayer to God for him; and, when he was\nagain released, they did all kindly salute him, and wish him peace.\nTertullian also writeth,(1108) that he who was to be excommunicate in the\npublic assembly of the church, was, by the common consent of all, stricken\nwith judgment, and that all the approven and well-liked elders had the\nprecedence or direction of the rest of the church in these matters.\n\nNow, from all this which hath been said of the power and authority to\nexcommunicate and absolve, it is manifest how unjustly usurping prelates\ndo arrogate and appropriate to themselves this power, which Christ hath\ncommitted to every particular church or congregation, and ordained to be\nexecute by the ecclesiastical consistory within the same. Which episcopal\nusurpation, as it hath been showed to be most contrary to divine\ninstitution, so doth it also depart from the manner of the ancient church:\nfor it may be seen, in Cyprian,(1109) that the authority of reconciling\nand receiving into the church such as had fallen, was not proper to the\nbishop, but, with him, common to his clergy and presbytery, and that _jus\ncommunicationis_ was given them by the clergy as well as by the bishop. We\nhave heard, out of Jerome,(1110) that a bishop did nothing which a\npresbyter did not also, except only that he gave rite or sign of\nordination, that is, imposition of hands. Whereby we understand that as\nall other things, beside ordination, so the power of excommunication,\namong the rest, was alike common to bishops and presbyters. Whence it is,\nthat the same Jerome, writing to Demetriades, calleth excommunication\n_Episcoporum et Presbyterorum censura_. And elsewhere, _Alligat vel solvit\nEpiscopus et Presbyter._(1111) Justinian (_Novel_. 123, cap. 11) saith,\n_Omnibus autem Episcopis et Presbyteris interdicimus segregare aliquem a\nsacra communione, antequam causa monstretur_, &c., certifying them, if\nthey do otherwise, that he whom they excommunicate should be loosed from\nexcommunication _a majore sacerdota_. Whence we see, that presbyters also\nwere wont to excommunicate, and that this power was common to them with\nthe bishops. The First Council of Carthage, can. 23, decreeth that a\nbishop hear no man\u2019s cause without the presence of his clergy; and that\notherwise his sentence shall be void, except it be confirmed by the\npresence of his clergy. The canon law itself hath some vestiges of the\nancient order: it ordaineth,(1112) that when a bishop either\nexcommunicateth or absolveth any man, twelve of the clergy be present, and\nconcur with him. Dr Forbesse now also acknowledgeth,(1113) that it is not\nlawful for a bishop to exercise the power of public jurisdiction by\nhimself, and without the presbytery; and, under this power of\njurisdiction, whereof he speaketh,(1114) he comprehendeth the visitation\nof churches, ordination, suspension, and deposition of ministers, the\nexcommunicating of contumacious persons, and the reconciling of them when\nthey become penitent, the calling of the fellow-presbyters to a synod, the\nmaking of ecclesiastical canons, &c.; which power of jurisdiction, saith\nhe,(1115) remaineth one and the same, whole and entire, both in the\nbishop, and in the presbytery: in him personally; in it collegially. His\nconfession of the presbytery\u2019s power and authority, we catch and lay hold\non; but whereas he would have this power any way proper and personal to\nbishops, he is confuted by our former arguments.\n\nAnd thus far have we demonstrated to princes, who be they to whom Christ\nhath committed the power of excommunication, that with them they may cause\nit to remain, and correct the usurpation of prelates, who bereave them of\nit. Let us next consider what princes may, or should do, after that the\nsentence of any man\u2019s excommunication or reconciliation is given forth by\nthem to whom the power of this discipline pertaineth. The Archbishop of\nSpalato is of opinion,(1116) that not only it is free to princes to\ncommunicate with excommunicate persons, but also, that if they shall\nhappen to communicate with them, the church (for the reverence she oweth\nto princes) should straight absolve them, and that her sentence of\nexcommunication should no longer have any strength. What! Shall the church\ndraw and put up again the spiritual sword at the pleasure of princes? Or\nbecause princes will perhaps cast holy things to dogs, must others do so\nlikewise? O prodigious licentiousness, and hellish misorder, worthy to be\ndrowned in the lake of Lethe! But what, then, is the part of the prince,\nafter that the church hath given judgment? Surely, whensoever need is, he\nought, by the private judgment of Christian discretion, to try and examine\nwhether this discipline be rightly executed or not. If he find the\nexecution thereof to be unreprovable, and that yet the sinner goeth on in\nhis contumacy, then, by his civil power,(1117) he ought further to punish\nhim in his person or worldly estate, that he may either reform or repress\nsuch an one as hath not been terrified by the church\u2019s censures. But if,\nafter trial, he understand that the sentence given forth is unjust and\nerroneous, either through the ignorance or the malice of the\necclesiastical and regular judges, then he ought to interpone his\nauthority, and cause a due proceeding; for, in such extraordinary cases of\nthe failing of ecclesiastical persons, princes may do much in things\nspiritual, which, ordinarily, they cannot.\n\nIt remaineth to show who have the power of those censures and punishments\nwhich are proper to ecclesiastical persons. Where, first, we are to\nconsider, that there are two sorts of faults which make ecclesiastical men\nworthy to be punished, viz., either such as violate sacred, or such as\nviolate civil and human duties: the one is to be judged by ecclesiastical\njudges alone, and that according to the laws of God and the church; the\nother by civil judges alone, and that according to the civil and municipal\nlaws of the commonwealth. This latter form, again, is twofold; for either\nthe fault is such, that, though a man be condignly punished for it by the\ncivil magistrate, yet he doth not, therefore, fall from his ecclesiastical\noffice or dignity; of which sort experience showeth many; or else such as\nbeing punished according to their quality and demerit, a man, by necessary\nconsequence, falleth from the ecclesiastical function and dignity which\nbefore he had: this was Abiathar\u2019s case, and the case of so many as, being\njustly punished by proscription, incarceration, or banishment, are\n_secundario et ex consequenti_ shut from their bearing office in the\nchurch. \u201cIf Abiathar had sinned in a sacred matter, the cognition thereof\n(saith Junius(1118)) had pertained to the priests; but because he sinned\nagainst the commonwealth and the king\u2019s majesty, it was necessary to deal\nwith him civilly, and not ecclesiastically. What! Are no ecclesiastical\nmen in this time also thought to be lawfully judged by the civil\nmagistrate, if, at any time, they be found guilty of appaired majesty?\u201d As\nfor the other sorts of faults, whereby (as we have said) sacred and\necclesiastical duties are violate, such as the teaching of false and\nheretical doctrine, neglecting of discipline, unbeseeming and scandalous\nconversation, &c. which things (if they be not mended) they who have the\nexecution of ecclesiastical jurisdiction committed to them ought to punish\nby suspension, deposition, &c. Now, as when one is called to the work of\nthe ministry, his fitness and qualification for that work should be tried\nand judged by the clergy of the adjacent bounds assembled in their\nclassical presbytery, to whom it also appertaineth (after that he is by\nthem tried and approved, and after that he is elected by the church where\nhe is to serve) to send him out from them with power to exercise the\noffice of a pastor; so when there is just cause of suspending and\ndepriving him, it belongeth to the same presbytery to consider and judge\nhereof; and, according to his offence, to give judgment against him. For\nwho should recal him but they that sent him? Or who should discharge him\nhis ministerial function, except they who ordained him to exercise the\nsame? And who may take the power from him but they who gave the power unto\nhim? That ordination pertaineth to the whole presbytery, and not to the\nbishop alone, we have showed before, and now, by the same reason, we say\nsuspension and deposition pertaineth to the presbytery also, and are not\nin the power of the bishop. And that, in the ancient church, as bishops\ngave not ordination, so neither did they suspend nor depose any man\nwithout the common counsel, advice, and concurrence of the presbytery,\nyea, and sometimes of a synod, it is clear from Cypr. (lib. 1, epist. 9;\nlib. 3, epist. 2, 10), Council Carthag. 3 (can. 8), Council Carthag. 4\n(can. 22, 23), Council African. (can. 20), Council Hispan. 2 (can. 6),\nJustin. (_Novel_. 42, cap. 1), Jerome (_Comment. ad Isa_ 3), Siricius\n(_Epist ad Ambros. inter Ambr. Epist._) So, touching the suspension and\ndeposition of ministers, the Assembly at Glasgow, anno 1610, ordained that\nthe bishop should associate to himself the ministry of those bounds where\nthe delinquent served, that is, the presbytery whereof he hath been a\nmember, and, together with them, there take trial of the fact, and, upon\njust cause found, to deprive or suspend: which Act was ratified in the\n12th parliament of king James, anno 1612. Nevertheless, if any man think\nthe sentence of the bishop and the presbytery, given forth against him, to\nbe unjust, he ought to have liberty of recourse to the synod, and there to\nbe heard, according as it was decreed by the Fourth Council of Carthage,\ncan. 66. But oftimes the matter is of such difficulty or importance that\nthe bishop and the presbytery may not give out any peremptory sentence of\nsuspension or deprivation till the matter be brought to the synod of the\nprovince,(1119) where, according to the ancient order, the matter is to be\nhandled,(1120) not \u201cby the censure of one bishop, but by the judgment of\nthe whole clergy gathered together.\u201d\n\nPrinces, therefore, may not suffer bishops to usurp the power of\nsuspending and depriving at their pleasure, and whensoever they commit any\nsuch tyranny in smiting of their fellow-servants, it is the part of\nprinces to cause these things to be redressed, and for this end graciously\nto receive the grievances of oppressed ministers. The Arians of old, being\nassembled in a council at Antioch, decreed, that if any ecclesiastical\nperson should, without the advice and the letters of the bishops(1121) of\nthe province, and chiefly of the metropolitan, go to the emperor to put up\nany grievance unto him, he should be cast out, not only from the holy\ncommunion, but from his proper dignity which he had in the church.\nWhereupon Osiander hath this observation:(1122) \u201cThis canon also was\ncomposed against holy Athanasius; for Athanasius being expelled by the\nArians, had fled to the emperor Constantine the younger, and had from him\nobtained a return to his own church. Now this canon is very unjust, which\nforbids that a bishop, or any other minister of the church, being unjustly\noppressed, flee to his godly civil magistrate; since it was lawful to the\napostle Paul to appeal to the Roman emperor wicked Nero, as the Acts of\nthe Apostles witness. But it may be seen in this place, that bishops were\nvery soon seeking dominion, yea, tyranny over the church, and over their\ncolleges.\u201d Besides all this, there is yet another thing which ought to\nhave a very principal consideration in the deposition of a minister, and\nthat is, the consent of the church and congregation where he hath served.\nLet the magistrate know, saith Gerhard,(1123) \u201cthat as the vocation of\nministers pertaineth to the whole church, so to the same also pertaineth\nthe removing of ministers; therefore, as a minister ought not to be\nobtruded upon an unwilling church, so the hearers, being unwilling and\nstriving against it, a fit minister ought not to be plucked away from\nthem.\u201d The deposing of a minister, whom the church loves and willingly\nhears, Balduine accounteth to be high sacrilege,(1124) and holdeth that,\nas the calling, so the dismissing of ministers pertaineth to the whole\nchurch; and so teacheth Junius.(1125) Shortly, as a man is rightly called\nto the ministerial office and dignity when he is elected by the church and\nordained by the presbytery, so is he rightly deposed and put from the same\nwhen he is rejected by the church and discharged by the presbytery.\n\nHow there was brought forth in Scotland, anno 1610, a certain amphibian\nbrood, sprung out of the stem of Neronian tyranny, and in manners like to\nhis nearest kinsman, the Spanish Inquisition. It is armed with a\ntranscendant power, and called by the dreadful name of the _High\nCommission_. Among other things, it arrogateth to itself the power of\ndeposing ministers; but how unjustly, thus it appeareth:\n\n1. If those commissioners have any power at all to depose ministers, they\nhave it from the king, whose commissioners they are: but from him they\nhave it not; therefore they have none at all. The proposition is most\ncertain; for they sit not in that commission to judge in their own name,\nnor by their own authority, (_quum nihil exerceat delegatus nomine\nproprio_, as Panormitan saith,(1126)) but by virtue only of the commission\nand delegation which they have of the king. Yea, bishops themselves\nexercise not any jurisdiction in the High Commission as bishops, but only\nas the king\u2019s commissioners, as Dr Downame acknowledgeth.(1127) The\nassumption is grounded upon this reason: The king hath not power to depose\nministers; therefore he cannot give this power to others. For _nemo potest\nplus juris transferre in alium quam sibi competere dignoscatur_,(1128) the\nking may sometimes inflict such a civil punishment upon ministers,\nwhereupon, secondarily and accidentally, will follow their falling away\nfrom their ecclesiastical office and function (in which sense it is said\nthat Solomon deposed Abiathar, as we heard before), but to depose them\ndirectly and formally (which the High Commission usurped to do) he hath no\npower, and that because this deposition is an act of ecclesiastical\njurisdiction; whereas the power of ecclesiastical jurisdiction doth no\nmore agree to the king than the power of ecclesiastical order: his power\nis civil and temporal, not spiritual and ecclesiastical. Dr Field also\nconfesseth,(1129) that none may judicially degrade, or put any one,\nlawfully admitted, from his degree and order, but the spiritual guides of\nthe church alone.\n\n2. The deposing of ministers pertaineth to classical presbyteries, or (if\nthe matter be doubtful and difficult) to synods, as hath been showed. And\nwho, then, can give the High Commission such authority as to take this\npower from them and assume it unto itself. These commissioners profess\nthat they have authority to discharge other ecclesiastical judicatories\nwithin the kingdom from meddling with the judging of anything which they\nshall think impertinent for them, and which they shall think good to judge\nand decide by themselves in their commission: which, if it be so, then,\nwhen it pleaseth them, they may make other ecclesiastical judicatories to\nbe altogether useless and of no effect in the church.\n\n3. In this commission ecclesiastical and temporal men are joined together,\nand both armed with the same power; therefore it is not right nor regular,\nnor in any ways allowable. For even, as when a minister hath offended in a\ncivil matter, his fault is to be judged by civil judges according to the\ncivil laws, and by no other; so, when he offendeth in an ecclesiastical\nmatter, his fault is to be judged only by ecclesiastical persons according\nto ecclesiastical laws; and, in such case, Justinian forbiddeth(1130)\ncivil men to be joined with ecclesiastical men in judgment. They are\necclesiastical things or causes which are handled and examined by the High\nCommission in the process of deposing ministers; and a shame it is to\necclesiastical men, if they cannot, without the help and joining of\ntemporal men, judge and decide things of this quality.\n\n4. As in the matters to be judged, so in the censures and punishments to\nbe inflicted, ecclesiastical and civil men have, in this commission, alike\npower and authority; for ecclesiastical men therein have power of fining,\nconfining, warding, &c., common to them with the temporal men; and, again,\nthe temporal men have power of excommunication, suspension, deprivation,\n&c., common to them with the ecclesiastical men. For they all sit there as\nthe king\u2019s commissioners, and _eo nomine_, they exercise this\njurisdiction; which commission being alike discharged by them all, it is\nmanifest that both temporal men take hold of the keys and ecclesiastical\nmen take hold of the civil sword. And this monstrous confusion and mixture\ngiveth sufficient demonstration that such a form of judgment is not from\nthe God of order.\n\nOf the abuses and irregularities of the High Commission we may not now\nspeak at greater length, but are hasted to make forward.\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER IX.\n\n\nTHAT THE LAWFULNESS OF THE CEREMONIES CANNOT BE WARRANTED BY THE LAW OF\nNATURE.\n\n\n_Sect._ 1. What our opposites have alleged for the ceremonies, either from\nthe law of God, or the law of man, we have hitherto answered; but we heard\nthe law of nature also alleged(1131) for holidays, and for kneeling at the\ncommunion. And when Hooker(1132) goeth about to commend and defend such\nvisible signs, \u201cwhich, being used in performance of holy actions, are\nundoubtedly most effectual to open such matter, as men, when they know and\nremember carefully, must needs be a great deal the better informed to what\neffect such duties serve,\u201d he subjoineth: \u201cWe must not think but that\nthere is some ground of reason even in nature,\u201d &c. This is a smoke to\nblind the eyes of the unlearned. Our opposites have taken no pains nor\ntravail to make us see any deduction of those ceremonies from the law of\nnature: we desire proofs, not words. In the meanwhile, for giving further\nevidence to the truth, we will express our own mind touching things\nwarranted by the law of nature.\n\n_Sect._ 2. And, first, we must understand aright what is meant by the law\nof nature: to wit, that law which God writeth and imprinteth in the nature\nof man,(1133) so that it is as it were co-natural and born together with\nman. Now, if we consider what law was written in the nature of man in his\nfirst creation, it was no other than the decalogue, or the moral\nlaw.(1134) But the law which we are here to inquire of is that law which,\nafter the fall, God still writeth in the heart of every man; which (we all\nknow) cometh far short, and wanteth much of that which was written in the\nheart of man before his fall. That we may understand what this law of\nnature is which is written in all men\u2019s hearts since the fall, we must\ndistinguish _jus naturale_ from _jus divinum naturale_. For that law which\nis simply called _jus naturale_ is _innatum_, and layeth before the minds\nof men that way wherein, by the guidance and conduct of nature,(1135) they\nmay be led to that good which is, in the end, proportionate to nature;\nwhereas _jus divinum_ is _inspiratum_, and layeth before us another way,\nwherein, by a supernatural guidance,(1136) we may be led to a supernatural\ngood, which is an end exceeding the proportion of nature. As for that part\nof the law of God which is called _jus divinum naturale_, it is so called\nin opposition to _jus divinum positivum_.\n\n_Sect._ 3. _Jus naturale,_ saith Justinian,(1137) _est quod naturo omnia\nanimalia docuit_. This the lawyers take to be the law of nature, which\nnature, by its sole instinct, teacheth as well to other living creatures\nas to men; for nature teacheth all living creatures to save and preserve\ntheir own being, to decline things hurtful, to seek things necessary for\ntheir life, to procreate their like, to care for that which is procreated\nby them, &c. The Archbishop of Spalato(1138) liketh to speak with the\nlawyers. _Jus naturale_, saith he, _simpliciter ponitur in omnibus\nanimalibus. Videntur autem_, saith Joachinus Mynsingerus,(1139) _juris\nconsulti, valde in hoc abuti vocabulo juris, cum exemplae praedicta sint\npotius affectus et inclinationes naturales, quae cum quibusque animantibus\nenascuntur; quas philosophi_ \u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03b3\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u1f70\u03c2 _appellant. In brutis enim\ncum nulla sit ratio, igitur nec ullum jus esse potest._\n\nAquinas also showeth(1140) that beasts are not properly governed by the\nlaw of nature, because _lex_ is _aliquid rationis_. Wherefore they err who\nwould make the law of nature to differ in kind from _jus gentium_, which\nnatural reason hath taught to all nations. For this law of nations _per se\nspeciem non facit_, as saith Mynsingerus.(1141) And the law of nature is\nalso, by the heathen writers, often called _jus gentium_, as Rosinus\nnoteth.(1142) If any will needs have the law of nature distinguished from\nthe law of nations, let them either take Aquinas\u2019 distinction,(1143) who\nmaketh the law of nature to contain certain principles, having the same\nplace in practical reason which the principles of scientific\ndemonstrations have in speculative reason; and the law of nations to\ncontain certain conclusions drawn from the said principles: or, otherwise,\nembrace the difference which is put betwixt those laws by Mattheus\nWesenbecius:(1144) _Qu\u00e6 besti\u00e6 naturali concitatione; ea_, saith he,\n_homines ex eodem sensu ac affectione, cum moderatione tamen ratione si\nfaciunt, jure natur\u00e6 faciunt. Qu\u00e6 bruta non faciunt, sed sola ratione\nhominis propria, non affectione communis natur\u00e6, omnes homines faciunt,\nfierique opportere intelligunt hoc fit jure gentium._\n\n_Sect._ 4. For my part, I take the law of nature and the law of nations to\nbe one and the same. For what is the law of nations but that which\nnature\u2019s light and reason hath taught so to all nations? Now this is no\nother than the law of nature. We think, therefore, they have well\nsaid,(1145) who comprehend under the law of nature both the common\nprinciples of good and evil, virtue and vice, right and wrong, things\nbeseeming and things not beseeming, and likewise the general conclusions\nwhich, by necessary consequences, are drawn from the said principles. To\ncome to the particulars, there are three sort of things which the law of\nnature requireth of man, as both schoolmen(1146) and modern doctors(1147)\nhave rightly taught. The first, it requireth as he is _ens_; the second,\nas he is _animal_; and the third, as he is _homo ratione pr\u00e6ditus_. First,\nAs he is _ens_, the law of nature requireth him to seek the conservation\nof his own being, and to shun or repel such things as may destroy the\nsame. For so hath nature framed not only all living creatures, but other\nthings also which are without life, that they seek their own conservation,\nand flee (if they can) from apparent destruction. Let us take one example\nout of subtle Scalliger,(1148) which is this: If a small quantity of oil\nbe poured upon a sound board, let a burning coal be put in the midst of\nit, and the oil will quickly flee back from its enemy, and seek the\nconservation of itself. This is, therefore, the first precept of the law\nof nature, that man seek his own conservation, and avoid his own\ndestruction. Whereupon this conclusion necessarily followeth, that he may\nrepel violence with violence. Secondly, As man is a living creature, the\nlaw of nature teacheth him to propagate and conserve his kind. Whereupon\nthese conclusions do follow, viz., the commixion of male and female, the\nprocreation of children, the educating of them, and providing for them.\nThis nature hath taught to man, as a thing common to him with other living\ncreatures.\n\n_Sect._ 5. Thirdly, As a man is a creature endowed with reason, the law of\nnature teacheth him, 1. Something concerning God; 2. Something concerning\nhis neighbour; 3. Something concerning himself. I mean some general\nnotions concerning good and evil, in respect of each of these; whereof the\nApostle meaneth whilst he saith that the Gentiles \u201cshow the work of the\nlaw written in their hearts,\u201d Rom. ii. 15. First, then, the law of nature\nteacheth man to know that there is a God, and that this God is to be\nworshipped; whereupon it followeth that man should seek to know God and\nthe manner of his worship. Now that which may be known of God is showed\neven unto the Gentiles. The Apostle saith _signanter_, \u03c4\u03bf \u03bb\u03c5\u03c9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, Rom. i. 19, meaning those few and small sparkles of the knowledge of\nGod which nature\u2019s inbred light discovered unto the Gentiles, for making\nthem inexcusable, namely, that there is an eternal power and Godhead,\nwhich men ought to reverence and to worship. 2. The law of nature teacheth\nman to hold fast friendship and amity with his neighbours, forasmuch as he\nis _animal sociale. Violare alterum_, saith Cicero, _naturae legae\nprohibemur_.(1149) For the law of nature biddeth us do to others as we\nwould have others to do unto us, Luke vi. 31. And from these precepts it\nfolloweth, that we should not offend other men; that we should keep\npromises; stand to bargains; give to every man his own, &c. 3. As touching\na man\u2019s self, the law of nature teacheth him that he should not live as a\nreasonless creature, but that all his actions should be such as may be\ncongruous and beseeming for a creature endued with reason: Whereupon it\nfolloweth, that he should live honestly and virtuously, that he should\nobserve order and decency in all his actions, &c. Hence the Apostle saith,\nthat nature itself teacheth that it is a shame for a man to have long\nhair, 1 Cor. xi. 14, because it is repugnant to that decency and\ncomeliness which the law of nature requireth. For, among other\ndifferences(1150) which nature hath put betwixt men and women, this is\none, that it hath given to women thicker and longer hair than to men, that\nit might be as a veil, to adorn and cover them. The reason whereof nature\nhath hid in the complexion of a woman, which is more humid than the\ncomplexion of a man; so that, if a man should take him to this womanish\nornament, he should but against nature transform himself (in so far) into\na woman.\n\n_Sect._ 6. These things being permitted, I will add four reasons to prove\nthat neither sacred significant ceremonies in general, nor kneeling,\nholidays, &c., in particular, can be warranted unto us by the law of\nnature. 1. The law of nature cannot direct us unto a supernatural end, as\nis acknowledged not only by our divines,(1151) but by Aquinas also.(1152)\nIt only teacheth us to seek and to do _bonum, velut finem natur\u00e6_,(1153)\nsuch a good as is an end proportioned to nature. All these precepts of the\nlaw of nature which we have spoken of could never lead men to a\nsupernatural good. It is only the divine law,(1154) revealed from God,\nwhich informeth the minds of men with such notions as are _supra naturam_,\nand which may guide them _ad finem supernaturalem_. But all sacred\nsignificant ceremonies which, by their holy and spiritual significations,\nexpress to us some mysteries of grace, and of the kingdom of God, must be\nthought to direct us unto a supernatural good; therefore they are not of\nthat sort of things which the law of nature requireth; for this law goeth\nno higher than to teach men that there is a God, and that this God is to\nbe worshipped, the knowledge of which things is not a good exceeding the\nproportion of nature: for it was found in the Gentiles themselves, who\nknew no other spiritual and supernatural good than that which was\nproportioned to nature. Let me now conclude this reason with Scalliger\u2019s\nwords, _Neque enim quae supra naturae leges sunt, ex naturae legibus\njudicanda censeo_.(1155)\n\n_Sect._ 7. 2. As the ceremonies, by their sacred, spiritual, and mystical\nsignifications, direct us unto a supernatural good, so they are thought to\nguide us unto the same by a way which nature\u2019s light could never discover\nunto men. But, in the law of nature, as we are directed unto no other good\nthan such as is proportioned to nature, so are we guided unto the same\n_natura duce_,(1156) that is to say, by such common notions as God hath\nimprinted in the nature of all men. Now, I suppose our opposites will not\nunwillingly reckon their sacred significant ceremonies among those things\nof the Spirit of God which a natural man cannot receive, because they are\nspiritually decerned, 1 Cor. ii. 14. What then have they to do with the\nlaw of nature? If it be said, that they necessarily follow upon those\nfirst principles and conclusions which a natural man receiveth, I answer,\nThis shall never be proved. They will say, perhaps, that nature teacheth\nus to use certain rites in the worship of God, to observe set times for\nhis worship, also to kneel down in reverence of God whom we worship.\n_Ans._ Be it so: but how make they up a necessary connection betwixt\ncertain rites and significant ceremonies of human institution; betwixt set\ntimes, and some more days than one of seven; betwixt kneeling in the\nworship of God _in genere_, and kneeling at the sacrament _in specie_,\nunless they say that nature requireth us to kneel in every act of worship,\nand never to worship God without kneeling on our knees?\n\n_Sect._ 8. 3. _Jus naturae_ is _ubique idem_, as Rosinus:(1157) it is\napproved _communi omnium gentium judicio atque assensu_, as the Professors\nof Leyden:(1158) it is one and the same among all nations, in respect of\nthe principles of it, as Aquinas(1159) and Zanchius:(1160) the law of\nnature _fixa est cordibus nostris_, as Stella:(1161) yea, it is \u201cso\nwritten in our hearts that iniquity itself cannot blot it out,\u201d as\nAugustine saith;(1162) and we learn from the Apostle, that the law of\nnature is manifest in the Gentiles, for God hath showed it unto them, Rom.\ni. 19; therefore there is none ignorant, saith Pareus.(1163) Whatsoever,\nthen, the law of nature requireth, it doth clearly and necessarily follow\nupon those principles which are written in every man\u2019s conscience, unless\nwe set up new divinity, and either say that the principles of the law of\nnature are not written in every man\u2019s conscience, or else that they may be\nat some time abolished and rased out of the consciences of men; which were\nto leave men without a witness. Nay, saith Augustine,(1164) the heaven and\nthe earth, and all that is in them, on every side, cease not to bid all\nmen love God, that they be made inexcusable. Now if all the principles of\nthe law of nature be firmly and clearly written in every man\u2019s conscience,\nand cannot but be known to every man who has the use of natural judgment\nand reason, it followeth, that they who will prove or warrant anything by\nthe law of nature, must only take their premises from every man\u2019s\nconscience, and say, as the Apostle saith, \u201cJudge in yourselves,\u201d &c.,\n\u201cdoth not even nature itself teach you,\u201d &c., 1 Cor. xi. 13, 14; as if the\nApostle said, This principle of nature is fixed in all your hearts, that\nmen should affect honesty and comeliness. Go to reason in yourselves, from\nthe judgment of nature, whether it follow not, upon this principle, that a\nman should not wear long hair, forasmuch as his wearing of long hair is\nrepugnant to the principle of nature. _Committit ipsis judicium_, saith\nPareus; _ipsos testes, imo judices appellat_,(1165) so that, if the\nceremonies be warranted unto us by the law of nature, the judgment must be\ncommitted to every man\u2019s conscience, and so should every man be convinced\nin himself, by such a principle of nature, from which the ceremonies have\na necessary and manifest deduction. Yet we attest the Searcher of all\nhearts, that we have never been convinced in ourselves, by such a\nprinciple of nature, no, not after diligent search and inquiry.\n\n_Sect._ 9. 4. Let our opposites say to us, once for all, upon what precept\nof the law of nature do they ground the ceremonies; for I have before\nopened up all sorts of things which the law of nature requireth of man as\nhe is _ens_; and as he is _animal_ belongeth not to our purpose. As for\nthat which it requireth of him as he is a creature endued with reason,\nthere is one part of it that concerneth ourselves, viz., that we should\nlive honestly, and _secundum modum rationis_, that we should observe order\nand decency in all our actions. This order and decency do not respect our\nholy duties to God, nor comprehend any sacred ceremony in his worship; but\nthey look to usward, and are referred only to such beseeming qualities as\nare congruous and convenient to a reasonable nature in all its actions.\nYea, even generally, we may say with Scalliger,(1166) _Ordinem dico sine\nquo natura constare non potest. Nihil enim absque ordine vel med tata est\nvel effecit illa._ Another part of that which nature requireth of man, as\nhe is a creature endued with reason, concerneth (as we showed) our\nneighbours, whom it teacheth us not to harm nor offend, &c. And if our\nopposites would reckon with us here, their ceremonies will appear\nrepugnant to nature, because of the detriment and offence which they offer\nunto us, whereof we have spoken in our argument of scandal. But there was\na third part, concerning God and his worship; and here must our opposites\nseek a warrant for the ceremonies. Now, albeit nature (as was said)\nteaches all men that there is an eternal and mighty God, who should be\nworshipped and honoured by them, yet it descendeth not unto such\nparticular precepts as can have any show of making aught for significant\nceremonies. _Omnibus enim innatum est et in animo quasi insculptum, esse\ndeos_; but yet _quales sint_, saith Cicero, _varium est_.(1167) And as\nnature hath not taught men to know the nature and attributes of the\nGodhead, together with the sacred Trinity of persons in the same; so\nneither hath it taught what sort or manner of worship should be given unto\nGod. _Lex naturalis rerum communium est_,(1168) and doth only inform us\nwith those common notions called \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u1f76. Concerning the worship of\nGod, it speaks only _de genere_, not _de specie_: wherefore there can be\nno inference from that worship which the law of nature requireth, either\nof any distinct kind of worship or of any ceremony in that kind, no more\nthan it followeth, _Si est animal, est Asinus; for \u00e0 genere ad speciem non\nvalet consequentia affirmando_.\n\n\n\n\n                             THE FOURTH PART.\n\n\nAGAINST THE INDIFFERENCY OF THE CEREMONIES.\n\n\n\n                                CHAPTER I.\n\n\nOF OUR OPPOSITES\u2019 PLEADING FOR THE INDIFFERENCY OF THE CEREMONIES.\n\n\nIf it seem to any that it is a strange method to speak now of\nindifferency, in the end of this dispute, which ought rather to have been\nhandled in the beginning of it, they may consider, that the method is not\nours, but our opposites\u2019; for they have been fleeing upon Icarus\u2019 wings,\nand soaring so high that their wings could not but melt from them: so have\nthey, from necessity fallen down to expediency; from it to lawfulness; and\nfrom thence to indifferency.\n\nI knew certain of them, who, after reasoning about the ceremonies with\nsome of our side, required, in the end, no more but that they would only\nacknowledge the indifferency of the things in themselves. And so being\nwooed and solicitously importuned by our former arguments against the\nceremonies, they take them to the weaving of Penelope\u2019s web, thereby to\nsuspend us, and to gain time against us: this indifferency, I mean, which\nthey shall never make out, and which themselves, otherwhiles, unweave\nagain. Always, so long as they think to get any place for higher notions\nabout the ceremonies, they speak not so meanly of them as of things\nindifferent; but when all their forces of arguments and answers are spent\nin vain, then are our ears filled with uncouth outcries and declamations,\nwhich tend to make themselves appear blameless for receiving, and us\nblameworthy for refusing matters of rite and indifferency.\n\nUpon this string they harp over and over again, in books, in sermons, in\nprivate discourses. Mr G. Powell (in his book _De Adiaphoris_), and Tilen\n(in the 12th and 17th chapters of his _Paraenesis_), condemn those who\nmake aught ado about the controverted English ceremonies, for so much as\nthey are things indifferent. Paybody, in his Apology for kneeling at the\ncommunion, standeth much upon the indifferency of this gesture, both in\nevery worship of God, and in that sacrament namely. The Archbishop of St.\nAndrews, in his sermon at Perth Assembly, because he could not prove this\nindifferency, he chose to suppose it. \u201cOf the indifferency of these\narticles (saith he) I think there is little or no question amongst us.\u201d\nWhether he spake this of ignorance or of policy, I leave it to be guessed\nat. Howsoever, if we should thus compose our controversy about the\nceremonies, embrace them, and practise them, so being that they be only\ncalled things indifferent, this were to cure our church, as L. Sylla cured\nhis country, _durioribus remediis quam pericula erant_, saith\nSeneca.(1169) Wherefore we will debate this question of indifferency also.\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER II.\n\n\nOF THE NATURE OF THINGS INDIFFERENT.\n\n\n_Sect._ 1. To say nothing here of the homonymy of the word _indifferent_,\nbut to take it in that signification which concerneth our present purpose,\nit signifieth such a mean betwixt good and evil in human actions, as is\nalike distant from both these extremes, and yet susceptive of either of\nthem. _Indifferens_, saith Calepin, is that _quod sua natura neque bonum\nest neque malum_. Aquinas(1170) calleth that an indifferent action which\nis neither good nor evil. _Rem indifferentem voco quae neque bona neque\nmala in se est_, saith a later writer.(1171)\n\nBut Dr Forbesse(1172) liketh to speak in another language. He will have\nthat which is indifferent to be opponed to that which is necessary; and a\nthing indifferent he taketh to be such a thing as is neither necessarily\nto be done, nor yet necessarily to be omitted, in respect of any necessity\nof the commandment of God; or such a thing as is neither remunerable with\neternal life, and commendeth a man unto the reward of God, nor yet is\npunishable with eternal death, and polluteth a man with guiltiness. Now,\nbecause he knew that divines define a thing indifferent to be that which\nis neither good nor evil, he therefore distinguisheth a twofold goodness\nof an individual action.(1173) The one he calleth _bonitas generalis,\nconcomitans, et sine qua non_; by which goodness is meant the doing of an\naction in faith, and the doing of it for the right end, as he expoundeth\nhimself. This goodness, he saith, is necessary to every human action, and\nhindereth not an action to be indifferent. The other he calleth _bonitas\nspecialis, causans, et propter quam_. This goodness he calleth legal, and\nsaith that it maketh an action necessary; in which respect indifferent\nactions are not good, but those only which God in his law hath commanded,\nand which are remunerable with eternal life.\n\n_Sect._ 2. But that we may have the vanity of these quiddities discovered\nto us, let us only consider how falsely he supposeth that there are some\nthings which we do neither laudably nor culpably, and for which we shall\nneither be rewarded (it is his own phrase which I use) nor yet punished by\nGod. I thought we had learned from Scripture that we must all appear\nbefore the judgment-seat of Christ, to give an account of every word which\nwe speak, and of every deed which we do in the flesh, and accordingly to\nreceive either a reward or a punishment. What! Could the Doctor say that\nthese good actions which he calleth indifferent, and of which he saith\nthat they are done in faith, and for the right end, are not laudable nor\nremunerable? Nay, but he saith(1174) that the general goodness which\naccompanieth the action is remunerable, because it is necessary, but the\naction itself is not necessary, because that general goodness may be had\nas well in the omission of it, or in the doing of the contrary, as in the\ndoing of it, whereupon he would have it to follow that the action itself\nis not remunerable.\n\n_Ans._ 1. The Doctor had done well to have remembered that he is speaking\nonly of individual actions, and that _actus individuatur a circumstantus\net adjecto modo_, so that whilst all that he saith turneth to this, that\none action considered in itself, without the circumstances and concomitant\ngoodness, is not remunerable, he maketh not out his point; for he saith no\nmore in effect, but that _actus quo ad speciem_ is not remunerable, which\nnone of us denieth.\n\n2. An individual good action of that kind which the Doctor calleth\nnecessary, is no otherwise remunerable and laudable than an individual\ngood action of that kind which he calleth indifferent, for example, when I\ngo to hear God\u2019s word upon the Lord\u2019s day, let this action of mine be\nconsidered _quo ad individuum_, is it any otherwise remunerable than in\nrespect of the goodness which accompanieth it? Whence it is that the\nhearing of hypocrites, not being accompanied with such goodness, is not\nremunerable, yet the hearing of the word is an action necessary, because\ncommanded? Now may we know wherein standeth the difference betwixt the\nremunerable good of this action of hearing, and remunerable good of one of\nthose actions which the Doctor calleth indifferent, for example, a woman\u2019s\naction of marrying.\n\nI perceive what the Doctor would answer, for he saith,(1175) if a woman\nmarry in the Lord, this action is good _respectu adjecti modi, quamvis in\nse sit media et libera, etiam quo ad individuum_, implying that if, on the\nother part, an individual action be necessary (as for example the action\nof hearing the word), then it is in itself good, _etiam quo ad\nindividuum_.\n\nBut, I reply, what means he by these words, _in se_? Means he the\nindividual nature of the action? Nay, then the sense shall be no other\nthan this, _quo ad individuum, etiam quo ad individuum_. And, besides, the\nDoctor cannot define to us any other nature in an individual thing than\nthe nature of the species or kind.\n\nIs it not holden _individuum non posse definiri, nisi definitione\nspecici_?(1176) Sure a perfect definition, expressing the nature of the\nthing defined, cannot be given to any individual thing other than the\ndefinition of the species, needs, therefore, must the Doctor, by _in se_,\nunderstand the specifical nature, and, indeed, when divines speak of\nthings indifferent, _in se_, _per se_, or _sua natura_, they mean only\nthings indifferent _quo ad speciem_. Yet thus also the Doctor hath said\nnonsense, for so we should take his words, _quamvis quoad speciem sit\nmedia et libera, etiam quo ad individuum_.\n\n_Sect._ 3. But to let his manner of speaking pass, we will consider what\nhe would or could have said. There is no difference which can here be\nimagined except this: That the individual action of hearing the word (when\none heareth aright) is good and remunerable in a double respect, namely,\nbecause it is both good in itself, or _quo ad speciem_, and likewise\n_respectu adjecti modi_, whereas a woman\u2019s action of marrying (when she\nmarrieth in the Lord) is only good and remunerable in the last respect,\nnamely, _respectu modi_, for, _in se_, or, _quo ad speciem_, it hath no\nremunerable goodness in it.\n\n_Ans._ What do we hear of any difference betwixt these actions _quo ad\nspeciem_? That which we crave is, that a difference may be showed betwixt\nthe remunerable goodness of the one and of the other, both being\nconsidered _quo ad individuum_.\n\nThat whereby the Doctor either was deceived, or would deceive, appeareth\nto be this: That he taketh everything which agreeth to an individual thing\nto agree to it _quo ad individuum_, as if to speak of Peter _quatenus est\nhomo_, and to speak of him _quatenus est individuum signatum_, or _res\nsingularis sub specie hominis_, were all one thing. Even so, to say of my\nindividual action of hearing the word, that it is necessary because of the\ncommandment of God (and in that respect remunerable), is not to speak of\nit _quo ad individuum_, but as the specifical nature of that action of\nhearing the word (which God hath commanded) is found in it; for if we\nspeak of this individual action, _quo ad individuum_, we cannot consider\nit otherwise than _respectu adjecti modi_, because, in moral actions,\n_modus adjectus_ is _principium individuationis_, and nothing else doth\nindividualise a moral action.\n\n_Sect._ 4. Thus shall my position stand good, namely, that those\nindividual actions which the Doctor calleth necessary, because their\nspecies is commanded of God, and those individual actions which he calleth\nindifferent, because their _species_ is not commanded, both being\nconsidered _quo ad individuum_, the former hath no other remunerable good\nin them than the latter, and the whole remunerable good which is in either\nof them standeth only _in objecto modo_; which being so, it is all one\nwhen we speak of any individual moral action _quo ad individuum_, whether\nwe say that it is good, or that it is remunerable and laudable, both are\none. For, as is well said by Aquinas,(1177) _Necessarium est omnem actum\nhominis, ut bonum vel malum, culpabilis vel laudabilis rationem habere_.\nAnd again: _Nihil enim est aliud laudari vel culpari, quam imputari alicui\nmalitiam vel bonitatem sui actus_; wherefore that distinction of a twofold\ngoodness, _causans_ and _concomitans_, which the Doctor hath given us,\nhath no use in this question, because every action is laudable and\nremunerable which is morally good, whether it be necessary or not. Now\nmoral goodness, saith Scalliger,(1178) _est perfectio actus cum recta\nratione_. Human moral actions are called good or evil, _in ordine ad\nrationem, quae est proprium principium humanorum actuum_, saith\nAquinas,(1179) thereupon inferring that _illis mores dicuntur boni, qui\nrationi congruunt; mali autem, qui \u00e0 ratione discordant_. Dr Forbesse doth\ntherefore pervert the question whilst he saith,(1180) _in hac cum\nfratribus quaestione, hoc bonum est quod necessarium_. Nay, those actions\nwe call morally good which are agreeable to right reason, whether they be\nnecessary or not. Since, then, those actions are laudable and remunerable\nwhich are morally good, and those are morally good which are agreeable to\nright reason, it followeth, that forasmuch as those actions which the\nDoctor calleth indifferent, are agreeable to right reason, they are,\ntherefore, not only morally good, but also laudable and remunerable, and\nso not indifferent. Yea, those actions which he calleth necessary, being\nconsidered _quo ad individuum_, are no otherwise laudable and remunerable\nthan those which he calleth indifferent, being considered in like manner\n_quo ad individuum_, as hath been showed.\n\n_Sect._ 5. And besides all this, we have somewhat more to say of the\nDoctor\u2019s speculation about the nature of things indifferent.\n\nFor, 1. The Doctor maketh that which is indifferent to be opponed to that\nwhich is necessary, and yet he maketh both these to be morally good. Now\nalbeit in natural things one good is opponed to another good, as that\nwhich is hot to that which is cold, yet _bonum bona non contrariatur in\nmoralibus_.(1181) The reason of the difference is, because _bonitas\nphysica_, or _relativa est congruentia naturae quaedem_, saith\nScalliger;(1182) and because two natures may be contrary one to another,\ntherefore the good which is congruous to the one may be contrary to the\ngood which is congruous to the other; but _bonum virtutis_, saith\nAquinas(1183) _non accipitur nisi per convenientiam ad aliquid unum,\nscilicet rationem_; so that it is impossible for one moral good to be\nopponed to another.\n\n2. Since divines take a thing indifferent to be _medium inter bonum et\nmalum morale_; and since (as the very notation of the word showeth) it is\nsuch a means as cometh not nearer to the one extreme than to the other,\nbut is alike distant from both, how comes it that the Doctor so far\ndeparteth both from the tenet of divines and from the notation of the\nword, as to call some such actions indifferent as have a moral remunerable\ngoodness, and yet not evil in them? or where learned he such a dialect as\ngiveth to some good things the name of the things indifferent?\n\n3. Why doth he also waver from himself; for he citeth(1184) out of the\nHelvetic Confessor Jerome\u2019s definition of a thing indifferent, and\napproveth it. _Indifferens_, saith he, _illud est quod nec bonum nec malum\nest, ut sive feceris sive non feceris, nec justitiam habeas nec\ninjustitiam._ Behold the goodness which is excluded from the nature of a\nthing indifferent is not only necessity but righteousness also, yet hath\nthe Doctor excluded only the good of necessity from things indifferent,\nmaking the other good of righteousness to stand with them; for things\nwhich are done in faith, and done for the right end (such as he\nacknowledgeth these things to be which he calleth indifferent), have\nrighteousness in them, as all men know.\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER III.\n\n\nWHETHER THERE BE ANYTHING INDIFFERENT IN ACTU EXERCITO.\n\n\n_Sect._ 1. For our better light in this question I will premit these\nconsiderations, 1. When we measure the goodness or the badness of a human\naction, we must not only measure it by the object and the end, but by all\nthe circumstances which accompany it. Fed. Morellus,(1185) upon those\nwords of Seneca, _Refert quid, cui, quando, quare, ubi,_ &c., saith, that\nwithout those circumstances of things, persons, times, places, _facti\nratio non constat_. Circumstances sometimes _constituunt rerum earum quae\naguntur speciem_, say our divines,(1186) meaning that circumstances do\nmake an action good or bad. _Humani actus_, say the schoolmen,(1187) _non\nsolum ex objectis, verum ex circumstantiis boni vel mali esse dicuntur_.\nIt is not every man\u2019s part, saith one of our opposites,(1188) to judge _de\ncircumstantia, quae reddit actionem vel bonam vel malam_. \u201cSome\ncircumstances, saith another of them,(1189) are intrinsical and essential\nto actions, and specially making up their nature.\u201d The principal\ncircumstances which here we speak of, are comprehended in this versicle:\u2014\n\nQuis, quid, ubi, quibus auxiliis, cur quomodo,\nquando.\n\nThe first circumstance which maketh an action good or bad is _quis_, which\ndesigneth the person: If a magistrate put to death a malefactor, the\naction is good; but if a private person put him to death, it is evil.\n\nThe second is _quid_, which noteth the quality or condition of the object:\nIf a man take _sua_, the action is good; if _aliena_, it is evil.\n\nThe third is _ubi_: If men banquet in their own houses, the action is\ngood; if in the church, it is evil.\n\nThe fourth is _quibus auxiliis_: If men seek health by lawful means, the\naction is good; if by the devil, or his instruments, it is evil.\n\nThe fifth is _cur_: If I rebuke my brother for his fault, out of my love\nto him, and desire to reclaim him, the action is good; if out of hatred\nand spleen, the action is evil.\n\nThe sixth is _quomodo_: For he who doth the work of the Lord carefully\ndoth well; but he who doth it negligently doth evil.\n\nThe seventh is _quando_: To do servile work upon the six days of labour,\nis good; but to do it upon the Lord\u2019s Sabbath, is evil.\n\n2. There is another consideration which followeth upon the former; and it\nis this: The goodness or badness of a human action may be considered two\nways, viz., either _in actu signato_, and _quo ad speciem_; or _in actu\nexercito_, and _quo ad individuum_; for an action is said to be\nspecificated by its object, and individuated by its circumstances; so\nthat, when an action is good or evil in respect of the object of it, then\nit is called good or evil _quo ad speciem_: when it is good or evil in\nrespect of the circumstances of it, then it is said to be good or evil\n_quo ad individuum_.\n\n3. Human actions, whether considered _quo ad speciem_, or _quo ad\nindividuum_, are either such as proceed from the deliberation of reason,\nor from bare imagination only. To this latter kind we refer such actions\nas are done through incogitancy, while the mind is taken up with other\nthoughts; for example, to scratch the head, to handle the beard, to move\nthe foot, &c.; which sort of things proceed only from a certain stirring\nor fleeting of the imagination.\n\n4. Let it be remembered, that those things we call morally good, which\nagree to right reason; those morally evil which disagree from right\nreason; and those indifferent which include nothing belonging to the order\nof reason, and so are neither consonant unto nor dissonant from the same.\n\n5. When we speak of the indifferency of an individual action, it may be\nconceived two ways: either _absolute et sine respectu ad aliud_; or\n_comparate et cum respectu ad aliud_. In the free-will offerings, if so be\na man offered according as God had blessed and prospered his estate, it\nwas indifferent to offer either a bullock, or a sheep, or a goat; but if\nhe chose to offer any of them, his action of offering could not be\nindifferent, but either good or evil. When we speak of the indifferency of\nan action _comparate_, the sense is only this, that it is neither better\nnor worse than another action, and that there is no reason to make us\nchoose to do it more than another thing; but when we speak of the\nindifferency of an action considered absolutely and by itself, the simple\nmeaning is, whether it be either good or evil, and whether the doing of\nthe same must needs be either sin or evil doing.\n\n6. Every thing which is indifferent in the nature of it, is not by and by\nindifferent in the use of it. But the use of a thing indifferent ought\nevermore to be either chosen or refused, followed or forsaken, according\nto these three rules delivered to us in God\u2019s word: 1. The rule of piety;\n2. The rule of charity; 3. The rule of purity.\n\nThe first of these rules we find, 1 Cor. x. 31, \u201cWhether, therefore, ye\neat or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God;\u201d and Rom.\nxiv. 7, 8, \u201cFor none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself.\nFor whether we live, we live unto the Lord, and whether we die, we die\nunto the Lord:\u201d where the Apostle, as Calvin noteth,(1190) reasoneth from\nthe whole to the part. Our whole life, and, by consequence, all the\nparticular actions of it, ought to be referred to God\u2019s glory, and ordered\naccording to his will. Again, Col. iii. 17, \u201cAnd whatsoever ye do, in word\nor deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus.\u201d In the expounding of which\nwords Dr Davenant saith well, that _Etiam ille actiones qu\u00e6 sunt sua\nnatura adiaphor\u00e6, debent tamen \u00e0 Christianis fieri in nomine Christi, hoc\nest, juxta voluntatem Christi, et ad gloriam Christi_.\n\nThe second rule is the rule of charity; which teacheth us not to use\nanything indifferent when scandal riseth out of it: Rom. xiv. 21, \u201cIt is\ngood neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor anything whereby thy\nbrother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak;\u201d yea, though it do not\nweaken, if it be not expedient for edifying our brother, be it never so\nlawful or indifferent in its own nature, the law of charity bindeth us to\nabstain from it: Rom. xiv. 19, \u201cLet us therefore follow after the things\nwhich make for peace, and the things wherewith one may edify another;\u201d\nRom. xv. 2, \u201cLet every one of us please his neighbour for his good to\nedification;\u201d 1 Cor. x. 23, \u201cAll things are lawful for me, but all things\nare not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify\nnot:\u201d where the Apostle teacheth, that _in cibo_, &c.,(1191) \u201cIn meat,\ndrink, and the whole kind of things indifferent, it is not enough to look\nwhether they be lawful, but that, farther, we are to look whether to do or\nomit the same be expedient, and may edify.\u201d The Bishop of Winchester,\npreaching upon John xvi. 7, \u201cI tell you the truth: it is expedient for you\nthat I go away,\u201d &c., marketh, that Christ would not go away without\nacquainting his disciples with the reason of it; and that reason was,\nbecause it was for their good: whereupon he inferreth, 1. That we should\navoid Hophni\u2019s _non vult enim_, and make our _vult_ our _enim_, 1 Sam. ii.\n15; that is, that we should not give our will for a reason, but a reason\nfor our will; 2. That we should not, with the Corinthians, stand upon\n_licet_,\u2014it is lawful, but frame our rule by _expedit_,\u2014it is expedient, 1\nCor. vi. 13; x. 23; 3. That our rule should not be Caiaphas\u2019 _expedit\nnobis_, but Christ\u2019s _expedit vobis_,\u2014for you it is good, you, the\ndisciples, John xi. 50; and make that the rule of our going out and our\ncoming in. The heathens themselves could say that we are born, partly for\nGod, partly for our country, partly for our friends, &c. How much more\nought Christians to understand that we are not born for ourselves, but for\nChrist and his church. And as in the whole course of our life, so\nespecially in the policy of the church, we may do nothing (be it never so\nindifferent in itself) which is not profitable for edification: 1 Cor.\nxiii. 26, \u201cLet all things be done to edifying.\u201d From which precept Pareus\ninferreth, that nothing ought to be done in the church which doth not\nmanifestly make for the utility of all and every one; and that therefore\nnot only unknown tongues, but cold ceremonies and idle gestures should be\nexploded out of the church.\n\nThe third rule is the rule of purity, which respecteth our peace and\nplerophory of conscience, without which anything is unclean to us, though\nit be clean and lawful in its own nature: Rom xiv. 14, \u201cTo him that\nesteemeth anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean,\u201d therefore _si\nquis aliquam in cibo immunditiem imagineter, eo libere uti non\npotest_.(1192) Whatsoever indifferent thing a man in his conscience\njudgeth to be unlawful, he may not lawfully do it: Rom xiv. 5, \u201cLet every\nman be fully persuaded in his own mind;\u201d and verse 23, \u201cHe that doubteth\nis damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith; for whatsoever is not\nof faith is sin.\u201d _Nefas est omnino_, saith Calvin,(1193) _quippiam\naggredi quod putes illi (domino) displicere, imo quod non persuasus sis\nilli placere_. Now if a thing indifferent be used according to these three\nrules, the use of it is not only lawful but expedient also; but if it be\nnot used according to these rules, the use of it is altogether unlawful.\n\n_Sect._ 3. And since a thing indifferent in the nature of it can never be\nlawfully used, except according to these rules, hence it followeth, that\nthe use of a thing indifferent is never lawful to us when we have no other\nwarrant for using the same beside our own will and arbitrement.\n\nDr Forbesse speaks unadvisedly whilst he saith,(1194) _Evenit nonnunquam_,\n&c.: \u201cIt falleth out sometimes that that which was expedient for thee to\ndo yesterday, and to omit this day, thou mayest, notwithstanding,\nafterward either do it, or not do it, according to thy arbitrement:\u201d As\nif, forsooth, our using of things indifferent should not evermore be\ndetermined by the rule of expediency which God\u2019s word giveth us, but\nsometimes by our own will. Dr Davenant(1195) could not dream that any,\nexcept the ignorant common people, could be of this opinion which Dr\nForbesse holdeth _Fallitur vulgus_, saith he, _dum judicat licere __ sibi,\nuti victu, vestitu, sermone, aut quacunque re adiaphora pro arbitrio suo;\nnam haec omnia ad regulam adhibenda sunt_.\n\nMoreover, as we may not use any indifferent thing at our own pleasure; so\nneither may the church, at her will and pleasure, command the use of it:\nbut as our practice, so the church\u2019s injunction must be determined and\nsquared according to the former rules. And if any man think that, in the\nusing of things indifferent, he may be led and ruled by the church\u2019s\ndetermination, without examining any further, let him understand that the\nchurch\u2019s determination is but a subordinate rule, or a rule ruled by\nhigher rules.\n\nDr Forbesse, perceiving how these rules of Scripture may subvert his\ncause, desireth to subject them to the church\u2019s determination, and to make\nit our highest rule. _Jam autem_, saith he,(1196) _in talium rerum usu, id\nedificat, quod pacificum; illud est pacificum quod est ordinatum; is autem\ndecens ordo est in ecclesia ab ipso Christo constitutus, ut in talibus non\nsuo quisque se gerat arbitratu, sed audiatur ecclesia, et exhibeatur\npraepositis obedientia._\n\nHe hath been speaking of the rules which God\u2019s word giveth us concerning\nthe use of things indifferent; and all of them he comprehendeth under this\nrule, that we should hear the church, and obey them who are set over us,\nas if God\u2019s rules were subordinate to men\u2019s rules, and not theirs to his.\nWe say not that every man may use things indifferent _sua arbitratu_, but\nwe say withal, that neither may the church command the use of things\nindifferent _suo arbitratu_. Both she in commanding and we in obeying must\nbe guided by the rules of Scripture.\n\nThey who are set over us in the church have no power given them of Christ\nwhich is not for edifying, Eph. iv. 12. The counsel of the apostles and\nelders at Jerusalem (which is a lively pattern of a lawful synod to the\nworld\u2019s end) professed they would lay no other burden upon the disciples\nexcept such things as the law of charity made necessary for shunning of\nscandal, Acts xv. 28; and so that which they decreed had force and\nstrength to bind _a charitate propter scandalum_, saith Sanctius;(1197)\nbut _suo arbitratu_ they enjoined nothing. Cartwright saith, \u201cIt appeareth\nby this place that there may be no abridgement of liberty simply decreed,\nbut in regard of circumstance, according to the rule of\nedification.\u201d(1198) And if the church\u2019s decrees and canons be not\naccording to the rules of the word; yet, forasmuch as every one of us\nshall give account of himself and his own deeds, we must look that\nwhatsoever the church decree, yet our practice, in the use or omission of\na thing indifferent, be according to the foresaid rules.\n\nWe may not, for the commandment of men, transgress the rule of piety, by\ndoing anything which is not for God\u2019s glory, and ordered according to his\nwill; neither ought any of us to obey men, except \u201cfor the Lord\u2019s sake,\u201d 1\nPet. ii. 13, and \u201cas the servants of Christ, doing the will of God,\u201d Eph.\nvi. 6; which teacheth us the manner how we ought to obey men, namely,\n_propter Christum et sicut Christus praecipit_;(1199) for if we should\nknow no more but the will of man for that which we do, then we should be\nthe \u201cservants of men,\u201d not the servants of Christ. Neither yet may we for\nany human ordinance break the rule of charity; \u201cBut whatsoever either\nwould weaken, or not edify our brother, be it never so lawful, never so\nprofitable to ourselves, never so powerfully by earthly authority\nenjoined, Christians, who are not born unto themselves, but unto Christ,\nunto his church, and unto the fellow-members, must not dare to meddle with\nit.\u201d(1200)\n\nNor, lastly, may we obey men, so as to break the law of purity, and\n\u201cperform any action with a doubtful conscience; that is, whereof either\nthe world hath not,(1201) nor we out of it have no warrant, in which case\ntender consciences must be tendered rather than be racked by authority,\nfor be the things in themselves never so lawful, &c., they are utterly\nunlawful to me without such information.\u201d Whereas, therefore, some say,\nthat in the use of matters indifferent, the laws of those who are set over\nus ought to rule us; we still answer that our practice may not be ruled by\nany law of man, except it be according to the rules of the word, whereof\none is this, _Tantum oportere esse obedientiae studium in\nChristianis,_(_1202_)_ ut nihil agant, quod non existiment vel potius\ncerti sint placere Deo_.\n\n_Sect._ 4. These considerations being permitted, for resolution of the\nquestion in hand, we say, 1. As touching those actions which proceed from\nbare imagination, whether they be evil and inordinate _quo ad speciem_,\nforsomuch as the imagination from which they have their original doth not\nin those actions subject itself to the conduct and moderation of reason,\nbut is like Gehazi, running away without his master\u2019s leave, let the\nlearned give their judgment. Howsoever, it cannot be denied, that such\nactions may be and are of a civil _quo ad individuum_,(1203) or in respect\nof the circumstances, which show forth in them reprovable temerity,\nincogitancy, levity, and indecency. But such actions belong not to our\npurpose. 2. As for those actions which proceed from the deliberation of\nreason, howbeit many of them be indifferent, _quo ad speciem_, yet none of\nthem are, nor can be indifferent, _quo ad individuum_. The reason of this\ndifference and distinction is, because every action hath its species or\nkind,(1204) from the object, and a human moral action hath its species or\nkind from the object referred to the original of human actions, which is\nreason. Whereupon it cometh, that if the object of the action include\nsomething that agreeth to the order of reason, it shall be a good action,\naccording to its kind; for example, to give alms to an indigent man. But\nif it include something that is repugnant to the order of reason, it shall\nbe an evil action according to its kind; as to steal or take away another\nman\u2019s goods. Now sometimes it happeneth that the object of an action doth\nnot include something that belongeth to the order of reason; as to lift a\nstraw from the ground, to go to the field, &c., such actions are\nindifferent, according to their kind. But we must pronounce far otherwise\nof them when we speak of them _quo ad individuum_, because as they are\nindividuated by their circumstances, so in their individual being, they\nhave their goodness or badness from the same circumstances, as hath been\nshowed. So that no such action as is deliberated upon can be indifferent,\n_quo ad individuum_; because _oportet_ (saith Thomas(1205)) _quod quilibet\nindividualis actus habeat aliquam circumstantiam, per quam trahetur ad\nbonum vel malum, ad minus ex parte intentionis finis_. Friar Ambrosius\nCatarinus, following the doctrine of Thomas, maintained in the Council of\nTrent,(1206) that to do good was a work, the concurrences of all\ncircumstances is necessary, but the want of one only is sufficient for an\nevil, so that howsoever among the works considered in general, some are\nindifferent, yet in the singular there is no medium between having all the\ncircumstances and wanting some; therefore every particular action is good\nor evil; and because among the circumstances the end is one, all works\nreferred to a bad end are infected. He further alleged St. Augustine, that\nit is sin not only to refer the action to a bad end, but also not to refer\nit to a good end. Thus spake the learned friar very appositely; and the\nsame is the judgment of our own divines. _De bis rebus indifferentibus_\n(saith Martyr(1207)) _statuendum est, quod tantummodo ex genere atque\nnatura sua indifferentiam habeant, sed quando ad electionem descenditur\nnihil est indifferens_; and so saith Pareus likewise.(1208)\n\n_Sect._ 5. These things are so plain and undeniable, that Dr\nForbesse(1209) himself acknowledged no less than that every individual\nhuman action is either good or bad morally; and that there is a goodness\nwhich is necessary to every action, namely, the referring of it to the\nlast end, and the doing of it in faith; which goodness, if it be wanting,\nthe action is evil. Notwithstanding, he will have some actions, even _quo\nad individuum_, called indifferent, for this respect, because they are\nneither commanded of God, and so necessary to be done, nor yet forbidden,\nand so necessary to be omitted.\n\nOf an individual action of this kind, he saith: _Manet homini respectu\nistius actus plena arbitrii libertas moralis; tum ea quae exercitii seu\ncontradictionis dicitur, tum etiam ea quae specificationis seu\ncontrarietatis libertas appellatur._ He holdeth, that though such an\naction be done in faith, and for the right end (which general goodness, he\nsaith, is necessary to the action, and commendeth a man to God), yet the\naction itself is indifferent, because it is not necessary; for a man hath\nliberty to omit the same, or to do another thing; which he illustrateth by\nthis example:\u2014\n\nIf the widow Sempronia marry at all, it is faith, because, as the Apostle\nteacheth, whatsoever is not of faith is sin. Now whilst everything is\ncondemned which is not of faith, two sorts of actions are rejected, as\nCalvin observeth:(1210) 1. Such actions as are not grounded upon, nor\napproven by the word of God. 2. Such actions, as though they be approven\nby the word of God, yet the mind, wanting this persuasion, doth not\ncheerfully address itself to the doing of them. But, I pray, doth the word\nunderprop or approve the use of anything indifferent, if it be not used\naccording to the foresaid rules, and, by consequence, conveniently and\nprofitably?\n\n_Sect._ 9. The Doctor thinks it enough that, in the use of a thing\nindifferent, I believe it is lawful for me to do this thing, albeit I\nbelieve and certainly know that it is lawful to me to omit it, or do the\ncontrary; so that the doing of a thing in faith inferreth not the\nnecessity of doing it: but for answer hereunto we say,\n\n1. We have sufficiently proven that it is never lawful for us to do\nanything which is in the nature of it indifferent, except we be persuaded\nnot only of the lawfulness of the thing, but of the expediency of doing\nit.\n\n2. Of his comparing of things indifferent together, and not considering\nthem positively and by themselves, we have also said enough before.\n\n3. The doing of a thing in faith inferreth the expediency and profit of\ndoing it, and that is enough to take away the indifferency of doing it;\nfor since every indifferent thing is either expedient to be done, or else\nunlawful to be done (as hath been showed), it followeth that either it\nought to be done, or else it ought to be left undone; therefore it is\nnever indifferent nor free to us to do it, or leave it undone, at our\npleasure.\n\n4. Because the Doctor (I perceive) sticketh upon the term of necessity,\nand will have everything which is not necessary to be indifferent;\ntherefore, to remove this scruple, beside that Chrysostom and the author\nof the interlineary gloss upon Matt. xviii. 7, take the meaning of those\nwords, \u201cIt must needs be that offences come,\u201d to be this, _it is\nprofitable that offences come_. Which gloss, though it be not to be\nreceived, yet as Camero noteth,(1211) it is ordinary to call that\nnecessary which is very profitable and expedient. Besides this, I say, we\nfurther maintain, that in the use of things indifferent, that which we\ndeliberate upon to do is never lawful to be done except it be also\nnecessary, though not _necessitate absoluta seu consequentis_, yet\n_necessitate consequentiae seu ex suppositione_. Paul\u2019s circumcising of\nTimothy was lawful only because it was necessary, for he behoved by this\nmeans to win the good will of the people of Lystra who had once stoned\nhim,(1212) otherwise he could not safely have preached the gospel among\nthem. Therefore he had done wrong if he had not circumcised Timothy, since\nthe circumcising of him was according to the rules of the word, and it was\nexpedient to circumcise him, and unexpedient to do otherwise. And (because\n_de partibus idem est judicium_) whensoever the use of any indifferent\nthing is according to the rules of the word, that is, when it is\nprofitable for God\u2019s glory, and man\u2019s edification, and the doer is\npersuaded of so much, I say, putting this case, then (forsomuch as not\nonly it may, but ought to be done) the use of it is not only lawful but\nnecessary, and (forsomuch as not only it needs not, but ought not to be\nadmitted) the omission of it is not only unnecessary but also unlawful.\n\nAgain, put the case, that the use of a thing indifferent be either against\nor not according to the said rules, then (forsomuch as not only it may,\nbut ought to be admitted) the omission of it is not only lawful but\nnecessary, and (forsomuch as not only it needs not, but may not, neither\nought to be done) the doing of it is not only unnecessary but also\nunlawful. For which it maketh, that the apostles in their decree, allege\nno other ground for abstinence from blood and things strangled (which were\nin their nature indifferent), but the necessity of abstaining caused and\ninduced by the foresaid rules, Acts xv. 28.\n\nThe Apostle showeth that that measure of liberality whereunto he exhorted\nthe Corinthians was not by any divine commandment necessary, yet he\nadviseth it as a thing expedient, 2 Cor. viii. 8, 10. And were not the\nCorinthians thereunto bound, because of this expediency of the matter,\nthough it was not necessary? _Juxta verbum_, &c.: \u201cAccording to God\u2019s word\n(saith the Bishop of Salisbury(1213)) we are obliged to glorify God by our\ngood works, not only when necessity requireth, but also when ability\nfurnisheth, and opportunity occurreth,\u201d Gal. vi. 10; Tit. ii. 14.\n\n_Sect._ 10. As touching the scope of all this dispute, which is the\nindifferency of the controverted ceremonies, we shall hear sundry reasons\nagainst it afterward. For the present, I say no more but this: As in every\ncase, so most especially when we meddle with the worship of God, or any\nappurtenance thereof, the rules of the word tie us so straitly, that that\nwhich is in its own nature indifferent ought either to be done, or to be\nleft undone, according as it is either agreeable or not agreeable to these\nrules; and so is never left free to us to be done or omitted at our\npleasure: for if at all we be (as certainly we are) abridged of our\nliberty, chiefly it is in things pertaining to divine worship.\n\nBut I marvel why Dr Forbesse discourseth so much for the indifferency of\nthe ceremonies; for, lib. 1, cap. 7, he holdeth, that there were just\nreasons in the things themselves why the pretended Assembly of Perth\nshould enjoin the five articles; some of which he calleth very convenient\nand profitable, and others of them necessary in themselves. Sure, if he\nstand to that which he hath there written, he cannot choose but say that\nit is unlawful, both for us and for all Christians anywhere, to omit the\ncontroverted ceremonies; and that all such as have at any time omitted\nthem, have thereby sinned, in leaving that undone which they ought to have\ndone\u2014for the conveniency and necessity of them which he pretendeth is\nperpetual and universal.\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER IV.\n\n\nOF THE RULE BY WHICH WE ARE TO MEASURE AND TRY WHAT THINGS ARE\nINDIFFERENT.\n\n\n_Sect._ 1. That the word of God is the only rule whereby we must judge of\nthe indifferency of things, none of our opposites, we hope, will deny. \u201cOf\nthings indifferent (saith Paybody(1214)) I lay down this ground, that they\nbe such, and they only, which God\u2019s word hath left free unto us.\u201d\n\nNow these things which God\u2019s word leaveth free and indifferent (in respect\nof their nature and kind) are such things as it neither showeth to be good\nnor evil. Where we are further to consider, that the word of God showeth\nunto us the lawfulness or unlawfulness, goodness or badness of things, not\nonly by precepts and prohibitions, but sometimes also, and more plainly,\nby examples. So that, not only from the precepts and prohibitions of the\nword, but likewise from the examples recorded in the same, we may find out\nthat goodness or badness of human actions which taketh away the\nindifferency of them.\n\nAnd as for those who will have such things called indifferent as are\nneither commanded nor forbidden in the word of God, I ask of them whether\nthey speak of plain and particular precepts and prohibitions, or of\ngeneral only? If they speak of particular precepts and prohibitions, then,\nby their rule, the baptising of young children, the taking of water for\nthe element of baptism; a lecturer\u2019s public reading of Scripture in the\nchurch upon the Sabbath day; the assembling of synods for putting order to\nthe confusions of the church; the writing and publication of the decrees\nof the same; and sundry other things which the word hath commended unto us\nby examples,\u2014should all be things indifferent, because there are not in\nthe word of God either particular precepts for them, or particular\nprohibitions against them. But if they speak of general precepts and\nprohibitions, then are those things commanded in the word of God for which\nwe have the allowed and commended examples of such as we ought to follow\n(for, in the general, we are commanded to be followers of such examples,\nPhil. iv. 8, 9; 1 Cor. xi. 1; Eph. v. 1), though there be no particular\nprecept for the things themselves thus exemplified.\n\n_Sect._ 2. To come, therefore, to the ground which shall give us here some\nfooting, and whereupon we mind to rear up certain superstructions, we\nhold, that not only we ought to obey the particular precepts of the word\nof God, but that also \u201cwe are bound to imitate Christ, and the commendable\nexample of his apostles, in all things wherein it is not evident they had\nspecial reasons moving them thereto, which do not concern us:\u201d which\nground, as it hath been of a long time holden and confirmed by them of our\nside, so never could, nor ever shall, our opposites subvert it. It is long\nsince the _Abridgement_ confirmed and strengthened it, out of those places\nof Scripture: Eph. v. 1, \u201cBe ye therefore followers of God, as dear\nchildren;\u201d 1 Cor. xi. 1, \u201cBe ye followers of me, even as I also am of\nChrist;\u201d 1 Thess. i. 6, \u201cAnd ye became followers of us and of the Lord;\u201d\nPhil. iii. 17, \u201cBrethren, be followers together of me.\u201d\n\nThis ground is also at length pressed by Cyprian, who showeth(1215) that,\nin the holy supper of the Lord, Christ alone is to be followed by us; that\nwe are to do what he did; and that we ought not to take heed what any man\nhath done before us, but what Christ did, who is before all.\n\n_Sect._ 3. But Bishop Lindsey(1216) asketh of us, if we hold this rule,\nwhat is the cause why, at the celebration of the sacrament, we bless not\nthe bread severally by itself, and the cup severally by itself, seeing\nChrist did so, yet having no cause to move him which concerns not us.\n\n_Ans._ 1. Beside the common blessing of the elements, in the beginning of\nthe action, we give thanks also in the several actions of distribution,\nsaying after this or the like manner: \u201cThe Lord Jesus, the same night he\nwas betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks (as we also give\nthanks to God who gave his Son to die for us) he brake it,\u201d &c. \u201cIn like\nmanner also, after supper, he took the cup, and, when he had given thanks\n(as we also give thanks to God who gave his Son to shed his blood for us),\nhe gave it,\u201d &c. Which form (we conceive) may be construed to be an\nimitation of the example of Christ.\n\n2. Though we did not observe such a form; yet there were two reasons to\nmove Christ to give thanks severally, both at the giving of the bread, and\nat the giving of the cup, neither of which concerneth us: 1. The\neucharistical supper was one continued action with the other supper which\nwent before it; for it is said, \u201cThat whilst they did eat, he took bread,\u201d\n&c. Wherefore, for more distinction of it from that supper which\nimmediately proceeded, it was fit that he should give thanks severally at\nthe giving of each element. 2. He had to do with the twelve apostles,\nwhose hearts being so greatly troubled with sorrow, John xvi. 6, and whose\nminds not well comprehending that which they heard concerning the death of\nChrist, John xvi. 12, much less those mystical symbols of it, especially\nat the first hearing, seeing, and using of the same, it was needful for\ntheir cause distinctly and severally to bless those elements, thereby to\nhelp the weakness of their understanding, and to make them the more\ncapable of so heavenly mysteries.\n\n_Sect._ 4. Now, having heard that which the Bishop had to say against our\nrule, let us examine his own. He holdeth,(1217) That in the actions of\nChrist\u2019s apostles, or the customs of the church, there is nothing\nexemplary and left to be imitated of us, but that which either being\nmoral, is generally commanded in the decalogue, or being ceremonial and\ncircumstantial, is particularly commanded by some constant precept in the\ngospel.\n\n_Ans._ 1. This rule is most false; for it followeth from it that the\nexample of the apostles\u2019 making choice of the element of water in baptism,\nand requiring a confession of faith from the person who was to be\nbaptised; the example also both of Christ and his apostles using the\nelements of bread and wine in the holy supper, a table at which they did\ncommunicate, and the breaking of the bread, are not left to be imitated of\nus; because these things are ceremonial, but not particularly commanded in\nthe gospel. So that according to the rule which the Bishop holdeth, we sin\nin imitating Christ and his apostles in those things, forasmuch as they\nare not exemplary, nor left to be imitated of us.\n\n2. His weapons fight against his own fellows, who allege (as we have\nshowed elsewhere) the custom of the church(1218) is a sufficient warrant\nfor certain ceremonies questioned betwixt them and us, which are not\nparticularly commanded by any precept in the gospel. These the Bishop doth\nunwittingly strike at it whilst he holdeth that such customs of the church\nare not exemplary, nor left to be imitated of us.\n\n_Sect._ 5. Wherefore we hold still our own rule for sure and certain.\nChrist\u2019s actions are either _amanda_, as the works of redemption; or\n_admiranda_, as his miracles; or _notanda_, as many things done by him for\nsome particular reason proper to that time and case, and not belonging to\nus, which things, notwithstanding, are well worthy of our observation; or\n_imitanda_, and such are all his actions which had no such special reason\nmoving him thereto as do not concern us.\n\nCalvin, upon 1 Cor. xi. 1, saith well, that the Apostle there calls back\nboth himself and others to Christ, _Tanquam unicum recte agendi exemplar_;\nand Polycarpus Lycerus, upon Matt. xvi. 24, under that command of\nfollowing Christ, comprehendeth the imitations of Christ\u2019s actions.\n\nMost certainly it is inexcusable presumption to leave the example of\nChrist, and to do that which seemeth right in our own eyes, as if we were\nwiser than he. And now, having laid down this ground, we are to build\ncertain positions upon it, us follows.\n\n\n\n                                CHAPTER V.\n\n\nTHE FIRST POSITION WHICH WE BUILD UPON THE GROUND CONFIRMED IN THE FORMER\nCHAPTER.\n\n\n_Sect._ 1. From that which hath been said of following Christ, and the\ncommendable example of his apostles, in all things wherein it is not\nevident that they had some such special reason moving them to do that\nwhich they did, as doth not concern us, our first inference is this: That\nit is not indifferent for a minister to give the sacramental elements of\nbread and wine out of his own hand to every communicant; forasmuch as our\nLord commanded his apostles to divide the cup among them, that is, to\nreach it one to another, Luke xxii. 17. Some of the interpreters are of\nopinion, that the cup spoken of by the Evangelist in that place is not the\nsame whereof he speaketh after, ver. 20; but they are greatly mistaken;\nfor if it were as they think, then Christ did again drink before his death\nof that fruit of the vine whereof we read ver. 18, which is manifestly\nrepugnant to his own words. Wherefore, as Maldonat observeth(1219) out of\nAugustine and Euthimius, there was but one cup; whereof Luke speaketh,\nfirst, by anticipation, and, afterward, in its own proper place.\n\n_Sect._ 2. But Bishop Lindsey(1220) falleth here upon a very strange\nspeculation; and tells us, that if all the disciples did drink, howbeit\nthey did not deliver the cup one to another, but received it severally\nfrom Christ\u2019s own hand, they divided the same among them; because every\none takes his part of that which is parted, they divide the whole among\nthem. Alas! that I should blot paper with the confutation of such\nfooleries. I believe, when his Majesty hath distributed and divided so\nmany lands and revenues among the prelates of Scotland, every one of them\ntakes his part, but dare not say, though, that they have divided these\nlands and revenues among themselves. Can twenty or forty beggars, when an\nalms is distributed among them, because every one of them getteth his\npart, say, therefore, that they themselves have parted it among them?\nWhat, then, shall be said of the distributor who giveth to every one his\npart severally, and by himself? That man who required that his brother\nshould divide the inheritance with him, did not, I trow, desire Christ to\ncause his brother to take his own part of the inheritance (there was no\nfear that he would not take his part); but he desired that his brother\nmight give to him his part. So that, to divide anything among men, is not\nto take it, but to give it. And who did ever confound parting and\npartaking, dividing a cup and drinking a cup, which differ as much as\ngiving and receiving. Thus we conclude, that when Christ commanded the\napostles to divide the cup among them, the meaning of the words can be no\nother than this, that they should give the cup one to another; which is so\nplain that a Jesuit(1221) also maketh it to follow upon this command, that\nChrist did reach the cup _non singulis sed uni, qui proximo, proximus\nsequenti, et deinceps daret_. Hence it is that Hospinian(1222) thinks it\nmost likely that Christ brake the bread into two parts, _earumque alteram\ndederit illi qui proximus ei ad dextram accumbebat, alteram vero ei qui ad\nsinistram, ut isti deinceps proxime accumbentibus porrigerent, donec\nsinguli particulam sibi decerpsissent_.\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER VI.\n\n\nANOTHER POSITION BUILT UPON THE SAME GROUND.\n\n\n_Sect._ 1. Our next position which we infer, is this: That it is not\nindifferent to sit, stand, pass, or kneel, in the act of receiving the\nsacramental elements of the Lord\u2019s supper, because we are bound to follow\nthe example of Christ and his apostles, who used the gesture of sitting in\nthis holy action, as we prove from John xiii. 12; from Matt. xxvi. 20,\nwith 26; Mark xiv. 18, with 22.\n\nOur opposites here bestir themselves, and move every stone against us.\nThree answers they give us, which we will now consider.\n\nFirst, They tell us that it is not certain that the apostles were sitting\nwhen they received this sacrament from Christ, and that _adhuc sub judice\nlis est_. Yet let us see what they have to say against the certainty\nhereof.\n\nBishop Lindsey objecteth, that, between their eating of the paschal supper\nand the administration of the sacrament to the disciples, five acts\nintervened: 1. The taking of the bread; 2. The thanksgiving; 3. The\nbreaking; 4. The precept, \u201cTake ye, eat ye;\u201d 5. The word, whereby the\nelement was made the sacrament. In which time, saith he, the gesture of\nsitting might have been changed.\n\n_Ans._ It is first of all to be noted, that the apostles were sitting at\nthe instant when Christ took the bread, for it is said that he took bread\nwhilst they did eat; that is (as Maldonat(1223) rightly expoundeth it),\n_Antequam surgerent, antequam mensae et ciborum reliquiae removerentur_;\nand so we use to say that men are dining or supping so long as they sit at\ntable and the meat is not removed from before them. To Christ\u2019s\nministering of the eucharistical supper together with the preceding\nsupper, Christians had respect when they celebrated the Lord\u2019s supper\ntogether with the love-feasts. _Probabile est eos ad Christi exemplum\nrespexisse, qui eucharistiam inter coenandum instituit_, saith\nPareus.(1224) But of this we need say no more; for the Bishop himself hath\nhere acknowledged no less than that they were sitting at that time when\nChrist took the bread. Only he saith, that there were five acts which\nintervened before the administration of the sacrament to the disciples\n(whereof the taking of the bread was the first), and that in this while\nthe gesture of sitting might have been changed; which is as much as to\nsay, when he took the bread they were sitting, but they might have changed\nthis gesture, either in the time of taking the bread, or in the time of\nthanksgiving, or in the time of breaking the bread, or whilst he said,\n\u201cTake ye, eat ye,\u201d or lastly, in the time of pronouncing those words,\n\u201cThis is my body\u201d (for this is the word whereby, in the Bishop\u2019s judgment,\nthe element was made the sacrament, as we shall see afterward).\n\nNow but, by his leave, we will reduce his five acts to three; for thus\nspeaketh the text, \u201cAnd as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed it\nand break it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat, this is\nmy body,\u201d Matt. xxvi. 26; Mark xiv. 22. Whence it is manifest, that the\ngiving of the bread to the disciples, which no man, I suppose, will deny\nto have been the administration of it, went before the two last acts which\nthe Bishop reckoneth out. Nothing, therefore, is left to him but to say,\nthat their gesture of sitting might have been changed, either in the\ntaking or in the blessing, or in the breaking, or else between the taking\nand the blessing, or between the blessing and the breaking; yet doth the\ntext knit all the three together by such a contiguity and connection as\nshoweth unto us that they did all make up but one continued action, which\ncould not admit any interruption.\n\n_Sect._ 2. I saw a prelate sit down to his breakfast, and, as he did eat,\nhe took some cups, and, having called for more, he said, he thanked God\nthat he was never given to his belly; and with that he made a promise to\none in the company, which he brake within two days after. Would any man\nquestion whether or not the prelate was sitting when he made this promise,\nforasmuch as between his sitting down to meat and the making of the\npromise there intervened his taking of some cups, his calling for more,\nand his pronouncing of these words, I thank God that I was never given to\nmy belly? Yet might one far more easily imagine a change of the prelate\u2019s\ngesture than any such change of the apostles\u2019 gesture in that holy action\nwhereof we speak. Because the text setteth down such a continued, entire,\nunbroken, and uninterrupted action, therefore Calvin gathereth out of the\ntext that the apostles did both take and eat the sacramental bread whilst\nthey were sitting. _Non legimus_, saith he,(1225) _prostratos adorasse,\nsed ut erant discumbentes accepisse et manducasse. Christus_, saith\nMartyr,(1226) _eucharistiam apostolis una secum sedentibus aut\ndiscumbentibus distribuit_. G. J. Vossius(1227) puts it out of doubt that\nChrist was still sitting at the giving of the bread to the apostles. And\nthat the apostles were still sitting when they received the bread,\nHospinian(1228) thinks it no less certain. They made no doubt of the\ncertainty hereof who composed that old verse which we find in\nAquinas:(1229)\u2014\n\nRex sedet in coena, turba cinctus duodena;\nSe tenet in manibus; se cibat ipse cibus.\n\nPapists also put it out of controversy; for Bellarmine acknowledgeth(1230)\nthat the apostles could not externally adore Christ by prostrating\nthemselves in the last supper, _quando recumbere cum eo illis necesse\nerat_; where we see he could guess nothing of the change of their gesture.\n_Intelligendum est_, saith Jansenius,(1231) _dominum in novissima hac\ncoena, discubuisse et sedisse ante et post comestum agnum_. Dr Stella\nsticketh not to say,(1232) _distribuit salvator mundi panem\ndiscumbentibus_.\n\n_Sect._ 3. But now having heard Bishop Lindsey, let us hear what\nPaybody(1233) will say. He taketh him to another subterfuge, and tells us,\nthat though we read that Christ took bread whilst they did eat, yet can it\nnot be concluded hence that he took bread whilst they did sit; because,\nsaith he, \u201cas they did eat,\u201d is expounded by Luke (chap. xxii. 20) and\nPaul (1 Cor. xi. 25) to be _after they had done eating_, or _after\nsupper_. Thus is their languages divided. Bishop Lindsey did yield to us,\nthat when Christ took bread they were sitting; and his conjecture was,\nthat this gesture of sitting might have been changed after the taking of\nthe bread. Paybody saw that he had done with the argument if he should\ngrant that they were sitting when Christ took bread, therefore he calleth\nthat in question. Vulcan\u2019s own gimmers could not make his answer and the\nBishop\u2019s to stick together.\n\nBut let us examine the ground which Paybody takes for his opinion. He\nwould prove from Luke and Paul, that when Matthew and Mark say, \u201cAs they\nwere eating, Jesus took bread,\u201d the meaning is only this, _After supper,\nJesus took bread_; importing, that Christ\u2019s taking of bread did not make\nup one continued action with their eating, and that therefore their\ngesture of sitting might have been changed between their eating of the\npreceding supper and his taking of the sacramental bread.\n\nWhereunto we answer, that there are two opinions touching the suppers\nwhich Christ did eat with his disciples that night wherein he was\nbetrayed. And whichsoever the reader please to follow, it shall be most\neasy to break all the strength of the argument which Paybody opposeth unto\nus.\n\n_Sect._ 4. First, then, some do think that Christ, having kept the\npassover according to the law (which is not particularly related, but\nsupposed, by the evangelists), sat down to a common or ordinary supper, at\nwhich he told the disciples that one of them should betray him. And of\nthis judgment are Calvin and Beza, upon Matt. xxvi. 21; Pareus, upon Matt.\nxxvi. 21; Fulk and Cartwright, against the Rhemists, upon 1 Cor. xi. 23;\nTolet and Maldonat, upon John xiii. 2; Cornelius Jansenius, _Conc.\nEvang._, cap. 131; Balthazar Meisnerus, _Tract, die Fest. Virid._, p. 256;\nJohannes Forsterus, _Conc. 4, de Pass._, p. 538; Christophorus Pelargus,\nin John xiii., quest. 2, and others. The reasons whereby their judgment is\nconfirmed are these:\u2014\n\n1. Many societies convened to the eating of the paschal supper by\ntwenties.(1234) And if twenty was often the number of them who convened to\nthe eating of the same (which also confirmeth their opinion who think that\nother men and women in the inn did eat both the paschal and evangelical\nsupper together with the apostles in Christ\u2019s company), it is not very\nlikely (say some) that all those were sufficiently satisfied and fed with\none lamb, which, after it was eight days old, was allowed to be offered\nfor the passover, as Godwin noteth.(1235) _Neque esus umus agni_, saith\nPareus, _toti familiae sedandae fami sufficere poterat._(1236)\n\n2. The paschal supper was not for banquetting or filling of the belly, as\nJosephus also writeth.(1237) _Non tam exsatiendae nutriendaeque naturae_,\nsaith Maldonat, _quam servandae legalis ceremoniae causa sumebatur_.(1238)\n_Non ventri_, saith Pareus, _sed religionis causa fiebat_.(1239) But as\nfor that supper which Christ and his apostles did eat immediately before\nthe eucharistical, Cartwright doubts not to call it a carnal supper,(1240)\nan earthly repast, a feast for the belly, which lets us know, that the\nsacramental bread and wine was ordained, not for feeding their bodies,\nwhich were already satisfied by the ordinary and daily supper, but for the\nnourishment of the soul.\n\n3. That beside the paschal and evangelical suppers, Christ and his\napostles had also that night another ordinary supper, Fulk proveth by the\nbroth wherein the sop was dipped,(1241) John xiii. 26. Whereas there was\nno such broth ordained by the divine institution to be used in the paschal\nsupper.\n\n4. That there were two suppers before the eucharistical they gather from\nJohn xiii. For, first, the paschal supper was ended, ver. 2, after which\nChrist washed his disciples\u2019 feet. And thereafter we read, ver. 12,\n_resumptis vestibus rursum ad caenam ordinariam consedisse._(1242) The\ndividing of the passover into two services or two suppers had no warrant\nat all from the first institution of that sacrament, for which cause they\nthink it not likely that Christ would have thus divided it according to\nthe device and custom of the Jews in latter times, for so much as in\nmarriage (and much more in the passover) he did not allow of that which\nfrom the beginning was not so. Neither seemeth it to them any way\nprobable, that Christ would have interrupted the eating of the passover\nwith the washing of his disciples\u2019 feet before the whole paschal supper\nwas ended, and they had done eating of it.\n\n_Sect_. 5. But others (and those very judicious too) are of opinion, that\nthat second course whereunto Christ sat down after the washing of his\ndisciples\u2019 feet, and at which he told them that one of them should betray\nhim, was not an ordinary or common supper (because the paschal supper was\nenough of itself to satisfy them), but a part of the paschal supper. And\nfrom the Jewish writers they prove that so the custom was to divide the\npassover into two courses or services. As for that wherein Christ dipped\nthe sop, they take it to have been the sauce which was used in the paschal\nsupper, called _charoseth_, of which the Hebrews write, that it was made\nof the palm tree branches, or of dry figs, or of raisins, which they\nstamped and mixed with vinegar till it was thick as mustard, and made like\nclay, in memory of the clay wherein they wrought in Egypt, and that they\nused to dip both the unleavened bread and the bitter herbs into this\nsauce. And as touching that place, John xiii., they expound it by the\ncustom of the Jews, which was to have two services or two suppers in the\npassover; and take those words, ver. 2, \u201cSupper being ended,\u201d to be meant\nof the first service, and sitting down again to supper, ver. 12, to be\nmeant of the second service.\n\n_Sect._ 6. If those two opinions could be reconciled and drawn together\ninto one, by holding that that second course whereunto Christ sat down\nafter the washing of his disciples\u2019 feet, was (for the substance of it) a\ncommon supper, but yet it hath been and may be rightly called the second\nservice of the paschal supper, for that it was eaten the same night\nwherein the paschal lamb was eaten, so should all the difference be taken\naway; but if the maintainers of these opinions will not be thus agreed,\nlet the reader consider to which of them he will adhere.\n\nIf the first opinion be followed, then it will be most easily answered to\nPaybody, that _inter coenandum instituta fuit eucharistia, cum jam rursum\nmensoe accubuissent. Sed post coenam paschalem, et usum agni\nlegalis._(1243) When Matthew and Mark say, As they did eat, Jesus took\nbread, they speak of the common or ordinary supper; but when Luke and Paul\nsay, that he took the cup after supper, they speak of the paschal supper,\nwhich was eaten before the common supper.\n\nAgain, if the reader follow the other opinion, which holdeth that Christ\nhad no other supper that night before the evangelical except the paschal\nonly, yet still the answer to Paybody shall be easy; for whereas he would\nprove from those words of Luke and Paul, \u201cLikewise also the cup after\nsupper,\u201d that when Matthew and Mark say, \u201cAs they did eat, Jesus took\nbread,\u201d their meaning is only this, \u201cAfter supper Jesus took bread,\u201d he\nreasoneth very inconsiderately, forasmuch as Luke and Paul say not of the\nbread, but of the cup only, that Jesus took it after supper. And will\nPaybody say, that he took the cup so soon as he took the bread? If we will\nspeak with Scripture, we must say, that as they did eat the preceding\nsupper (to which we read they sat down) Jesus took bread; for nothing at\nall intervened betwixt their eating of that other preceding supper, and\nhis taking of the eucharistical cup, there intervened the taking,\nblessing, breaking, distributing, and eating of the bread.\n\nNow, therefore, from that which hath been said, we may well conclude that\nour opposites have no reason which they do or can object against the\ncertainty of that received tenet, that the apostles received from Christ\nthe sacramental bread and wine whilst they were sitting. Dr Forbesse\nhimself(1244) setteth down some testimonies of Musculus, Chamier, and the\nprofessors of Leyden, all acknowledging that the apostles, when they\nreceived the Lord\u2019s supper, were still sitting.\n\n_Sect._ 7. The second answer that our opposites hath given us, followeth:\nThey say, that though the apostles did not change their gesture of sitting\nwhich they used in the former supper, when all this is granted to us, yet\nthere is as great difference betwixt our form of sitting and that form of\nthe Jews which the apostles used as there is betwixt _sedere_ and\n_jacere_.\n\n_Ans._ 1. Put the case it were so, yet it hath been often answered them,\nthat the apostles kept the table-gesture used in that nation, and so are\nwe bound herein to follow their example, by keeping the table-gesture used\nin this nation. For this keeping of the usual table gesture of the nation\nwherein we live is not a forsaking but a following of the commendable\nexample of the apostles, even as whereas they drank the wine which was\ndrunk in that place, and we drink the wine which is drunk in this place,\nyet do we not hereby differ from that which they did.\n\n2. The words used by the evangelists signify our form of sitting no less\nthan the Jewish, Calepine, Scapula, and Thomasius, in their dictionaries,\ntake \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03af\u03c0\u03c4\u03c9, \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u03af\u03bd\u03c9, \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9, \u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9,\nand the Latin words _discumbo, recumbo, accumbo_ (used by Arias, Montanus,\nBeza, Marlorat, Tremellius, &c., in their versions), not only for lying,\nbut also for such sitting as is opposed to lying, even for sitting upright\nat table after our custom.\n\n3. There is not so great a difference betwixt our form of sitting and that\nwhich the Jews used as our opposites allege. For as Didoclavius showeth\nout of Casaubon;(1245) their sitting at banquets was only with a leaning\nupon the left arm, and so not lying, but sitting with a certain\ninclination. When, therefore, we read of _lecti discubitorii tricliniares,\nin quibus inter coenandum discumbebant_,(1246) we must understand them to\nhave been seats which compassed three sides of the table (the fourth side\nbeing left open and void for them who served), and wherein they did sit\nwith some sort of inclination.\n\nYet Bishop Lindsey is bold to aver,(1247) that the usual table gesture of\nthe Jews was lying along, and this he would prove from Amos vi. 4, \u201cThey\nlie upon beds of ivory, they stretch themselves out upon their couches.\u201d\n\n_Ans._ 1. If we should yield to this prelate his own meaning wherein he\ntaketh these words, yet how thinks he that the gesture of drunkards and\ngluttons, which they used when they were pampering themselves in all\nexcess of riot, and for which also they are upbraided by the Spirit of\nGod, was either the ordinary table-gesture of the Jews, or the gesture\nused by Christ and his apostles in their last supper?\n\n2. If any gesture at all be touched in those words which the prelate\nciteth, it was the gesture they used when they lay down to sleep, and not\ntheir table-gesture when they did eat; for _mitta_ and _ngheres_ (the two\nwords which Amos useth) signify a bed or a couch wherein a man useth to\nlay himself down to sleep. And in this sense we find both these words,\nPsal. vi. 7, \u201cAll the night make I my bed (_mittathi_) to swim: I water my\ncouch (_ngharsi_) with my tears.\u201d The Shunnamite prepared for Elisha a\nchamber, and therein set for him a bed (_mitta_), and a table, and a\nstool, and a candlestick, 2 Kings iv. 10. The stool or chair was for\nsitting at table, but _mitta_, the bed, was for lying down to sleep. Now,\nthe prelate, I hope, will not say, that the _lecti tricliniares_, wherein\nthe Jews used to sit at table, and which compassed three sides of the same\n(as hath been said), were their beds wherein they did lie and sleep all\nnight.\n\nBut, 3. The place must be yet more exactly opened up. That word which is\nturned in our English books, _they lie_, cometh from the radix _schachav_,\nwhich in Pagnin\u2019s lexicon is turned _dormire_. We find, Ruth iii. 7,\n_lischcav_, which Arias Montanus turned _ad dormiendum_, to sleep. Our own\nEnglish translation, 2 Sam. xi. 9, saith, \u201c_Uriah slept_,\u201d where the\noriginal hath _vauschcav_; and the very same word is put most frequently\nin the books of the Kings and the Chronicles, where they speak of the\ndeath of the kings of Judah and Israel. Pagnin turneth it _et dormivit_;\nand our English translators everywhere, \u201cAnd he slept with his fathers,\u201d\n&c. These things being considered, we must, with Calvin, read the place of\nAmos thus: _Qui decumbunt vel dormiunt in lectis._ The other word which\nthe prophet useth is _seruchim_. Our English version turneth it, \u201cThey\nstretch themselves out;\u201d but Pagnin, Buxtorff, Tremellius, and Tarnovius,\ncome nearer the sense, who read _redundantes, superfluentes_, or\n_luxuriantes_; which sense the English translation also hath in the\nmargin. The Septuagints followed the same sense, for they read,\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u1f7c\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, _i.e._, _living in pleasure_. So, 1 Tim. v. 6, _she that\nlived in pleasure_, \u03c3\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u1ff6\u03c3\u03bf\u03b9; and, James v. 5, _Ye have lived in\npleasure_, \u1f10\u03c3\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5. The radix is _sarach_, _redundavit_, or\n_luxuriavit_. So, Exod. xxvi. 12, _sarach_, and, verse 13, _saruach_, is\nput for a surplusage or superfluous remainder, _redundans superfluum_, as\nTremellius readeth. Now, then, it is evident that the thing which Amos\nlayeth to the charge of those who were at ease in Zion, in the words which\nthe prelate citeth against us, is, that they slept upon beds of ivory\n(such was their softness and superfluity), and swimmed in excessive\npleasures upon their couches; and, incontinent, their filthy and muddy\nstream of carnal delicacy and excessive voluptuousness which defiled their\nbeds, led him back to the unclean fountain out of which it issued, even\ntheir riotous pampering of themselves at table; therefore he subjoineth,\n\u201cAnd eat the lambs out of the flock,\u201d &c. For _ex mensis itur ad cubilia,\nex gula in venerem_, saith Cornelius \u00e0 Lapide, commenting upon the same\ntext. Thus have I cleared the place in such sort, that the Bishop cannot\nbut shoot short of his aims; wherefore I go on to other replies.\n\n4. If the apostles, when they received the Lord\u2019s supper, or the Jews,\nwhen they did eat at table, were lying all along, how could their mouths\nreceive drink unspilt? or how could they have the use of both their arms?\nwhich the Bishop himself would not, I am sure, gainsay, if he would once\ntry the matter in his own person, and essay to eat and drink whilst lying\nalong.\n\n5. The words used by Matthew, chap. xxvi. 10, and by Mark, chap. xiv. 18,\nwhere they speak of Christ sitting down with the twelve, is also used by\nJohn, chap. vi. 11, where he speaketh of the peoples\u2019 sitting down upon\nthe grass to eat the loaves and fishes: and will any man think that the\npeople did eat lying along upon the grass, where they might far better sit\nupright?\n\n6. If our opposites like to speak with others, then let them look back\nupon the testimonies which I have alleged before. Jansenius putteth\n_discubuisse et sedisse_; Martyr, _sedentibus aut discumbentibus_. Pareus\nuseth the word _consedisse_; Meisnerus,(1248) _consedendo; Evangelista_,\nsaith Dr Stella,(1249) _dicit dominum discubuisse, id est sedisse ad\nmensam_.\n\n7. If they like to speak to themselves: Camero,(1250) speaking of John\u2019s\nleaning on Christ\u2019s bosom at supper, saith, _Christus autem sedebat\nmedius_; Dr Morton saith,(1251) it cannot be denied that the gesture of\nChrist and his apostles at the last supper was sitting,\u2014only, saith he,\nthe evangelists leave it uncertain whether this sitting was upright, or\nsomewhat leaning.\n\n_Sect._ 8. Their third answer is, that Christ\u2019s sitting at the last supper\nis no more exemplary and imitable than the upper chamber, or the night\nseason, or the sex and number of communicants, &c.\n\n_Ans._ 1. As for the sex and number of communicants, Dr Fulk(1252) rightly\nobserveth, that it is not certain from Scripture that twelve men only, and\nno women, did communicate (as Bishop Lindsey(1253) would have us certainly\nto believe); but suppose it were certain,(1254) yet for this, and all the\nother circumstances, which are not exemplary, there were special reasons\neither in the urgency of the legal necessity, or in the exigency of\npresent and accidental occasions, which do not concern us: whereas the\ngesture of sitting was freely and purposely chosen, and so intended to be\nexemplary, especially since there was no such reason moving Christ to use\nthis gesture of sitting as doth not concern us.\n\nThe Bishop saith,(1255) that his sitting at the former supper might have\nbeen the reason which moved him to sit at the eucharistical supper; but if\nChrist had not purposely made choice of the gesture of sitting as the\nfittest and most convenient for the eucharistical supper, his sitting at\nthe former supper could be no reason to move him, as may appear by this\nexample: There are some gentlemen standing in a nobleman\u2019s waiting-room;\nand after they have stood there a while, the nobleman cometh forth; they\nbegin to speak to him, and, as they speak, still they stand. Now, can any\nman say that the reason which moveth them to stand when they speak to the\nnobleman, is, because they were standing before he came to them? So doth\nthe Bishop come short of giving any special reason for Christ\u2019s sitting\nwhich concerneth not us. He can allege no more but Christ\u2019s sitting at the\nformer supper, which could be no reason, else he should have also risen\nfrom the eucharistical supper to wash the disciples\u2019 feet, even as he rose\nfrom the former supper for that effect. Wherefore, we conclude, that\nChrist did voluntarily, and of set purpose, choose sitting as the fittest\nand best beseeming gesture for that holy banquet.\n\nFinally, Hooker\u2019s(1256) verdict of the gesture of Christ and his apostles\nin this holy supper is, \u201cThat our Lord himself did that which custom and\nlong usage had made fit; we, that which fitness and great decency hath\nmade usual.\u201d In which words, because cause he importeth that they have\nbetter warrants for their kneeling than Christ had for his sitting (which\nis blasphemy), I leave them as not worthy of an answer. Howsoever, let it\nbe noted that he acknowledged, by kneeling they depart from the example of\nChrist.\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER VII.\n\n\nOTHER POSITIONS BUILT UPON THE FORMER GROUND.\n\n\n_Sect._ 1. The third consequence which we infer upon our former rule of\nfollowing the example of Christ is, that it is not a thing indifferent to\nomit the repetition of those words, \u201cThis is my body,\u201d enunciatively and\ndemonstratively in the act of distributing the eucharistical bread; and\nfar less is it indifferent so to omit this demonstrative speech in the\ndistribution, as in place of it to surrogate a prayer to preserve the soul\nand body of the communicant unto everlasting life. Our reason is, because\nChrist (whose example herein we ought to follow) used no prayer in the\ndistribution, but that demonstrative enunciation, \u201cThis is my body.\u201d But\nwe go forward.\n\n_Sect._ 2. The fourth position we draw from the same rule is, that it is\nnot indifferent for a minister to omit the breaking of the bread at the\nLord\u2019s table after the consecration and in the distribution of it, because\nhe ought to follow the example of Christ, who, after he had blessed the\nbread, and when he was distributing it to them who were at table, brake\nit,(1257) _manibus comminuendo panem acceptum in partes_, but had it not\ncarved in small pieces before it was brought to the table. Hence G. J.\nVossius(1258) doth rightly condemn those who, though they break the bread\n_in multas minutias_, yet they break it not _in actu sacramentali_. Such a\nbreaking as this (he saith well) is not _mystica_, but _coquinaria_.\n\n_Sect._ 3. The fifth position, drawn from the very same ground is, that it\nis not indifferent for a minister, in the act of distribution, to speak in\nthe singular number, _Take thou, eat thou, drink thou_; because he should\nfollow the example of Christ, who, in the distribution, spake in the\nplural number, _Take ye, eat ye, drink ye_; and he who followeth not\nChrist\u2019s example herein, by his speaking in the singular to one, he maketh\nthat to be a private action betwixt himself and the communicant, which\nChrist made public and common by his speaking to all at one time.\n\n_Sect._ 4. How idly Bishop Lindsey(1259) answereth to these things, it\ncannot but appear to every one who considereth that we do not challenge\nthem for not breaking the bread at all,\u2014for not pronouncing at all these\nwords, \u201cThis is my body,\u201d or for never pronouncing at all these speeches\nin the plural, _Take ye, eat ye, drink ye_,\u2014but for not breaking the bread\nin the very act of distribution,\u2014for not pronouncing demonstratively those\nwords, \u201cThis is my body,\u201d in the very act of distribution,\u2014for not\nspeaking in the plural number, \u201cTake ye,\u201d &c.\u2014in the very act of\ndistribution, as Christ did, having no other reasons to move him than such\nas concern us. Why, then, did not the Bishop say something to the point\nwhich we press him with? or shall we excuse him because he had nothing to\nsay to it?\n\n_Sect._ 5. Now, last of all, we find yet another point, whereby the\nBishop(1260) departeth from the example and mind of Christ. He saith that,\nby the sacramental word, \u201cThis is my body,\u201d the bread is made the\nsacrament, &c.; and that without this word, &c., all our prayers and\nwishes should serve to no use. Where he will have the bread to be\notherwise consecrated by us than it was consecrated by Christ; for that\nChrist did not consecrate the bread to be the sacrament of his body by\nthose words, \u201cThis is my body,\u201d it is manifest, because the bread was\nconsecrated before his pronouncing of those words; or else what meaneth\nthe blessing of it before he brake it? It was both blessed and broken, and\nhe was also distributing it to the disciples, before ever he said, \u201cThis\nis my body.\u201d Beza saith, _Benedictionem expresse ad panis consecrationem\net quidem singularem, refert; et omnes nostri referunt, consecrationem\nintelligentes, &c._ Pareus saith,(1261) _Qua ex communi cibo, in\nspiritualis alimoniae sacramentum transmutetur._ Wherefore we must not\nthink to sanctify the bread by this prescript word, \u201cThis is my body,\u201d but\nby prayer and thanksgiving, as Christ did. Our divines hold against the\nPapists,(1262) _Verba illa quoe in sacramento sunt consecrata, non esse\npaucula quoedam proscripta; sed praecipue verba orationis, quoe non sunt\nproescripta_; and that, \u201cthrough use of the prayers of the church, there\nis a change in the elements.\u201d(1263) Dr Fulk objecteth(1264) against\nGregory Martin, \u201cYour popish church doth not either as the Greek\nliturgies, or as the churches in Ambrose and Augustine\u2019s time, for they\nhold that the elements are consecrated by prayer and thanksgiving.\u201d I know\nnone who will speak with Bishop Lindsey in this point except Papists: yet\nCornelius \u00e0 Lapide could also say, _Eucharistia conficitur et conditur\nsacris precibus_.(1265)\n\n_Sect._ 6. I say not that these words, \u201cThis is my body,\u201d have no use at\nall in making the bread to be a sacrament; but that which giveth us\ndislike is,\n\n1. That the Bishop maketh not the word and prayer together, but the word\nalone, to sanctify the bread and wine. Now, if both the word and prayer be\nnecessary to sanctify the creatures for the food of our bodies, 1 Tim. iv.\n5, much more are they necessary to sanctify them for the food of our\nsouls. _Neque enim solis domini verbis consecratio sit, sed etiam\nprecibus._(1266) The fathers, saith Trelcatius,(1267) had not only respect\nto those five words, \u201cFor this is my body,\u201d _dum eucharistiam fieri\ndixerunt mystica precc, invocatione nominis divini, solemni benedictione,\ngratiarum actione._ 2. That he makes not the whole word of the institution\nto sanctify the bread, but only that one sentence, \u201cThis is my body;\u201d\nwhereas Christ\u2019s will is declared, and, consequently, the elements\nsanctified by the whole words of the institution,(1268) \u201cJesus took the\nbread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat,\nthis is my body which is broken for you, this do in remembrance of me,\u201d\n&c.\n\nThat he acknowledged not the bread, though sanctified by prayer, to be the\nsacrament, except that very word be pronounced, \u201cThis is my body.\u201d Now,\nwhen a minister hath, from Christ\u2019s will and institution, declared that he\nhath appointed bread and wine to be the elements of his body and blood,\nwhen he hath also declared the essential rites of this sacrament.\n\nAnd, lastly, when, by the prayer of consecration, he hath sanctified the\nbread and wine which are present, put the case, that all this while those\nprescript sentences, \u201cThis is my body,\u201d \u201cThis cup is the New Testament in\nmy blood,\u201d have not been pronounced, yet what hindereth the bread and wine\nfrom being the sacramental elements of the Lord\u2019s body and blood? It is\nsounder divinity to say, that the consecration of a sacrament doth not\ndepend _ex certa aliqua formula verborum_.(1269) For it is evident that,\nin baptism, there is not a certain form of words prescribed, as Bellarmine\nalso proveth;(1270) because Christ saith not, \u201cSay, I baptise thee in the\nname,\u201d &c.: so that he prescribeth not what should be done. Aquinas\nlikewise holdeth,(1271) that the consecration of a sacrament is not\nabsolutely tied to a certain form of words. And so saith Conradus\nVorstius,(1272) speaking of the eucharist. Wherefore Vossius(1273) doth\nrightly condemn the Papists, _quod consecrationem non aliis verbis fieri\nputant, quam istis, hoc est corpus meum, et hic est sanguis meus_.\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER VIII.\n\n\nTHAT THE CEREMONIES ARE NOT THINGS INDIFFERENT TO THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND;\nBECAUSE SHE DID ABJURE AND REPUDIATE THEM BY A MOST SOLEMN AND GENERAL\nOATH.\n\n\n_Sect._ 1. Having spoken of the nature of things indifferent, and showed\nwhich things be such; also of the rule whereby to try the indifferency of\nthings: which rule we have applied to certain particular cases;\u2014it\nremaineth to say somewhat of the main and general purpose, which is\nprincipally questioned in this last part of our dispute, viz., whether\ncross, kneeling, holidays, bishopping, and the other controverted\nceremonies wherewith our church is pressed this day, be such things as we\nmay use freely and indifferently? The negative (which we hold) is strongly\nconfirmed by those arguments which, in the third part of this our dispute,\nwe have put in order against the lawfulness of those ceremonies.\nNotwithstanding we have thought fit to add somewhat more in this place.\nAnd, first, we say, whatsoever be the condition of the ceremonies in their\nown nature, they cannot be indifferently embraced and used by the church\nof Scotland, which hath not only once cast them forth, but also given her\ngreat oath solemnly to the God of heaven, both witnessing her detestation\nof the Roman Antichrist\u2019s \u201cfive bastard sacraments, with all his rites,\nceremonies, and false doctrine, added to the ministration of the true\nsacraments, without the word of God; all his vain allegories, rites,\nsigns, and traditions, brought in the kirk, without or against the word of\nGod;\u201d and likewise \u201cpromising, and swearing to continue,\u201d as well \u201cin the\ndiscipline and use of the holy sacraments,\u201d as \u201cin the doctrine,\u201d of this\nreformed church of Scotland, which then first she embraced and used after\nshe was truly reformed from Popery and popish abuses. And this which I say\nmay be seen in the general Confession of Faith, sworn and subscribed by\nhis Majesty\u2019s father, of everlasting memory, anno 1580, and by the several\nparochines in the land, at his Majesty\u2019s strait command; which also was\nrenewed and sworn again, anno 1596, by the General Assembly, by provincial\nassemblies, by presbyteries and particular parish churches.\n\n_Sect._ 2. No reformed church in Europe is so strictly tied by the bond of\nan oath and subscription, to hold fast her first discipline and use of the\nsacraments, and to hold out popish rites, as is the church of Scotland.\nAnd who knoweth not that an oath doth always oblige and bind, _quando est\nfactum de rebus certis et possibilibus, vere ac sine dolo pr\u00e6meditate, ac\ncum judicio, juste, ad gloriam Dei, et bonum proximi_?(1274) What one of\nall those conditions was here wanting? Can we then say any less than a\npope said before us:(1275) _Non est tutum quemlibet contra juramentum suum\nvenire, nisi tale sit, quod servatum vergat in interitum salutis \u00e6tern\u00e6_?\nO damnable impiety, which maketh so small account of the violation of the\naforesaid oath, which hath as great power to bind us as that oath of the\nprinces of Israel made to the Gibeonites, had to bind their posterity, 2\nSam. xxi. 1, 2; for it was made by the whole incorporation of this land,\nand hath no term at which it may cease to bind. Nay (in some respects) it\nbindeth more straitly than that oath of the princes of Israel. For, 1.\nThat was made by the princes only; this by prince, pastors, and people: 2.\nThat was made rashly (for the text showeth that they asked not counsel\nfrom the mouth of the Lord); this with most religious and due\ndeliberation: 3. That was made to men; this to the great God: 4. That\nsworn but once; this once and again.\n\n_Sect._ 3. Some of our opposites go about to derogate somewhat from the\nbinding power of that oath of the princes of Israel. They are so nettled\ntherewith that they fitch hither and thither. Dr Forbesse(1276) speaketh\nto the purpose thus: _Juramentum Gibeonitis praestitum contra ipsius Dei\nmandatum, et inconsulta Deo, non potuissent Josuae et Israelitae opere\nperficere nisi Deus, extraordinarie de suo mandato dispensasset,\ncompassione poenitentis illius populi Gibeonitei, et propter honorem sui\nnominis, ut neque foedifragorum fautor, neque supplicium paenitentium\naspernator esse videretur._\n\n_Ans._ 1. If the oath was against the commandment of God, what dishonour\nhad come to the name of God though he had not patronised the swearers of\nit, but hindered them from fulfilling their oath? If a Christian swear to\nkill a pagan, and hereafter repent of his oath, and not perform it, can\nthere any dishonour redound thereby to the name of Christ? The Doctor,\nforsooth, must say so.\n\n2. Where hath he read of the repentance of the Gibeonites, which God would\nnot despise?\n\n3. If an oath made against the commandment of God (the breach of the\ncommandment being dispensed with) bindeth so strictly and inviolably as\nthat oath of the princes of Israel did, how much more ought we to think\nourselves strictly and inviolably bound, by the solemn oath of the church\nof Scotland, which was not repugnant but most consonant to the word of\nGod, even our adversaries themselves being judges? for thus speaketh one\nof them: _Quod antem jurarunt nostrates, __ non erat illicitum, sed a\nnobis omnibus jure praesture potest ac debet_;(1277) so that the Doctor\nhath gained nothing, but loosed much, by that which he saith of the\nIsraelites\u2019 oath: he hath even fanged himself faster in the snare which he\nthought to escape.\n\nO but, saith the Doctor, that which they did, either in swearing or in\nperforming their oath, against the express commandment of God, we may not\ndraw into an ordinary example.\n\n_Ans._ It was against the commandment of God; no man will say that we\nshould follow either their swearing or their performing of their oath.\nYet, in the meantime, the Doctor is pressed with this argument, that if\ntheir unlawful oath (in the case of God\u2019s dispensation) did bind their\nposterity, much more doth that oath of the church of Scotland (which the\nDoctor hath acknowledged lawful and commendable) bind us this day.\n\n_Sect._ 4. But, 4. Albeit the Doctor hath hereby given us scope and\nadvantage enough against himself; nevertheless, for the truth\u2019s sake, I\nadd, that it cannot be showed how that oath of the princes of Israel was\nagainst the express commandment of God; but it rather appeareth that it\nwas agreeable to the same. For, as Tremellius(1278) hath it noted, that\ncommandment, Deut. xx., whereby the Israelites were commanded to save\nalive nothing in the cities of the Canaanites, was to be only understood\nof such cities among them as should make war with them, and be besieged by\nthem. But the Gibeonites were not of this sort; for they sought their\nlives before the Israelites came to them. And by the same means Rahab and\nher father\u2019s house got their life, because they sought it, Josh. ii.\nCalvin also serveth:(1279) _Jussos fuisse Israelitas pacem omnibus\noffere._ And Junius, upon Deut. xx., distinguisheth well two laws of war\ngiven to Israel.\n\nThe first law is concerning offering peace to all; which law is general\nand common as well to the Canaanites as to foreign nations: \u201cWhen thou\ncomest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it.\nAnd it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, then it shall be that\nall the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and\nthey shall serve thee.\u201d Which commandment was afterward observed by\nIsrael; of whom we read, \u201cThat when Israel was strong, they put the\nCanaanites to tribute, and did not utterly drive them out,\u201d Josh. xvii.\n13; Judges i. 28: by Solomon also, who did not cut off the people that\nwere left of the Hittites and the Amorites, but only made them to pay\ntribute, 2 Chron. viii. 7, 8. That which I say is further confirmed by\nanother place, Josh. xi. 19, 20, where it is said, \u201cThere was not a city\nthat made peace with the children of Israel save the Hivites, the\ninhabitants of Gibeon; all other they took in battle. For it was of the\nLord to harden their hearts, that they should come against Israel in\nbattle, that he might destroy them utterly, and that they might have no\nfavour; but that he might destroy them, as the Lord commanded Moses.\u201d From\nwhich words it appeareth, that if the Canaanites had made peace with the\nchildren of Israel, they were to show them favour; and that they were\nbound by the commandment of the Lord to destroy them, then only, and in\nthat case, if they would not accept peace, but make war; whence it cometh,\nthat the cause of the destruction of the Canaanites is imputed to their\nown hardness and contumacy in not accepting of peace, and not to any\ncommandment which God had given to Israel for destroying them. In a word,\nit was _voluntas signi_, which, in one place, Deut. xx. 10, showed the\nIsraelites what was their duty, namely, to offer peace to all, even to the\nCanaanites, and not to cut them off if they should accept the peace; but\nit was _voluntas beneplaciti_, which, as we read in another place, Deut.\nvii. 2, decreed to deliver the Canaanites before the Israelites, that is,\nto harden their hearts to come against them in battle, and so to overrule\nthe matter, by a secret and inscrutable providence, that the Israelites\nmight lawfully and should certainly destroy them and show them no mercy.\nEven as that same God who, by one word, showed unto Abraham what was his\nduty, bidding him offer up his son Isaac, Gen. xxii. 2, by another word\nsignified unto him what he had decreed to be done, forbidding him to lay\nhis hand upon the lad, or to do anything unto him, ver. 12. But this, I\nknow, will be very unsavoury language to many Arminianised conformitants.\n\nThe other law of war which Junius, upon Deut. xx., observeth, prescribed\nto the Israelites how they should deal with them who refused their peace.\nAnd here only was the difference made betwixt the cities which were very\nfar off and the cities of the Canaanites, Deut. xx. 15, 16; but the first\nlaw was common, as hath been proven.\n\nJoseph Hall seemeth to deny that the oath of the princes of Israel had any\npower to bind, but upon another ground than Dr Forbesse took to himself.\n\u201cIt would seem very questionable (saith Hall(1280)) whether Joshua needed\nto hold himself bound to this oath; for fraudulent conventions oblige not;\nand Israel had put in a direct caveat of their vicinity.\u201d\n\n_Ans._ I marvel how it could enter in his mind to think this matter\nquestionable, since the violation of that oath was afterwards punished\nwith three years\u2019 famine, 2 Sam. xxi. 1, 2. Yet let us hearken to his\nreasons. One of them is forged; for the princes of Israel who sware unto\nthem put in no caveat at all. The text saith only in the general, that\nthey sware unto them, Josh. ix. 15. As touching his other reason, it is\nanswered by Calvin,(1281) _Juris jurandi religio_, saith he, _eousque\nsancta apud nos esse debet, ne erroris praetextu \u00e0 pactis discedemus,\netiam in quibus fuimus decepti_. Which, that it may be made more plain\nunto us, let us, with the Casuists, distinguish a twofold error in\nswearing.(1282) For if the error be about the very substance of the thing\n(as when a man contracts marriage with one particular person, taking her\nto be another person) the oath bindeth not; but if the error be only about\nsome extrinsical or accidental circumstance (such as was the error of the\nIsraelites\u2019 taking the Gibeonites to dwell afar off when they dwelt at\nhand), the oath ceaseth not to bind.\n\n_Sect._ 6. This much being said for the binding power of that oath of the\nchurch of Scotland, let us now consider what shifts our opposites use to\nelude our argument which we draw from the same; where, first, there\noccurreth to us one ground which the Bishop of Edinburgh doth everywhere\nbeat upon in the trace of this argument, taken out of the 21st article of\nthe Confession of Faith, wherein we find these words: \u201cNot that we think\nthat any policy and an order in ceremonies can be appointed for all ages,\ntimes, and places; for as ceremonies, such as men have devised, are but\ntemporal, so may and ought they to be changed when they foster rather\nsuperstition than that they edify the kirk using the same: \u2018whereupon the\nBishop concludeth,(1283) that none who sware the aforesaid article could,\nwithout breach of this oath, swear that the ceremony of sitting at the\nreceiving of the sacrament could be appointed for all ages, times, and\nplaces.\u2019 \u201d\n\n_Ans._ None of us denieth that article: we all stand to it. For that which\nit pronounceth of ceremonies must be understood of alterable\ncircumstances, unto which the name of ceremonies is but generally and\nimproperly applied, as we have showed elsewhere;(1284) neither can we, for\nprofessing ourselves bound by an oath ever to retain sitting at the\nreceiving of the sacrament in this national church of Scotland, be\ntherefore thought to transgress the said article.\n\nFor, 1. The article speaketh of ceremonies devised by men, whereof sitting\nat the sacrament is none, being warranted (as hath been showed) by\nChrist\u2019s own example, and not by man\u2019s device.\n\n2. The article speaketh of such ceremonies as rather foster superstition\nthan edify the church using the same; whereas it is well known that\nsitting at the communion did never yet foster superstition in this church;\nso that the Bishop did very unadvisedly reckon sitting at the communion\namong those ceremonies whereof the article speaketh.\n\n_Sect._ 7. But the Bishop hath a further aim, and attempteth no less than\nboth to put the blot of perjury off himself and his fellows, and likewise\nto rub it upon us, telling us,(1285) \u201cThat no man did by the oath oblige\nhimself to obey and defend that part of discipline which concerneth these\nalterable things all the days of his life, but only that discipline which\nis unchangeable and commanded in the word. Yea (saith he), we further\naffirm, that every man who sware to the discipline of the church in\ngeneral, by virtue of the oath standeth obliged, not only to obey and\ndefend the constitution of the church that was in force at the time of\nmaking his oath, but also to obey and defend whatsoever the church\nthereafter hath ordained, or shall ordain, &c., whether thereby the former\nconstitution be established or altered,\u201d &c. The same answer doth Dr\nForbesse also return us.(1286)\n\n_Ans._ 1. Here is a manifest contradiction; for the Bishop saith that\nevery man did, by this oath, oblige himself only to obey and defend that\ndiscipline which is unchangeable and commanded in the word. And yet again\nhe seemeth to import (that which Dr Forbesse plainly avoucheth(1287)),\nthat every man obliged himself by the same oath to obey and defend all\nthat the church should afterwards ordain, though thereby the former\nconstitutions be altered. The Bishop doth, therefore, apparently\ncontradict himself; or, at the best, he contradicteth his fellow-pleader\nfor the ceremonies.\n\n2. That ancient discipline and policy of this church which is contrary to\nthe articles of Perth, and whereunto we are bound by the oath, was well\ngrounded upon God\u2019s word, and therefore should not have been ranked among\nother alterable things.\n\n3. Whereas the Bishop is of opinion that a man may, by his oath, tie\nhimself to things which a church shall afterwards ordain, he may consider,\nthat such an oath were unlawful, because not sworn in judgment, Jer. iv.\n2. Now this judgment which is required as one of the inseparable\ncompanions of a lawful oath, is not _executio justitiae_, but _judicium\ndiscretionis_, as Thomas teacheth;(1288) whom Bullinger and Zanchius(1289)\ndo herein follow. But there is no judgment of discretion in his oath who\nswears to that he knows not what, even to that which may fall out as\nreadily wrong as right.\n\n4. Whereas the Bishop and the Doctor allege that every man who sware to\nthe discipline of this church standeth obliged to obey all that the church\nordained afterward, they greatly deceive themselves.\n\nFor, 1. The discipline spoken of in the promissory part of the oath must\nbe the same which was spoken of in the assertory part. Now that which is\nmentioned in the assertory part cannot be imagined to be any other but\nthat which was then presently used in this church at the time of giving\nthe oath; for an assertory oath(1290) is either of that which is past or\nof that which is present: and the assertory part of the oath whereof we\nspeak was not of any discipline past and away, therefore of that which was\npresent. Moreover, Thomas(1291) doth rightly put this difference betwixt\nan assertory and a promissory oath, that the matter of a promissory oath\nis a thing to come, which is alterable, as concerning the event. _Materia\nautem juramenti assertorii, quod est de praeterito vel praesenti, in\nquandam necessitatem jam transiit, et immutabilis facta est._ Since, then,\nthe discipline spoken of in the assertory part was no other than that\nwhich was used in this church when the oath was sworn; and since the\npromissory part is illative upon, and relative unto the matter of the\nassertory part; therefore we conclude the discipline spoken of in the\npromissory part could be no other than that which was then presently used\nin this church at the swearing of the oath.\n\n2. Since the doctrine mentioned in that oath is said to have been\nprofessed openly by the King\u2019s Majesty, and the whole body of this realm,\nbefore the swearing of the same, why should we not likewise understand the\ndiscipline mentioned in the oath to be that which was practised in this\nrealm before the swearing of the same?\n\n3. This is further proved by the word _continuing_. We are sworn to\ncontinue in the obedience of the doctrine and discipline of this church;\nbut how can men be said to continue in the obedience of any other\ndiscipline than that which they have already begun to obey? This the\nBishop seems to have perceived, for he speaks only of defending and\nobeying, but not of continuing to obey, which is the word of the oath, and\nwhich proveth the discipline there spoken of and sworn to to be no other\nthan that which was practised in the church when the oath was sworn. 4.\nWhilst we hold that he who sweareth to the present discipline of a church,\nis not by virtue of this oath obliged to obey all which that church shall\nordain afterward, both the school and the canon law do speak for us. The\nschool teacheth, that _canonicus qui jurat se servaturum statuta edita in\naliquo collegio, non tenetur ex juramenta ad servandum futura_;(1292) the\ncanon law judgeth, that _qui jurat servare statuta edita, &c., non tenetur\nex juramento ad novitur edita._(1293)\n\n_Sect._ 8. But we are more fully to consider that ground whereby the\nBishop thinketh to purge himself, and those of his sect, of the breach of\nthe oath. He still allegeth,(1294) that the points of discipline for which\nwe contend are not contained in the matter of the oath. Now, as touching\nthe discipline of this church which is spoken of in the oath, he\nquestioneth what is meant by it.(1295)\n\n_Ans._ 1. Put the case, it were doubtful and questionable what is meant by\nthe word discipline in the oath; yet _pars tutior_ were to be chosen. The\nBishop nor no man among us can certainly know, that the discipline meant\nand spoken of in the oath by those that swear it, comprehendeth not under\nit those points of discipline which we now contend, and which this church\nhad in use at the swearing of the oath. Shall we, then, put the breach of\nthe oath in a fair hazard? God forbid; for, as Joseph Hall(1296) noteth\nfrom the example of Joshua and the princes, men may not trust to shifts\nfor the eluding of an oath. Surely the fear of God\u2019s name should make us\ntremble at an oath, and to be far from adventuring upon any such shifts.\n\n2. The Bishop doth but needlessly question what is meant by the discipline\nwhereof the oath speaketh; for howsoever in ecclesiastical use it signify\noftentimes that policy which standeth in the censuring of manners, yet in\nthe oath it must be taken in the largest sense, namely, for the whole\npolicy of the church; for, 1. The whole policy of this church did at that\ntime go under the name of discipline;(1297) and those two books wherein\nthis policy is contained were called The Books of Discipline. And, without\nall doubt, they who sware the oath meant by _discipline_ that whole policy\nof the church which is contained in those books. Howbeit (as the preface\nof them showeth) discipline doth also comprehend other ecclesiastical\nordinances and constitutions which are not inserted in them. 2. Doctrine\nand discipline, in the oath, do comprehend all that to which the church\nrequired, and we promised, to perform obedience; therefore the whole\npolicy of the church was meant by _discipline_, forasmuch as it was not\ncomprehended under doctrine.\n\n_Sect._ 9. The Bishop(1298) objecteth three limitations, whereby he\nthinketh to seclude from the matter of the oath that policy and discipline\nwhich we plead for.\n\nFirst, he saith, that the matter of the oath is the doctrine and\ndiscipline revealed to the world by the gospel, and that this limitation\nexcludeth all ecclesiastical constitutions which are not expressly or by a\nnecessary consequence contained in the written word.\n\n2. That the matter of the oath is the doctrine and discipline which is\nreceived, believed and defended, by many notable churches, &c., and that\nthis limitation excludeth all these things wherein the church of Scotland\nhath not the consent of many notable churches, &c.\n\n3. That the doctrine and discipline which is the matter of the oath, is\nparticularly expressed in the Confession of Faith, &c., and that in this\nconfession of faith, established by parliament, there is no mention made\nof the articles controverted, &c.\n\n_Ans._ I might here show how he confoundeth the preaching of the evangel\nwith the written word; likewise how falsely he affirmeth, that the points\nof discipline for which we plead, are neither warranted by the Scripture\nnor by the consent of many notable churches. But to the point: These words\nof the oath, \u201cWe believe, &c., that this is the only true Christian faith\nand religion, pleasing God, and bringing salvation to man, which now is by\nthe mercy of God revealed to the world by the preaching of the blessed\nevangel, and received, believed and defended, by many and sundry notable\nkirks and realms, but chiefly by the kirk of Scotland, the King\u2019s Majesty,\nand three Estates, &c., as more particularly expressed in the Confession\nof our Faith, &c.,\u201d are altogether perverted by the Bishop; for there is\nno discipline spoken of in these words, but afterward. Why, then, talks he\nof a discipline revealed to the world by the gospel, having the consent of\nmany notable churches, and expressed in the Confession of Faith? And if\nthe Bishop will have any discipline to be meant of in these words, he must\ncomprehend it under the Christian faith and religion, which bringeth\nsalvation unto man. But this he cannot do with so much as the least show\nof reason. Thus put we an end to the argument taken from the oath of God,\nwishing every man amongst us, out of the fear of God\u2019s glorious and\nfearful name, duly to regard and ponder the same.\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER IX.\n\n\nA RECAPITULATION OF SUNDRY OTHER REASONS AGAINST THE INDIFFERENCY OF THE\nCEREMONIES.\n\n\n_Sect._ 1. That the ceremonies are not indifferent to us, or such things\nas we may freely practise, we prove yet by other reasons:\n\nFor, 1. They who plead for the indifferency of the ceremonies must tell us\nwhether they call them indifferent _in actu signato_, or _in actu\nexercito_; or in both these respects. Now, we have proven,(1299) that\nthere is no action deliberated upon, and wherein we proceed with the\nadvice of reason, which can be indifferent _in actu exercito_, and that\nbecause it cannot choose, but either have all the circumstances which it\nshould have (and so be good), or else want some of them, one or more (and\nso be evil). And for the indifferency of the ceremonies _in actu signato_,\nthough we should acknowledge it (which we do not), yet it could be no\nwarrant for the practice of them, or else the believing Gentiles might\nhave freely eaten of all meats, notwithstanding of the scandal of the\nJews, for the eating of all meats freely was still a thing indifferent,\n_in actu signato_.\n\n_Sect._ 2. The ceremonies are not indifferent _eo ipso_, that they are\nprescribed and commended unto us as indifferent; for, as Aquinas(1300)\nresolveth out of Isidore, every human or positive law must be both\n_necessaria ad remotionem malorum_ and _utilis ad consecutionem bonorum_.\nThe guides of God\u2019s church have not power to prescribe any other thing\nthan that which is good and profitable for edifying; for they are set not\nas lords over Christ\u2019s inheritance, but as ministers for their good: \u201cIt\nseemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, (say the apostles and elders to\nthe churches,) to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary\nthings,\u201d Acts xv. 28. They would not, you see, have enacted a canon about\nthose things, howbeit indifferent in their own nature, had they not found\nthem necessary for the eschewing of scandal. And as for the civil\nmagistrate, he also hath not power to prescribe any thing which he\npleaseth, though it be in itself indifferent; \u201cfor he is the minister of\nGod unto thee for good,\u201d saith the Apostle, Rom. xiii. 4. Mark that word,\n_for good_,\u2014it lets us see that the magistrate hath not power given him to\nenjoin any other thing than that which may be for our good. _Non enim sua\ncausa dominantur_, saith Calvin;(1301) _sed publico bono; neque effroeni\npotentia proediti sunt, sed quoe subditorum saluti sit obstricta_. Now,\nthe first and chief good which the magistrate is bound to see for unto the\nsubjects, is (as Pareus showeth(1302)), _bonum spirituale_. Let us, then,\neither see the good of the ceremonies, or else we must account them to be\nsuch things as God never gave princes nor pastors power to enjoin; for\nhowsoever they have power to prescribe many things which are indifferent,\nthat is to say, neither good nor evil in their general nature, yet they\nmay not command us to practise any thing which in the particular use of it\nis not necessary or expedient for some good end.\n\n3. The ceremonies are not indifferent, because, notwithstanding that they\nare prescribed and commended unto us as things in themselves indifferent,\nyet we are by the will and authority of men compelled and necessitated to\nuse them. _Si vero ad res suo natura medius accedat coactio_, &c., then,\nsay the Magdeburgians.(1303) Paul teacheth, Col. ii., that it is not\nlawful to use them freely: \u201cIf ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments\nof the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to\nordinances (touch not, taste not, handle not, which are all to perish with\nthe using), after the commandments and doctrines of men.\u201d Hence is\nTertullian taxed(1304) for inducing a necessity in things indifferent.\nNow, with how great necessity and co-action the ceremonies are imposed\nupon us, we have made it evident elsewhere.(1305)\n\n_Sect._ 4. 4. Whatever be the quality of the ceremonies in their own\nnature, they are not indifferent to us; neither may we freely practice\nthem, because Papists make advantage of them, and take occasion from them\nto confirm sundry of their errors and superstitions, as we have likewise\nelsewhere made evident.(1306) Now, _cum adiaphora rapiuntur __ ad\nconfessionem, libera esse desinunt_, saith the Harmony of\nConfessions.(1307) Mark _rapiuntur_. Though they get no just occasion,\nyet, if they take occasion, though unjustly, that is enough to make us\nabstain from things indifferent. _Etiam ea_, saith Balduine,(1308) _quoe\nnatura sunt sua liberoe observationis, in statu confessionis, cum ab\nadversariis eorum mutatio postulatur, fiunt necessaria._\n\n_Sect._ 5. 5. Things which are most indifferent in themselves become evil\nin the case of scandal, and so may not be used. So hold the Century\nwriters;(1309) so Pareus;(1310) so Zanchius;(1311) so Chemnitius;(1312) so\nAugustine;(1313) and so hath the Apostle taught.(1314) But that out of the\npractice of the ceremonies there groweth active scandal unto the weak, we\nhave most clearly proven.(1315) Wherefore, let them be in their own nature\nas indifferent as anything can be, yet they are not indifferent to be used\nand practised by us; and whosoever swalloweth this scandal of Christ\u2019s\nlittle ones, and repenteth not, the heavy millstone of God\u2019s dreadful\nwrath shall be hanged about his neck, to sink him down in the bottomless\nlake; and then shall he feel that which before he would not understand.\n\n_Sect._ 6. 6. It is not enough for warrant of our practice that we do\nthose things which are indifferent or lawful in themselves, except they be\nalso expedient to be done by us according to the Apostle\u2019s rule, 1 Cor.\nvi. 12. But I have proven that many and weighty inconveniences do follow\nupon the ceremonies,(1316) as namely, that they make way and are the\nushers for greater evils; that they hinder edification, and in their\nfleshly show and outward splendour, obscure and prejudice the life and\npower of godliness; that they are the unhappy occasions of much injury and\ncruelty against the faithful servants of Christ, that they were bellows to\nblow up, and are still fuel to increase the church-consuming fire of\nwoeful dissentions amongst us, &c. Where also we show,(1317) that some of\nour opposites themselves acknowledge the inconveniency of the ceremonies;\nwherefore we cannot freely nor indifferently practise them.\n\n_Sect._ 7. 7. These ceremonies are the accursed monuments of popish\nsuperstition, and have been both dedicated unto and employed in the public\nand solemn worship of idols, and therefore (having no necessary use for\nwhich we should still retain them) they ought to be utterly abolished, and\nare not left free nor indifferent to us, which argument I have also made\ngood elsewhere,(1318) and in this place I only add, that both\nJerome,(1319) Zanchius, and Amandus Polanus,(1320) do apply this argument\nto the surplice, holding, that though it be in itself indifferent, yet\n_quia in cultu idololatrico veste linea utuntur clerici papaxi, et in ea\nnon parum sanctimoniae ponunt superstitiosi homines; valedicendum est, non\nsolum cultui idololatrico, sed etiam omnibus idololatriae monumentis,\ninstrumentis et adminiculis_. Yea, Joseph Hall himself, doth herein give\ntestimony unto us, for upon Hezekiah\u2019s pulling down of the brazen serpent,\nbecause of the idolatrous abuse of it, thus he noteth:(1321) \u201cGod\ncommanded the raising of it, God commanded the abolishing of it.\nSuperstitious use can mar the very institutions of God, how much more the\nmost wise and well-grounded devices of men!\u201d And further, in the end of\nthis treatise, entitled, _The Honour of the Married Clergy_, he adjoineth\na passage taken out of the epistle of Erasmus Roterodamus to Christopher,\nBishop of Basil, which passage beginneth thus: \u201cFor those things which are\naltogether of human constitution must (like to remedies in diseases) be\nattempered to the present estate of matters and times. Those things which\nwere once religiously instituted, afterwards, according to occasion, and\nthe changed quality of manners and times, may be with more religion and\npiety abrogated.\u201d Finally, If Hezekiah be praised for breaking down the\nbrazen serpent (though instituted by God) when the Israelites began to\nabuse it against the honour of God, how much more (saith Zanchius(1322))\nare our reformers to be praised, for that they did thus with rites\ninstituted by men, being found full of superstitious abuse, though in\nthemselves they had not been evil!\n\n_Sect._ 8. 8. The ceremonies are not indifferent, because they depart too\nfar from the example of Christ and his apostles, and the purer times of\nthe church; for instead of that ancient Christian-like and soul-edifying\nsimplicity, religion is now by their means busked with the vain trumpery\nof Babylonish trinkets, and her face covered with the whorish and\neye-bewitching fairding of fleshly show and splendour; and I have also\nshowed particularly(1323) how sundry of the ceremonies are flat contrary\nto the example of Christ and his apostles and the best times.\n\n_Sect._ 9. 9. The ceremonies make us also to conform, and like the\nidolatrous Papists, whereas it is not lawful to symbolise with idolaters,\nor to be like them in a ceremony of man\u2019s devising, or anything which hath\nno necessary use in religion; such a distance and a dissimilitude there is\nrequired to be betwixt the church of Christ and the synagogue of Satan;\nbetwixt the temple of God and the kingdom of the beast; betwixt the\ncompany of sound believers and the conventicles of heretics who are\nwithout; betwixt the true worshippers of God and the worshippers of idols,\nthat we cannot, without being accessory to their superstitious and false\nreligion, and partaking with the same, appear conform unto them in their\nunnecessary rites and ceremonies. Durandus tells us,(1324) that they call\nEaster by the Greek and not by the Hebrew name, and that they keep not\nthat feast upon the same day with the Jews, and all for this cause, lest\nthey should seem to Judaise. How much more reason have we to abstain from\nthe ceremonies of the church of Rome lest we seem to Romanise! But I say\nno more in this place, because I have heretofore confirmed this argument\nat length.(1325)\n\n_Sect._ 10. 10. The ceremonies, as urged upon us, are also full of\nsuperstition; holiness and worship are placed in them, as we have proven\nby unanswerable grounds,(1326) and by testimonies of our opposites\nthemselves. Therefore were they never so indifferent in their own general\nnature, this placing of them in the state of worship maketh them cease to\nbe indifferent.\n\n_Sect._ 11. 11. The ceremonies against which we dispute are more than\nmatters of mere order, forasmuch as sacred and mysterious significations\nare given unto them, and by their significations they are thought to teach\nmen effectually sundry mysteries and duties of piety. Therefore they are\nnot free nor indifferent, but more than men have power to institute; for\nexcept circumstances and matters of mere order there is nothing which\nconcerneth the worship of God left to the determination of men, and this\nargument also hath been in all the parts of it fully explained and\nstrengthened by us,(1327) which strongly proveth that the ceremonies are\nnot indifferent, so much as _quo ad speciem_. _Quare doctrina \u00e0 nobis\ntradita_ (these be Zanchius\u2019 words(1328)) _non licere nobis, aliis externi\ncultus ceremoniis Deum colere, quam quas ipse in sacris literis per\napostolis proescripsit, firma ac certa manet_.\n\n_Sect._ 12. 12. Whatsoever indifferency the ceremonies could be thought to\nhave in their own nature, yet if it be considered how the church of\nScotland hath once been purged from them, and hath spued them out with\ndetestation, and hath enjoyed the comfortable light and sweet beams of the\nglorious and bright shining gospel of Christ, without shadows and figures,\nthen shall it appear that there is no indifferency in turning back to weak\nand beggarly elements, Gal. v. 9. And thus saith Calvin(1329) of the\nceremonies of the _interim_, that granting they were things in themselves\nindifferent, yet the restitution of them in those churches which were once\npurged from them, is no indifferent thing. Wherefore, O Scotland!\n\u201cstrengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die,\u201d Rev. iii. 2.\nRemember also from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first\nworks; or else thy candlestick will be quickly removed out of his place,\nexcept thou repent, Rev. ii. 5.\n\nTHE END.\n\n\n\n\n\nA BROTHERLY EXAMINATION OF SOME PASSAGES OF MR COLEMAN\u2019S LATE SERMON UPON\nJOB XI. 20.\n\n\n                         A BROTHERLY EXAMINATION\n\n                           OF SOME PASSAGES OF\n\n                MR COLEMAN\u2019S LATE SERMON UPON JOB XI. 20,\n\n                   AS IT IS NOW PRINTED AND PUBLISHED:\n\n                            BY WHICH HE HATH,\n\n                    TO THE GREAT OFFENCE OF VERY MANY,\n\nENDEAVOURED TO STRIKE AT THE VERY ROOT OF ALL SPIRITUAL AND ECCLESIASTICAL\n                               GOVERNMENT,\n\n                               CONTRARY TO\n\nTHE WORD OF GOD, THE SOLEMN LEAGUE AND COVENANT, OTHER REFORMED CHURCHES,\n\n          AND THE VOTES OF THE HONOURABLE HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT,\n\n              AFTER ADVICE HAD WITH THE REVEREND AND LEARNED\n\n                           ASSEMBLY OF DIVINES.\n\n                           BY GEORGE GILLESPIE,\n\n                       MINISTER AT EDINBURGH, 1642.\n\n                                EDINBURGH:\n\n                     ROBERT OGLE, AND OLIVER & BOYD.\n\n               M. OGLE & SON, AND WILLIAM COLLINS, GLASGOW.\n\n      J. DEWAR, PERTH. W. MIDDLETON, DUNDEE. G. & R. KING, ABERDEEN.\n\n                           W. M\u2019COMB, BELFAST.\n\n          HAMILTON, ADAMS & CO., AND JAMES NISBET & CO., LONDON.\n\n                                  1645.\n\n           REPRINTED BY A. W. MURRAY, MILNE SQUARE, EDINBURGH.\n\n                                  1844.\n\n\n\n\nNOTICE.\n\n\nIn order to render the following controversial writings of Gillespie\nintelligible to the general reader, we have judged it expedient to prefix\nto the \u201cBrotherly Examination\u201d that portion of Coleman\u2019s sermon on which\nGillespie thought it his duty to animadvert. And as a tolerably full\naccount of the whole controversy between Coleman and Gillespie will be\nfound in the Memoir of Gillespie\u2019s Life, we refrain from occupying space\nwith any additional remarks here.\n\n\n\n\nEXTRACT FROM COLEMAN\u2019S SERMON.\n\n\n\u201cAll eyes are upon government, they look upon it as the only help. If\nanywhere, here let wisdom be used. To prescribe is above me, only let me\noffer two or three rules, which may either be helpful to the work, or\nuseful to the workmen.\n\n\u201c1. _Establish as few things by divine right as can well be._ Hold out the\npractice but not the ground: it will gather more, nay all, that hold it\nnot unlawful; men differently principled may meet in one practice. _It may\nbe_, will be of larger extent than _it must be_. This (the divine right)\nwas the only thing that hindered union in the Assembly. Two parties came\nbiassed, the one with a national determination, the other with a\ncongregational engagement. The reverend Commissioners from Scotland were\nfor the divine right of the presbyterial, the Independents for the\ncongregational government. How should either move? where should both meet?\nHere was the great bar, which, if you can avoid, you may do much.\n\n\u201c2. _Let all precepts, held out as divine institutions, have clear\nscriptures._ I could never yet see how two co-ordinate governments, exempt\nfrom superiority and inferiority, can be in one state; and in Scripture no\nsuch thing is found, that I know of. That place, 1 Cor. v., takes not hold\nof my conscience for excommunication, and I admire that Matt. xviii. so\nshould upon any; yet these two are the common places on which are erected\nthe chiefest acts of ruling. And when I see not an institution, nor any\none act of government in the whole Bible performed, how can it be evinced\nthat a ruling elder is an instituted officer? Let the Scripture speak\nexpressly, and institutions appear institutions, and all must bow.\n\n\u201c3. _Lay no more burden of government upon the shoulders of ministers than\nChrist hath plainly laid upon them._ The ministers have other work to do,\nand such as will take up the whole man, might I measure others by myself.\nIt was the king of Sodom\u2019s speech to Abraham, \u2018Give me the persons; take\nthou the goods:\u2019 so say I, Give us doctrine; take you the government. As\nis said, Right Honourable, give me leave to make this request in the\nbehalf of the ministry, Give us two things, and we shall do well\u2014learning\nand a competency.\n\n\u201c4. _A Christian magistrate, as a Christian magistrate, is a governor in\nthe church._ Christ has placed government in his church, 1 Cor. xii. 28.\nOf other governments, beside magistracy, I find no institution; of them I\ndo, Rom. xii. 1, 2. I find all government given to Christ, and to Christ\nas Mediator, Eph. i. 22, 23. I desire all to consider it. To rob the\nkingdom of Christ of the magistrate, and his governing power, I cannot\nexcuse, no not from a kind of sacrilege, if the magistrate be His.\u201d\n\n\n\n\nA BROTHERLY EXAMINATION, &c.\n\n\nI have before touched this purpose in the third branch of the third\napplication of my second doctrine; and did, in my sermon in the Abbey\nchurch, express my thoughts of it at some length. But as I was then\nunwilling to fall upon such a controversy so publicly, and especially in a\nFast sermon, if that which I intend to examine had not been as publicly\nand upon the like occasion delivered; so now, in the publishing, I have\nthought good to open my mind concerning this thing distinctly, and by\nitself. That which had been too late to be preached after sermon is not\ntoo late to be printed after sermon. Others (upon occasion offered) have\ngiven their testimony against his doctrine; and I should think myself\nunfaithful in the trust put upon me, if, upon such an occasion, I should\nbe silent in this business; and I believe no man will think it strange\nthat a piece of this nature and strain get an answer; and I go about it\nwithout any disrespect either to the person or parts of my reverend\nbrother. Only I must give a testimony to the truth when I hear it spoken\nagainst; and I hope his objections have made no such impression in any\nman\u2019s mind as to make him unwilling to hear an answer. Come we therefore\nto the particulars.\n\nFour rules were offered by the reverend brother, as tending to unity, and\nto the healing of the present controversies about church government. But\nin truth his cure is worse than the disease; and, instead of making any\nagreement, he is like to have his hand against every man, and every man\u2019s\nhand against him.\n\nThe first rule was this, \u201cEstablish as few things _jure divino_ as can\nwell be;\u201d which is, by interpretation, as little fine gold, and as much\ndross as can well be. \u201cThe words of the Lord are pure words: as silver\ntried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times,\u201d Psal. xii, 6. What you\ntake from the word of God is fine \u201cgold tried in the fire\u201d (Rev. iii. 18);\nbut an holy thing of man\u2019s devising is the dross of silver. Can he not be\ncontent to have the dross purged from the silver except the silver itself\nbe cast away? The very contrary rule is more sure and safe; which I prove\nthus:\u2014\n\nIf it be a sin to diminish or take aught from the word of God, insomuch\nthat it is forbidden under pain of taking away a man\u2019s part out of the\nbook of life, and out of the holy city; then as many things are to be\nestablished _jure divino_ as can well be. But it is a sin to diminish or\ntake aught from the word of God, insomuch that it is forbidden under pain\nof taking away a man\u2019s part out of the book of life, and out of the holy\ncity; therefore as many things are to be established _jure divino_ as can\nwell be.\n\nIt must be remembered, withal, 1. That the question is not now, Whether\nthis or that form of church government be _jure divino_; but, Whether a\nchurch government be _jure divino_; whether Jesus Christ hath thus far\nrevealed his will in his word, that there are to be church-censures, and\nthose to be dispensed by church-officers. The brother is for the negative\nof this question. 2. Neither is it stood upon by any, so far as I know,\nthat what the Parliament shall establish concerning church government must\nbe established by them _jure divino_ If the Parliament shall, in a\nparliamentary and legislative way, establish that thing which really, and\nin itself, is agreeable to the word of God, though they do not declare it\nto be the will of Jesus Christ, I am satisfied, and, I am confident, so\nare others. This I confess, That it is incumbent to parliament-men, to\nministers, and to all other Christians, according to their vocation and\ninterest, to search the Scriptures, and thereby to inform their own and\nother men\u2019s consciences, so as they may do in faith what they do in point\nof church government, that is, that they may know they are not sinning,\nbut doing the will of God. And it ought to be no prejudice nor exception\nagainst a form of church government that many learned and godly divines do\nassert it from Scripture to be the will of God. And why should _jus\ndivinum_ be such a _noli me tangere_? The reason was given. \u201cThis was the\nonly thing that hindered union in the Assembly (saith he). Two parties\ncame biassed. The reverend commissioners from Scotland were for the _jus\ndivinum_ of the presbyterial, the Independents for the congregational\ngovernment. How should either move? where should both meet?\u201d If it was\nthus, how shall he make himself blameless, who made union in the Assembly\nyet more difficult, because he came biassed a third way, with the Erastian\ntenets? And where he asketh where the Independents and we should meet, I\nanswer, In holding a church government _jure divino_, that is, that the\npastors and elders ought to suspend or excommunicate (according to the\ndegree of the offence) scandalous sinners. Who can tell but the purging of\nthe church from scandals, and the keeping of the ordinances pure (when it\nshall be actually seen to be the great thing endeavoured on both sides),\nmay make union between us and the Independents more easy than many\nimagine. As for his exceptions against us who are commissioners from the\nchurch of Scotland, I thank God it is but such, yea, not so much, as the\nArminians did object(1330) against the foreign divines who came to the\nSynod of Dort. They complained that those divines were pre-engaged and\nbiassed, in regard of the judgment of those churches from which they came;\nand that therefore they did not help, but hinder, union in that assembly.\nAnd might not the Arians have thus excepted against Alexander, who was\nengaged against them before he came to the Council of Nice? Might not the\nNestorians have made the same exception against Cyril, because he was\nunder an engagement against them before he came to the Council of Ephesus?\nNay, had not the Jewish zealots the very same objection to make against\nPaul and Barnabas, who were engaged, not in the behalf of one nation, but\nof all the churches of the Gentiles, against the imposition of the\nMosaical rites, and had so declared themselves at Antioch before they came\nto the synod at Jerusalem? Acts xv. 2. It is not faulty to be engaged for\nthe truth, but against the truth. It is not blameworthy, but praiseworthy,\nto hold fast so much as we have already attained unto. Notwithstanding we,\nfor our part, have also from the beginning professed, \u201cThat we are most\nwilling to hear and learn from the word of God what needeth further to be\nreformed in the church of Scotland.\u201d(1331)\n\nThe second rule which was offered in that sermon was this: \u201cLet all\nprecepts, held out as divine institutions, have clear scriptures,\u201d &c.;\n\u201cLet the Scripture speak expressly,\u201d saith he. I answer: The Scripture\nspeaks in that manner which seemed fittest to the wisdom of God; that is,\nso as it must cost us much searching of the Scripture, as men search for a\nhid treasure, before we find out what is the good, and acceptable, and\nperfect will of God concerning the government of his church. Will any\ndivine in the world deny that it is a divine truth which, by necessary\nconsequence, is drawn from Scripture, as well as that which, in express\nwords and syllables, is written in Scripture? Are not divers articles of\nour profession,\u2014for instance, the baptism of infants,\u2014necessarily and\ncertainly proved from Scripture, although it makes no express mention\nthereof in words and syllables? But let us hear what he hath said\nconcerning some scriptures (for he names but two of them) upon which the\nacts of spiritual or ecclesiastical government have been grounded. \u201cThat\nplace, 1 Cor. v., takes not hold (saith he) on my conscience for\nexcommunication, and I admire that Matt. xviii. so should upon any.\u201d It is\nstrange that he should superciliously pass them over without respect to so\ngreat a cloud of witnesses in all the reformed churches, or without so\nmuch as offering any answer at all to the arguments which so many learned\nand godly divines of old and of late have drawn from these places for\nexcommunication; which, if he had done, he should not want a reply. In the\nmeantime, he intermixeth a politic consideration into this debate of\ndivine right. \u201cI could never yet see (saith he) how two co-ordinate\ngovernments, exempt from superiority and inferiority, can be in one\nstate.\u201d I suppose he hath seen the co-ordinate governments of a general\nand of an admiral; or, if we shall come lower, the government of parents\nover their children, and masters over their servants, though it fall often\nout, that he who is subject to one man as his master, is subject to\nanother man as his father. In one ship there may be two co-ordinate\ngovernments, the captain governing the soldiers, the master governing the\nmariners. In these and such like cases you have two co-ordinate\ngovernments, when the one governor is not subordinate to the other. There\nis more subordination in the ministers and other church-officers towards\nthe civil magistrate. For the minister of Christ must be in subjection to\nthe magistrate; and if he be not, he is punishable by the law of the land\nas well as any other subject. The persons and estates of church-officers,\nand all that they have in this world, are subject to civil authority. But\nthat which is Christ\u2019s, and not ours, the royal prerogative of the King of\nsaints, in governing of his church according to his own will, is not\nsubject to the pleasure of any man living. But the reverend brother might\nwell have spared this. It is not the independency of the church government\nupon the civil government which he intended to speak against, it is the\nvery thing itself, a church government, as is manifest by his other two\nrules.\n\nI come therefore to his next, which is the third rule: \u201cLay no more burden\nof government upon the shoulders of ministers than Christ hath plainly\nlaid upon them.\u201d He means none at all, as is manifest not only by his\nfourth rule, where he saith that he finds no institution of other\ngovernments beside magistracy, but also by the next words, \u201cThe ministers\nhave other work to do (saith he), and such as will take up the whole man.\u201d\nHe might have added this one word more, that without the power of church\ngovernment, when ministers have done all that ever they can, they shall\nnot keep themselves nor the ordinances from pollution. Before I proceed\nany farther, let it be remembered, when he excludes ministers from\ngovernment: First, It is from spiritual or ecclesiastical government, for\nthe question is not of civil government. Secondly, He excludes ruling\nelders too, and therefore ought to have mentioned them with the ministers\nas those who are to draw the same yoke together, rather than to tell us of\nan \u201cinnate enmity between the clergy and the laity.\u201d The keeping up of the\nnames of the clergy and laity savoureth more of a domineering power than\nanything the brother can charge upon presbyteries. It is a point of\ncontroversy between Bellarmine(1332) and those that write against him; he\nholding up, and they crying down those names, because the Christian people\nare the \u03ba\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, the heritage of the Lord as well as the ministers. Thus\nmuch by the way of that distinction of names; and, for the thing itself,\nto object an innate enmity between the ministers of the gospel and those\nthat are not ministers, is no less than a dishonouring and aspersing of\nthe Christian religion. To return, you see his words tend to the taking\naway of all church government out of the hands of church-officers. Now may\nwe know his reasons? He fetcheth the ground of an argument out of his own\nheart: \u201cI have a heart (saith he) that knows better how to be governed\nthan govern.\u201d I wish his words might hold true in a sense of pliableness\nand yielding to government. How he knows to govern I know not; but it\nshould seem in this particular he knows not how to be governed; for after\nboth houses of parliament have concluded \u201cthat many particular\ncongregations shall be under one presbyterial government,\u201d he still\nacknowledgeth no such thing as presbyterial government. I dare be bold to\nsay he is the first divine, in all the Christian world, that ever advised\na state to give no government to church-officers, after the state had\nresolved to establish presbyterian government; but let us take the\nstrength of his argument as he pretendeth it. He means not of an humble\npliableness and subjection (for that should ease him from his fear of an\nambitious ensnarement, and so were contrary to his intention), but of a\nsinful infirmity and ambition in the heart, which makes it fitter for him\nand others to be kept under the yoke than to govern. And thus his\nargumentation runs: \u201cMight I measure others by myself, and I know not why\nI may not (God fashions men\u2019s hearts alike; and as in water face answers\nface, so the heart of man to man), I ingenuously profess I have a heart\nthat knows better how to be governed than govern,\u2014I fear an ambitious\nensnarement, and I have cause,\u2014I see what raised Prelacy and Papacy to\nsuch a height,\u201d &c. The two scriptures will not prove what he would. The\nfirst of them, Psal. xxxiii. 15, \u201cHe fashioneth their hearts alike,\u201d gives\nhim no ground at all, except it be the homonomy of the English word\n_alike_, which in this place noteth nothing else but \u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5,\u2014all men\u2019s\nhearts are alike in this, that God fashioneth them all, and therefore\nknoweth them all _\u00e6que_ or alike (that is the scope of the place). The\nHebrew _jachad_ is used in the same sense, Ezra iv. 3, \u201cWe ourselves\ntogether will build;\u201d(1333) they mean not they will all build in the like\nfashion, or in the same manner, but that they will build all of them\ntogether, one as well as another; so Psal. ii. 2, \u201cThe rulers take counsel\ntogether;\u201d Jer. xlvi. 12, \u201cThey are fallen both together.\u201d The other\nplace, Prov. xxvii. 19, if you take it word by word as it is in the\nHebrew, is thus: \u201cAs in water faces to faces; so the heart of man to man.\u201d\nOur translators add the word _answereth_, but the Hebrew will suffer the\nnegative reading, _As in water faces answer not to faces_. The Septuagint\nreads: \u201cAs faces are not like faces, so neither are the hearts of men\nalike.\u201d The Chaldee paraphrase thus: \u201cAs waters and as countenances, which\nare not like one another, so the hearts of the sons of men are not alike.\u201d\nThus doth Mr Cartwright, in his judicious commentary, give the sense: \u201cAs\nin the water face doth not answer fully to face, but in some sort, so\nthere may be a conjecture, but no certain knowledge of the heart of man.\u201d\nBut let the text be read affirmatively, not negatively, what shall be the\nsense? Some take it thus:(1334) A man\u2019s heart may be someway seen in his\ncountenance as a face in the water. Others(1335) thus: As a face in the\nwater is various and changeable to him that looketh upon it, so is the\nheart of man inconstant to a friend that trusteth in him. Others(1336)\nthus: As a man seeth his own face in the water, so he may see himself in\nhis own heart or conscience. Others(1337) thus: As face answereth face in\nthe water, so he that looketh for a friendly affection from others, must\nshow it in himself. It will never be proved that any such thing is\nintended in that place as may warrant this argumentation. There is a\nparticular corruption in one man\u2019s heart\u2014for instance, ambition\u2014which\nmakes him unfit to be trusted with government; therefore the same\ncorruption is in all other men\u2019s hearts; even as the face in the water\nanswereth the face out of the water so just, that there is not a spot or\nblemish in the one but it is in the other. I am sure Paul taught us not so\nwhen he said, \u201cIn lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than\nthemselves,\u201d Phil. ii. 3. Nay, the brother himself hath taken off the edge\nof his own argument (if it had any) in his epistle printed before his\nsermon, where, speaking of his brethren, from whose judgment he dissenteth\nin point of government, he hath these words: \u201cWhose wisdom and humility (I\nspeak it confidently) may safely be trusted with as large a share of\ngovernment as they themselves desire.\u201d Well, but suppose now the same\ncorruption to be in other men\u2019s hearts, that they are in great danger of\nan ambitious ensnarement if they be trusted with government, is this\ncorruption only in the hearts of ministers, or is it in the hearts of all\nother men? I suppose he will say, in all men\u2019s hearts, and then his\nargument will conclude against all civil government. Last of all, Admit\nthat there be just fears of abusing the power and government\necclesiastical,\u2014let the persons to be intrusted with it be examined, and\nthe power itself bounded according to the strictest rules of Christ. Let\nabuses be prevented, reformed, corrected. The abuse cannot take away the\nuse where the thing itself is necessary. Why might he not have satisfied\nhimself without speaking against the thing itself? Once, indeed, he\nseemeth to recoil, and saith, \u201cOnly I would have it so bounded, that it\nmight be said, Hitherto shalt thou come, and here shalt thou stay thy\nproud waves,\u201d yet by and by he passeth his own bounds, and totally\nrenounceth the government to the civil power, which I shall speak to anon.\nBut I must first ask, Whence is this fear of the proud swelling waves of\npresbyterial government? Where have they done hurt? Was it upon the coast\nof France, or upon the coast of Holland, or upon the coast of Scotland, or\nwhere was it? Or was it the dashing upon _terra in cognita_? He that would\nforewarn men to beware of presbyterial usurpations (for so the brother\nspeaking to the present controversy about church government must be\napprehended), and to make good what he saith falls upon the stories of\nPope Paul V., and of the Bishop of Canterbury, is not a little wide from\nthe mark. I should have expected some examples of evils and mischiefs\nwhich presbyterial government hath brought upon other reformed churches.\n\nWell, the reverend brother hath not done, but he proceedeth thus: \u201cIt was\nthe king of Sodom\u2019s speech to Abraham, \u2018Give me the persons, take thou the\ngoods;\u2019 so say I, Give us doctrine, take you the government: as is said,\nRight Honourable, give me leave to make this request in the behalf of the\nministry. Give us two things and we shall do well: 1. Give us learning;\nand, 2. Give us a competency.\u201d\n\nThis calls to mind a story which Clemens Alexandrinus tells us:(1338) When\none had painted Helena with much gold, Apolles, looking upon it, \u201cFriend\n(saith he), when you could not make her fair, you have made her rich.\u201d\nLearning and competency do enrich. The Jesuits have enough of both, but\nthat which maketh a visible ministerial church to be \u201cbeautiful as Tizrah,\ncomely as Jerusalem,\u201d that which maketh fair the outward face of a church,\nis _government_ and _discipline_, the removing of scandals, the preserving\nof the ordinances from pollution. He had spoken more for the honour of God\nand for the power of godliness, if he had said this in the behalf of the\nministry: It were better for us to want competency and helps to learning,\nthan to partake with other men\u2019s sins, by admitting the scandalous and\nprofane to the Lord\u2019s table. His way, which he adviseth, will perhaps \u201cget\nus an able ministry, and procure us honour enough,\u201d as he speaketh; but,\nsure, it can neither preserve the purity, nor advance the power of\nreligion, because it putteth no black mark upon profaneness and scandal in\nchurch-members more than in any others. The king of Sodom\u2019s speech cannot\nserve his turn except it be turned over, and then it will serve him as\njust as anything, thus: Give us the goods, take you the persons (or _the\nsouls_, as the Hebrew and the Chaldee hath it); \u201cGive us a competency,\u201d\nsaith he,\u2014here he asketh the goods,\u2014\u201ctake you the government,\u201d\u2014here he\nquitteth the persons or souls to be governed only by the civil power.\nHowever, as at that time Abraham would take nothing that was not his own,\ninsomuch as he answereth the king of Sodom: \u201cI will not take from a thread\neven to a shoe-latchet, and that I will not take anything that is thine,\u201d\nGen. xiv. 23; so this Parliament, I trust, shall be so counselled and\nguided of the Lord, that they will leave to the church what is the\nchurch\u2019s, or rather to Christ what is Christ\u2019s. And as Abraham had lift up\nhis hand to the most high God to do that (ver. 32), so have the Honourable\nHouses, with hands lift up to the most high God, promised to do this.\n\nAnd now, seeing I have touched upon the covenant, I wish the reverend\nbrother may seriously consider whether he hath not violated the oath of\nGod in advising the Parliament to lay no burden of government upon\nchurch-officers, but to take the government of the church wholly into\ntheir own hands. In the first article of the solemn league and covenant,\nthere is thrice mention made of the government of the church; and namely,\nThat we shall endeavour the reformation of religion in the kingdoms of\nEngland and Ireland, in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government,\naccording to the word of God, and the example of the best reformed\nchurches. Where observe,\n\n1. The extirpation of church government is not the reformation of it. The\nsecond article is indeed of things to be extirpated; but this of things to\nbe preserved and reformed. Therefore as by the covenant Prelacy was not to\nbe reformed, but to be abolished, so, by the same covenant, church\ngovernment was not to be abolished, but to be reformed.\n\n2. Church government is mentioned in the covenant as a spiritual, not a\ncivil thing. The matters of religion are put together\u2014doctrine, worship,\ndiscipline, and government; the privileges of Parliament come after, in\nthe third article.\n\n3. That clause, \u201cAccording to the word of God,\u201d implieth, that the word of\nGod holdeth forth such light unto us as may guide and direct us in the\nreformation of church government.\n\n4. And will the brother say that the example of the best reformed churches\nleadeth us his way; that is, to have no church government at all distinct\nfrom the civil government?\n\nAnd so much concerning his third rule.\n\nThe fourth was this: \u201cA Christian magistrate, as a Christian magistrate,\nis a governor in the church.\u201d And who denieth this? The question is,\nWhether there ought to be no other government in the church beside that of\nthe Christian magistrate. That which he driveth at is, That the Christian\nmagistrate should leave no power of spiritual censures to the elderships.\nHe would have the magistrate to do like the rich man in the parable, who\nhad exceeding many flocks and herds, and yet did take away the little\newe-lamb from the poor man, who had nothing save that. The brother saith,\n\u201cOf other governments besides magistracy, I find no institution; of them I\ndo, Rom. xiii. 1, 2.\u201d I am sorry he sought no better, else he had found\nmore. Subjection and obedience is commanded, as due not only to civil but\nto spiritual governors, to those that are over us in the Lord, 1 Thess. v.\n12; so, 1 Tim. v. 17, \u201cLet the elders that rule well be counted worthy of\ndouble honour;\u201d Heb. xiii. 7, \u201cRemember them which have the rule over you,\nwho have spoken unto you the word of God;\u201d ver. 17, \u201cObey them that have\nthe rule over you, and submit yourselves; for they watch for your souls.\u201d\nAnd what understandeth he by \u201che that ruleth,\u201d Rom. xii. 8? If the\njudgment of Gualther and Bullinger have any weight with him (as I suppose\nit hath) they do not there exclude, but take in, under that word, the\nruling officers of the church.\n\nBut now, in the close, let the reverend brother take heed he hath not\nsplit upon a rock, and taken from the magistrate more than he hath given\nhim. He saith, \u201cChristian magistrates are to manage their office under\nChrist, and for Christ. Christ hath placed governments in his church, 1\nCor. xii. 28, &c. I find all government given to Christ, and to Christ as\nMediator (I desire all to consider it), Eph. i. 3, 23, and Christ, as Head\nof these, given to the church.\u201d If this be good divinity, then I am sure\nit will be the hardest task which ever he took in hand to uphold and\nassert the authority either of pagan or Christian magistrates.\n\nFirst, He lets the pagan or infidel magistrate fall to the ground, as an\nusurper who hath no just title to reign, because all government is given\nto Christ, and to him as Mediator. But which way was the authority of\ngovernment derived from Christ, and from him as Mediator, to a pagan\nprince or emperor?\n\nNext, He will make it to fare little better with the Christian magistrate.\nFor if the Christian magistrate be the vicegerent of Christ, and of Christ\nas Mediator; and if he be to manage his office under, and for Christ,\u2014then\nthe reverend brother must either prove from Scripture, that Christ, as\nMediator, hath given such a commission of vicegerentship and deputyship to\nthe Christian magistrate; or otherwise, acknowledge that he hath given a\nmost dangerous wound to magistracy, and made it an empty title, claiming\nthat power which it hath no warrant to assume.\n\nGod and nature hath made magistrates, and given them great authority; but\nfrom Christ as Mediator they have it not.\n\nI find in Scripture, that church-officers have their power from Christ as\nMediator; and they are to manage their office under and for Christ; and in\nthe name of the Lord Jesus Christ do we assemble ourselves together, Matt.\nxviii. 20; in his name do we preach, Luke xxiv. 47; Acts iv. 17, 18; v.\n28, 41; ix. 27; in his name do we baptise, Acts ii. 38; iv. 12, 16; xix.\n5; in his name do we excommunicate, 1 Cor. v. 5. But I do not find in\nScripture that the magistrate is to rule, or to make laws, or to manage\nany part of his office in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. And as the\nMediator hath not anywhere given such a commission and power to the\nmagistrate, so, as Mediator, he had it not to give; for he was not made a\njudge in civil affairs, Luke xii. 14, and his kingdom is not of this\nworld, John xviii. 36. How can that power which Christ as Mediator hath\nnot received of the Father be derived from Christ to the Christian\nmagistrate? I know that Christ, as he is the eternal Son of God, and\n\u201cthought it no robbery to be equal with God,\u201d doth, with the Father and\nthe Holy Ghost, reign and rule over all the kingdoms of the sons of men.\nHe that is Mediator, being God, hath, as God, all power in heaven and\nearth (and this power was given to him, Matt. xxviii. 18, both by the\neternal generation, and by the declaration of him to be the Son of God\nwith power, when he was raised from the dead, Rom. i. 4, even as he is\nsaid to be begotten, when he was raised again, Acts xiii. 33: he had\nrelinquished and laid aside his divine dominion and power when he had made\nhimself in the form of a servant, but after his resurrection it is\ngloriously manifested), and so he that is Mediator, being God, hath power\nto subdue his and his church\u2019s enemies, and to make his foes his\nfootstool. But as Mediator he is only the church\u2019s King, Head, and\nGovernor, and hath no other kingdom. The Photinians have defined the\nkingly office of Christ thus: \u201cIt is an office committed to him by God, to\ngovern, with the highest authority and power, all creatures endued with\nunderstanding, and especially men, and the church gathered of them.\u201d(1339)\nBut those that have written against them have corrected their definition\nin this particular, because Christ is properly King of his church only.\n\nAs for those two scriptures which the brother citeth, they are extremely\nmisapplied. He citeth 1 Cor. xii. 28 to prove that Christ hath placed\ncivil governments in his church. If by the governments or governors there\nmentioned he understood the civil magistrates, yet that place saith not\nthat Christ hath placed them, but that God hath done it.\n\nNext, The Apostle speaks of such governors as the church had at that time;\nbut at that time the church had no godly nor Christian magistrates. This\nis Calvin\u2019s argument, whereby he proves that ecclesiastical, not civil\ngovernors, are there meant.\n\nThirdly, I ask, How can we conceive that civil government can come into\nthe catalogue of ecclesiastical and spiritual administrations? for such\nare all the rest there reckoned forth.\n\nLastly, The brother, after second thoughts, may think he hath done another\ndisservice to the magistrate, in making the magistracy to be below and\nbehind the ministry. The Apostle puts them in this order: \u201cGod hath set\nsome in the church, first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly teachers,\nafter that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments,\u201d &c. How\nmakes the brother this to agree with his interpretation.\n\nNext, He citeth Eph. i. 21-23, to prove that all government is given to\nChrist, and to him as Mediator; and Christ, as Head of these, given to the\nchurch. But this place maketh more against him than for him; for the\nApostle saith not that Christ is given to the church as the Head of all\nprincipalities and powers. The brother saith so; and, in saying so, he\nmakes Christ a head to those that are not of his body.\n\nThe Apostle saith far otherwise: That God gave Christ \u201cto be the head over\nall things to the church, which is his body;\u201d which the Syriac readeth\nmore plainly,\u2014\u201cAnd him who is over all he gave to be the head to the\nchurch.\u201d He is a head to none but the church; but He who is head to the\nchurch \u201cis over all, God blessed for ever,\u201d Rom. ix. 5; yea, even as a\nman, he is over or above all. The very human nature of Christ which was\nraised from the dead, being set at the right hand of the Majesty of God,\nis exalted to a higher degree of honour and glory than either man or angel\never was, or ever shall he; so that He that is head of the church is over\nall, because he doth not only excel his own members, but excel all\ncreatures that ever God made. It is one thing to say that Christ is\nexalted to a dignity, excellency, pre-eminence, majesty, and glory, far\nabove all principality, and power, and might, and dominion; another thing\nto say that Christ is head of all principalities and governments, and, as\nMediator, exerciseth his kingly office over these. The Apostle saith the\nformer, but not the latter.\n\nShall I need to illustrate this distinction? Is there anything more known\nin the world? Will any say that he who excels other men in dignity,\nsplendour, honour, and glory, must therefore reign and rule over all those\nwhom he thus excels?\n\nThe Apostle saith indeed, in another sense, that Christ \u201cis the head of\nall principality and power,\u201d Col. ii. 10. But that is spoken of Christ not\nas he is Mediator, but only as he is God; and the Apostle\u2019s meaning in\nthose words is nothing but this: That Christ is true God, saith Tossanus;\nthat he is omnipotent, saith Gualther; that he, being the natural Son of\nGod, is together with the Father, Lord of all things, saith Bullinger.\n\nThat this is the meaning will soon appear:\u2014\n\n1. From the scope of the place, which is to teach the Colossians not to\nworship angels, because they are but servants, and the Son of God is their\nLord and Head.\n\n2. The Apostle expounds himself how Christ is the head of all principality\nand power: Col. i. 15-17, \u201cWho is the image of the invisible God, the\nfirst-born of every creature: for by him were all things created that are\nin heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be\nthrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers; all things were\ncreated by him, and for him: and he is before all things, and by him all\nthings consist.\u201d Now all this is, without controversy, to be understood\nnot of the office, but of the person of Jesus Christ; not of his governing\nand kingly office, as he is Mediator, but to prove that he is true and\nvery God; therefore Beza, Zanchius, Gualther, Bullinger, Tossanus, M.\nBayne, and divers other interpreters upon the place, do generally agree\nthat the Apostle (ver. 15-17) speaks of the dignity and excellency of the\nperson of Jesus Christ, proving him to be true God; and that (ver. 18) he\ncometh to speak of his office, as he is Mediator: \u201cAnd he is the head of\nthe body, the church,\u201d &c. So that we may distinguish a twofold headship\nof Jesus Christ: One, in regard of his Godhead,\u2014and so he is head of all\nprincipality and power; another, in regard of his office of\nMediatorship,\u2014and so he is head of the church only. The present question\nis of the latter, not of the former. The former is common to the Son of\nGod with the Father and the Holy Ghost; the latter is proper to Christ as\nGod and man. The former shall continue for ever; the latter shall not\ncontinue for ever. The former doth not necessarily suppose the latter; but\nthe latter doth necessarily suppose the former. Christ can reign as God,\nthough he reign not as Mediator; but he cannot reign as Mediator and not\nreign as God. The object of the former is every creature; the object of\nthe latter is the church gathered out of the world.\n\nThis digression concerning the headship of Jesus Christ may for the future\nprevent divers objections, so I shall return.\n\nAnd now (I desire all to consider it) there is not one word in those three\nlast verses of Eph. i. which will give any ground for that which the\nbrother with so much confidence averreth. Ver. 21 affordeth this argument\nagainst him: The honour and dignity of Jesus Christ there spoken of hath\nplace \u201cnot only in this world, but also in that which is to come.\u201d But the\nkingdom and government which is given to Christ, as Mediator, shall not\ncontinue in the world to come (for when Christ hath put his enemies under\nhis feet, he shall deliver up the kingdom to the Father, and reign no\nlonger as Mediator, 1 Cor. xv. 24, 25); therefore the government given to\nChrist, as he is Mediator, cannot be meant in that place, but the\ndignifying, honouring, preferring, and exalting of Christ to a higher\ndegree of glory than either man or angel.\n\nCome on now and see whether ver. 22 maketh any whit more for him: He \u201chath\nput all things under his feet;\u201d that is, saith Zanchius, all things but\nthe church, which is his body. But this must be meant in respect of the\ndecree and foreknowledge of God, as Jerome expounds the place; and so doth\nthe Scripture expound itself: Heb. ii. 8, \u201cBut now we see not yet all\nthings put under him;\u201d 1 Cor. xv. 25, \u201cHe must reign, till he hath put all\nenemies under his feet;\u201d Acts ii. 34, 35, \u201cSit thou on my right hand,\nuntil I make thy foes thy footstool.\u201d Now, when Christ shall have put down\nall rule, and all authority, and power, and shall put his enemies under\nhis feet, then he shall cease to reign any more as Mediator (which I have\neven now proved); but before that be done he reigns as Mediator. So that\nit can never be proved that the meaning of these words, \u201cHe hath put all\nthings under his feet,\u201d is, that all government in this world is given to\nChrist as Mediator; and whoever saith so, must needs acknowledge that\nChrist\u2019s exercising of government, as he is Mediator, over all\nprincipalities and powers, shall continue after all things shall be put\nunder his feet; or that Christ shall not govern as Mediator, \u201ctill all\nthings be put under his feet,\u201d which is so contrary to the Apostle\u2019s\nmeaning, that Christ shall then cease to reign as Mediator.\n\nThe next words, \u201cAnd he gave him to be the head over all things to the\nchurch,\u201d do furnish another argument against him. Christ\u2019s headship, and\nhis government as Mediator, are commensurable, and of an equal extent.\nChrist is a head to none but to his church; therefore no government is\ngiven to him as Mediator but the government of his church.\n\nThe last verse doth further confirm that which I say; for the Apostle,\ncontinuing his speech of the church, saith, \u201cWhich is his body, the\nfulness of him that filleth all in all.\u201d He calls the church Christ\u2019s\nfulness, in reference to his headship, that which makes him full and\ncomplete so far as he is a head or king. Having his church fully gathered,\nhe hath his complete kingdom, his perfect body; and this being done, he\nwants nothing, so far as he is Mediator: so that the Holy Ghost doth here,\nas it were on purpose, anticipate this opinion, lest any should think all\ncivil government is given to Christ as Mediator. Though, as God, he\nfilleth heaven and earth, yet, as Mediator, his filling of all in all\nextends no further than his body, his church, which is therefore called\nhis fulness.\n\nFinally, To avoid the mistake of this place, and upon the whole matter,\nlet these three things be well distinguished in the Mediator Jesus Christ.\n1. His \u1f51\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c7\u1f74 or \u03b4\u03c5\u03c7\u03b1, his eminence and highness in respect of the glory\nand majesty he is exalted to, far above whatsoever is highest among all\nthe creatures. 2. His \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2, the power by which he can, and doth by\ndegrees, and will more and more subdue his and his church\u2019s enemies, and\ndash them in pieces like a potter\u2019s vessel, and break them with a rod of\niron. 3. His \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1, his kingly power, by which he exerciseth acts of\ngovernment. These three are distinguished in an earthly king, the first\ntwo being of a larger extent than the third. The conclusion of that prayer\nwhich our Lord taught his disciples doth distinguish the same three in\nGod: \u201cThine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory.\u201d Now these being\ndistinguished in the Mediator Jesus Christ, I conclude with these three\ndistinct assertions (the truth whereof I hope I have made to appear): 1.\nAs Mediator, he is exalted and dignified above all creatures, and his\nglory is above all the earth; 2. As Mediator, he exerciseth acts of divine\npower and omnipotence over all creatures, in the behalf of, and for the\ngood of his church, and restraineth, or diverteth, or destroyeth all his\nchurch\u2019s enemies; 3. As Mediator, he is king, head, and governor to none\nbut his church: neither was all government put in his hand, but that of\nthe church only.\n\nI could enlarge myself further against that most dangerous principle,\n\u201cThat all government, even that which is civil, is given to Christ, and to\nhim as Mediator;\u201d but let these things suffice for the present. The\nreverend brother\u2019s opinion will find better entertainment among the Jews,\nwho expect a temporal monarchy of the Messiah; and among Papists, who\ndesire to uphold the Pope\u2019s temporal authority over kings, as Christ\u2019s\nvicegerent upon earth.\n\n\n\n\n\nNIHIL RESPONDES: OR A DISCOVERY OF THE EXTREME UNSATISFACTORINESS OF MR\nCOLEMAN\u2019S PIECE.\n\n\n                             NIHIL RESPONDES:\n\n                                    OR\n\n                               A DISCOVERY\n\n                                  OF THE\n\n            EXTREME UNSATISFACTORINESS OF MR COLEMAN\u2019S PIECE,\n\n                  PUBLISHED LAST WEEK UNDER THE TITLE OF\n\n                  \u201cA BROTHERLY EXAMINATION RE-EXAMINED.\u201d\n\n                     WHEREIN HIS SELF CONTRADICTIONS;\n\n HIS YIELDING OF SOME THINGS, AND NOT ANSWERING TO OTHER THINGS OBJECTED\n                               AGAINST HIM;\n\n            HIS ABUSING OF SCRIPTURE; HIS ERRORS IN DIVINITY;\n\n   HIS ABUSING OF THE PARLIAMENT, AND ENDANGERING THEIR AUTHORITY; HIS\n                         ABUSING OF THE ASSEMBLY;\n\nHIS CALUMNIES, NAMELY, AGAINST THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND AND AGAINST MYSELF;\n\n    THE REPUGNANCY OF HIS DOCTRINE TO THE SOLEMN LEAGUE AND COVENANT;\u2014\n\n                        ARE PLAINLY DEMONSTRATED.\n\n                           BY GEORGE GILLESPIE,\n\n                       MINISTER AT EDINBURGH, 1642.\n\n\u201cUnderstanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.\u201d\u20141 TIM. i.\n                                    7.\n\n                                EDINBURGH:\n\n                     ROBERT OGLE, AND OLIVER & BOYD.\n\n               M. OGLE & SON, AND WILLIAM COLLINS, GLASGOW.\n\n      J. DEWAR, PERTH. W. MIDDLETON, DUNDEE. G. & R. KING, ABERDEEN.\n\n                           W. M\u2019COMB, BELFAST.\n\n          HAMILTON, ADAMS & CO., AND JAMES NISBET & CO., LONDON.\n\n                                  1645.\n\n           REPRINTED BY A. W. MURRAY, MILNE SQUARE, EDINBURGH.\n\n                                  1844.\n\nAfter that Mr Coleman had preached and printed such doctrine as I was, in\nmy conscience, fully persuaded was contrary to the covenant of the three\nkingdoms, and destructive (if it were put in practice) to the reformation\nof religion, he having also flatly and publicly imputed to the\nCommissioners from the church of Scotland a great part of the fault of\nhindering union in the Assembly here, I thought myself obliged in duty,\nand in the trust which I bear, to give a public testimony against his\ndoctrine (which others did also) upon occasion not sought, but by divine\nprovidence, and a public calling then offered, first for preaching, and\nafter for printing, in either of which I think there did not appear the\nleast disrespect or bitterness towards the reverend brother. The Lord\nknows my intention was to speak to the matter, to vindicate the truth, and\nto remove that impediment of reformation by him cast in; and if he, or any\nman else had, in meekness of spirit, gravely and rationally, for clearing\nof truth, endeavoured to confute me, I ought not, I should not, have taken\nit ill; but now, when this piece of his against me, called \u201cA Brotherly\nExamination Re-examined\u201d (I think he would or should have said _examined_,\nfor this is the first examination of it), I find it more full of _railing_\nthan of _reasoning_, of _gibing_ than of _gravity_; and when polemics do\nso degenerate, the world is abused not edified. He tells me if I have not\nwork enough I shall have more. I confess the answering of this piece is no\ngreat work; and the truth is, I am ashamed I have so little to make answer\nunto; yet I shall do my best to improve even this work to edification.\nWhen other work comes I wish it be work indeed, and not words. _Res cum\nre, ratio cum ratione concertet_, as the father said: Arguments, Sir,\narguments, arguments, if there be any: you have affirmed great things, and\nnew things, which you have not proved. The assertions of such as are for a\nchurch government _in genere_, and for the presbyterial government _in\nspecie_, are known; their arguments are known, but your solutions are not\nyet known. If Mr Prynne\u2019s book against the suspension of scandalous\npersons from the sacrament be the work for the present which he means, I\nhope it shall be in due time most satisfactorily spoken unto, both by\nothers and by myself. I desire rather solid than subitane lucubrations. In\nthe meanwhile, \u201cLet not him that putteth on his armour boast as he that\nputteth it off.\u201d And let the brother that puts me in mind of other work\nremember that himself hath other work to do which he hath not yet done.\n\nI have, for better method and clearness, divided this following discourse\ninto certain heads, taking in under every head such particulars in his\nreply as I conceive to be most proper to that point.\n\n\n\n\nTHAT MR COLEMAN DOTH NOT ONLY PREVARICATE, BUT CONTRADICT HIMSELF,\nCONCERNING THE STATE OF THE QUESTION.\n\n\nHe tells us often that he doth not deny to church officers all power of\nchurch government, but only the corrective part of government; that the\ndoctrinal and declarative power is in the ministry; see p. 11, 14. He\ndenieth that he did \u201cadvise the Parliament to take church government\nwholly into their own hands: I never had it in my thoughts (saith he) that\nthe Parliament had power of dispensing the word and sacraments.\u201d I must\nconfess it is to me new language, which I never heard before, that the\ndispensing of the word and sacraments is a part of church government; sure\nthe word _government_ is not, nor never was, so understood in the\ncontroversies concerning church government. But if it be, why did the\nbrother in his sermon oppose doctrine and government? \u201cGive us doctrine\n(said he); take you the government.\u201d\n\nBut behold now how he doth most palpably contradict himself, in one and\nthe same page; it is the 11th. \u201cI know no such distinction of government\n(saith he), ecclesiastical and civil, in the sense I take government for\nthe corrective part thereof; all ecclesiastical (improperly called)\ngovernment being merely doctrinal; the corrective or punitive part being\ncivil or temporal.\u201d Again, within a few lines, \u201cI do acknowledge a\npresbyterian government; I said so expressly in my epistle; and do\nheartily subscribe to the votes of the house.\u201d If he heartily subscribe to\nthe votes and ordinances of Parliament, then he heartily subscribeth that\nelderships suspend men from the sacrament for any of the scandals\nenumerate, it being proved by witnesses upon oath: this power is\ncorrective, not merely doctrinal. He must also subscribe to the\nsubordination of congregational, classical, and synodical assemblies in\nthe government of the church, and to appeals from the lesser to the\ngreater, as likewise to ordination by presbyteries. And, I pray, is all\nthis merely doctrinal? And will he now subscribe heartily to all this? How\nwill that stand with the other passages before cited? or with p. 17, where\nit being objected to him, that he takes away from elderships all power of\nspiritual censures, his reply neither yieldeth excommunication nor\nsuspension, but admonition alone, and that by the ministers who are a part\nof the elderships, not by the whole eldership consistorially. Again, p.\n14, he confesseth: \u201cI advised the Parliament to lay no burden of\ngovernment upon them, whom he, this commissioner, thinks church officers,\npastors and ruling elders.\u201d Now I argue thus: He that adviseth the\nParliament to lay no burden of government upon ministers and ruling\nelders, he adviseth the Parliament to do contrary to their own votes and\nordinances, and so is far from subscribing heartily thereunto. But Mr\nColeman, by his own confession, adviseth the Parliament to lay no burden\nof government upon ministers and ruling elders; therefore, &c. How he will\nreconcile himself with himself let him look to it.\n\nPage 11. He takes it ill that one, while I make him an enemy to all church\ngovernment, then only to the presbyterial. _Only_ is his own addition. But\nI had reason to make him an enemy to both, for so he hath made himself;\nyea, in opposing all church government, he cannot choose but oppose\npresbyterial government, for the consequence is necessary, _a genere ad\nspeciem_,\u2014negatively though not affirmatively. If no church government,\nthen no presbyterial government.\n\n\n\n\nTHE PARTICULARS IN MY BRIEF EXAMINATION, WHICH MR COLEMAN EITHER GRANTETH\nEXPRESSLY, OR ELSE DOTH NOT REPLY UNTO.\n\n\nMy argument, p. 32, proving that as many things ought to be established\n_jure divino_ as can well be, because he cannot answer it, therefore he\ngranteth it.\n\nPage 5. He had in his sermon called for plain and clear institutions, and\nlet Scripture speak expressly. Now, p. 7, he yieldeth that it is not only\na divine truth (as I called it) but clear scripture, which is drawn by\nnecessary consequence from Scripture.\n\nHe hath not yet, though put in mind, produced the least exception against\nthe known arguments for excommunication and church government drawn from\nMatt, xviii. and 1 Cor. v. He tells the affirmer is to prove; but the\naffirmers have proved, and their arguments are known (yea he himself, p.\n1, saith, \u201cI have had the opportunity to hear almost what man can say in\neither side,\u201d speaking of the controversy of church government); therefore\nhe should have made a better answer than to say that those places did not\ntake hold of his conscience; yet if he have not heard enough of those\nplaces, he shall, I trust, ere long hear more.\n\nHe had said, I could never yet see how two co-ordinate governments, exempt\nfrom superiority and inferiority, can be in one state, p. 35. I gave him\nthree instances: A general and an admiral; a father and a master; a\ncaptain and a master of a ship. This, p. 8, he doth not deny, nor saith\none word against it; only he endeavoureth to make those similes to run\nupon four feet, and to resemble the General Assembly and the Parliament in\nevery circumstance. But I did not at all apply them to the General\nAssembly and the Parliament; only I brought them to overthrow that general\nthesis of his concerning the inconsistency of two co-ordinate governments,\nwhich, if he could defend, why hath not he done it?\n\nHis keeping up of the names of clergy and laity being challenged by me, p.\n36, he hath not said one word in his _Re-examination_ to justify it.\n\nI having, p. 37, 38, confuted his argument drawn from the measuring of\nothers by himself, whereby he did endeavour to prove that he had cause to\nfear an ambitious ensnarement in others as well as in himself, God having\nfashioned all men\u2019s hearts alike, now he quitteth his ground, and saith\nnothing for vindicating that argument from my exceptions.\n\nI showed, p. 40, his misapplying of the king of Sodom\u2019s speech, but\nneither in this doth he vindicate himself.\n\nThat which I had at length excepted against his fourth rule concerning the\nmagistrate, and his confirmation thereof, he hath not answered, nor so\nmuch as touched anything which I had said against him, from the end of p.\n42 to the end of p. 48, except only a part of p. 43, and of p. 44,\nconcerning 1 Cor. xii. 28. Some contrary argumentations he hath, p. 21, of\nwhich after, but no answer to mine.\n\nPage 10, He digresseth to other objections of his own framing, instead of\ntaking off what I had said.\n\n\n\n\nHIS ABUSING OF THE SCRIPTURES.\n\n\nMr Coleman did ground an argument upon Psal. xxxiii. 15; Prov. xxvii. 29,\nwhich cannot stand with the intent of the Holy Ghost, because contrary to\nother scriptures and to the truth, as I proved, p. 38. He answereth, in\nhis _Re-examination_, that my sense may stand, and his may stand too. But\nif my sense may stand, which is contrary to his, then his argument had no\nsure ground for it; yea, that which I said was to prove that his\nconsequence, drawn from those scriptures, did contradict both the apostle\nPaul\u2019s doctrine and his own profession, which still lieth upon him since\nit is not answered.\n\nPage 14, He citeth 1 Cor. x. 32, \u201cGive none offence, neither to the Jews,\nnor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God,\u201d to prove that all\ngovernment is either a Jewish government, or a church government, or a\nheathenish government, and that _there is no third._ Yes, Sir, yourself\nhath given a third (for you have told three), but _transeat cum c\u00e6teris\nerroribus_. To the matter. This is a perverting of scripture to prove an\nuntruth; for the government of generals, admirals, majors, sheriffs, is\nneither a Jewish government nor a church government, nor a heathenish\ngovernment. Neither doth the Apostle speak anything of government in that\nplace. He maketh a distribution of all men who are in danger to be\nscandalised\u2014not of governments; and if he had applied the place rightly to\nthe Parliament of England, he had said, They are either of the Jews, or of\nthe Gentiles, or of the church of God: and this needeth not an answer. But\nwhen he saith, \u201cThe English Parliament is either a Jewish government, or a\nchurch government, or a heathenish government,\u201d I answer, It is none of\nthese, but it is a civil government.\n\nPage 15, Declaring his opinion of church government he citeth Rom. xiii.\n4, \u201cTo execute wrath upon him that doeth evil,\u201d to prove that the punitive\npart belongs to the Christian magistrate. But what is this to the punitive\npart which is in controversy,\u2014spiritual censures, suspension from the\nsacraments, deposition from the ministry, excommunication? The punitive\npart spoken of, Rom. xiii., belongeth to all civil magistrates, whether\nChristian or infidel.\n\nPage 18. He maketh this reply to 1 Thess. v. 12; 1 Tim. xvii.; Heb. xiii.\n7, 17: \u201cWhy, man, I have found these an hundred and an hundred times twice\ntold, and yet am I as I was.\u201d Why, Sir, was the argument so ridiculous? I\nhad brought those places to prove another government (and, if you will,\nthe institution of another government) beside magistracy, which he said he\ndid not find in Scripture. Here are some who are no civil magistrates set\nover the Thessalonians in the Lord, 1 Thess. v. 12; Paul writeth to\nTimothy of elders that rule well, 1 Tim. v. 17; the churches of the\nHebrews had some rulers who had spoken to them the word of God, Heb. xiii.\n7; rulers that watched for their souls as they that must give an account,\nver. 17. Now let the reverend brother speak out, What can he answer? Were\nthese rulers civil magistrates? Did the civil magistrate speak to them the\nword of God? If these rulers were not magistrates but ministers, I ask\nnext. Is it a matter of indifferency, and no institution, to have a\nministry in a church or not? I hope, though he do not acknowledge ruling\nelders _jure divino_, yet he will acknowledge that the ministers of the\nword are _jure divino_; yet these were some of the rulers mentioned in the\nscriptures quoted. Let him loose the knot, and laugh when he hath done.\n\nPage 19, 20, He laboureth to prove from 1 Cor. xii. 28, that Christ hath\nplaced civil government in his church; and whereas it is said, that though\nit were granted that civil governments are meant in that place, yet it\nproves not that Christ hath placed them in the church. He replieth, \u201cI am\nsure the Commissioner will not stand to this: he that placed governors was\nthe same that placed teachers.\u201d But his assurance deceiveth him; for upon\nsupposition that civil governments are there meant (which is his sense), I\ndeny it, and he doth but _petere principium_. God placed civil\ngovernments, Christ placed teachers; God placed all whom Christ placed,\nbut Christ did not place all whom God placed. Next, whereas it was said,\nthat governments in that place cannot be meant of Christian magistrates,\nbecause at that time the church had no Christian magistrates, he replieth,\nThat Paul speaks of governments that the church had not, because in the\nenumeration, ver. 29, 30, he omits none but _helps_ and _governments_. I\nanswer, The reason of that omission is not because these two were not then\nin being (for God had set them as well as the rest in the church, ver.\n28), but to make ruling elders and deacons contented with their station,\nthough they be not prophets, teachers, &c. Thirdly, I asked, How comes\ncivil government into the catalogue of ecclesiastical and spiritual\nadministrations? His reply is nothing but an affirmation, that Christian\nmagistracy is an ecclesiastical administration, and a query whether\nworking of miracles and gifts of healings be ecclesiastical. _Ans._ Hence\nfolloweth, 1. That if the magistrate cease to be Christian he loseth his\nadministration; 2. That though a worker of miracles cease to be Christian,\nyet it is a question whether he may not still work miracles. Lastly, Where\nI objected that he puts magistracy behind ministry, he makes no answer,\nbut only that he may do this as well as my rule puts the nobility of\nScotland behind the ministry. No, Sir, we put but ruling elders behind\nministers in the order of their administrations because the Apostle doth\nso. It is accidental to the ruling elder to be of the nobility, or to\nnobles to be ruling elders: there are but some so, and many otherwise.\nThat of placing deacons before elders, 1 Cor. xii. 28, is no great matter;\nsure the Apostle, Rom. xii., placeth elders before deacons.\n\n\n\n\nHIS ERRORS IN DIVINITY.\n\n\n1. Page 21, He admitteth no church government distinct from civil, except\nthat which is merely doctrinal; and, p. 14, he adviseth the Parliament to\ntake the corrective power wholly into their own hands, and exempteth\nnothing of ecclesiastical power from their hands but the dispensing of the\nword and sacraments. Hence it followeth that there ought to be neither\nsuspension from the sacrament, nor excommunication, nor ordination, nor\ndeposition of ministers, nor receiving of appeals, except all these things\nbe done by the civil magistrate. If he say the magistrate gives leave to\ndo these things, I answer, 1. So doth he give leave to preach the word and\nminister the sacraments in his dominions. 2. Why doth he then, in his\nsermon, and doth still, in his _Re-examination_, p. 14, advise the\nParliament to lay no burden of corrective government upon ministers, but\nkeep it wholly in their own hands? It must needs be far contrary to his\nmind that the magistrate gives leave to do the things above mentioned,\nthey being most of them corrective, and all of them more than doctrinal.\n3. He gives no more power to ministers in church government than in civil\ngovernment; for, p. 11, he ascribeth to them a ministerial, doctrinal and\ndeclarative power, both in civil and ecclesiastical government.\n\n2. Page 11, 14, He holds that the corrective or punitive part of church\ngovernment is civil or temporal, and is wholly to be kept in the\nmagistrate\u2019s own hands; and, in his sermon, p. 25, he told us he sees not\nin the whole Bible any one act of that church government in controversy\nperformed. All which how erroneous it is appeareth easily from 1 Cor. v.\n13, \u201cPut away from among yourselves that wicked person\u201d (which Mr Prynne\nhimself, in his _Vindication_, p. 2, acknowledged to be a warrant for\nexcommunication); 2 Cor. ii. 6, There is a \u201cpunishment,\u201d or censure,\n\u201cinflicted of many;\u201d 1 Tim. v. 19, \u201cAgainst an elder receive not an\naccusation, but before two or three witnesses.\u201d Where acts of church\ngovernment or censures were neglected it is extremely blamed; Rev. ii. 14,\n15, 20. Was not all this corrective? yet not civil or temporal.\n\n3. Page 9, Whereas I had said, That without church government ministers\nshall not keep themselves nor the ordinances from pollution, he replieth,\nThat he understands neither this keeping of themselves from pollution, nor\nwhat this pollution of the ordinances is. I am sorry for it, that any\nminister of the gospel is found unclear in such a point. I will not give\nmy own, but scriptural answers to both. The former is answered, 1 Tim. v.\n22, Be not \u201cpartaker of other men\u2019s sins: keep thyself pure.\u201d It is sin to\ndispense ordinances to the unworthy, whether ordination, or communion in\nthe sacrament. For the other, the pollution of ordinances is the Scripture\nlanguage. I hope he means not to quarrel at the Holy Ghost\u2019s language:\nEzek. xxii. 26, \u201cHer priests have violated my law, and have profaned mine\nholy things: they have put no difference between the holy and profane;\u201d\nMal. i. 7, \u201cYe offer polluted bread upon mine altar;\u201d ver. 12, \u201cYe have\nprofaned it;\u201d Matt. xxi. 13, \u201cYe have made it a den of thieves;\u201d Matt.\nvii. 6, \u201cNeither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them\nunder their feet.\u201d\n\n4. Page 11, Whereas I had objected to him, that he excludeth ruling elders\nas well as ministers from government, he answers, That ruling elders are\neither the same, for office and ordination, with the minister (which, as\nhe thinks, the Independents own, but not I), or they are the Christian\nmagistrate; and so he saith he doth not exclude them. Mark here, he\nexcludeth all ruling elders from a share in church government who are not\neither the same, for office and ordination, with the minister, or else the\nChristian magistrate; and so, upon the matter, he holdeth that ruling\nelders are to have no hand in church government. Those ruling elders which\nare in the votes of the Assembly, and in the reformed churches, have\nneither the power of civil magistracy (_qua_ elders, and many of them not\nat all, being no magistrates), nor yet are they the same, for office and\nordination, with the minister; for their office, and, consequently, their\nordination to that office, is distinct from that of the minister among all\nthat I know. And so, excluding all ruling elders from government who are\nneither magistrates, nor the same with ministers, he must needs take upon\nhim that which I charged him with.\n\n5. Page 21, Where he makes reply to what I said against his argument from\nEph. i. 19-21, he saith, He will blow away all my discourse with this\nclear demonstration, \u201cThat which is given to Christ he hath it not as God,\nand Christ as God cannot be given. But this place (Eph. i. 19-21) speaketh\nboth of dignity given to Christ, and of Christ as a gift given; therefore\nChrist cannot be here understood as God.\u201d This is in opposition to what I\nsaid, p. 45, concerning the headship and dignity of Christ, as the natural\nson of God, \u201cthe image of the invisible God,\u201d Col. i. 15; and, p. 43, of\nthe dominion of Christ, as he is the \u201ceternal Son of God.\u201d This being\npremised, the brother\u2019s demonstration is so strong as to blow himself into\na blasphemous heresy. I will take the proposition from himself, and the\nassumption from Scripture, thus: That which is given to Christ he hath it\nnot as God. But all power in heaven and in earth is given to Christ, Matt.\nxxviii. 18; life is given to Christ, John v. 26; authority to execute\njudgment is given to Christ, ver. 27; all things are given into Christ\u2019s\nhands, John iii. 35; the Father hath given him power over all flesh, John\nxvii. 2; He hath given him glory, John xvii. 22: therefore, by Mr\nColeman\u2019s principles, Christ hath neither life, nor glory, nor authority\nto execute judgment, nor power over all flesh, as he is the eternal Son of\nGod, consubstantial with the Father, but only as he is Mediator, God and\nman. As for the giving of Christ as God, what if I argue thus? If Christ,\nas he is the eternal Son of God, or Second Person of the ever-blessed\nTrinity, could not be given, then the incarnation itself, or the sending\nof the Son of God to take on our flesh, cannot be called a giving of a\ngift to us. But this were impious to say; therefore, again, if Christ, as\nhe is the Second Person of the blessed Trinity, could not be given, then\nthe Holy Ghost, as the Third Person, cannot be given (for they are\nco-essential; and that which were a dishonour to God the Son were a\ndishonour to God the Holy Ghost); but to say that the Holy Ghost cannot be\ngiven as the Third Person, were to say that he cannot be given as the Holy\nGhost. And what will he then say to all those scriptures that speak of the\ngiving of the Holy Ghost, Acts xv. 8; Rom. v. 5; 1 John iv. 13, &c.?\n\nFinally, As Mr Coleman\u2019s demonstration hath blown away itself, so it could\nnot hurt me were it solid and good (as it is not); for he should have\ntaken notice, that, in my examination, I did not restrict the dignity\ngiven to Christ, Eph. i. 21, nor the giving of Christ, ver. 22, to the\nDivine nature only. Nay, I told, p. 44, 46, that these words of the\nApostle hold true even of the human nature of Christ.\n\n6. Page 21, He concludeth with a syllogism, which he calleth the scope of\nmy discourse (I know not by what logic, the proposition being forged by\nhimself, and contrary to my discourse); thus it is:\u2014\n\nWhosoever do not manage their office and authority under Christ, and for\nChrist, they manage it under the devil, and for the devil; for there is no\nmiddle\u2014either Christ or Belial: he that is not with me is against me.\n\nBut, according to the opinion of the Commissioner, Christian magistracy\ndoth not manage the office and authority thereof under Christ, and for\nChrist.\n\nTherefore,\u2014\n\nHe believes I shall be hard put to it to give the kingdom a clear and\nsatisfactory answer. It is well that this is the hardest task he could set\nme.\n\nThe truth is, his syllogism hath _quatuor terminos_, and is therefore\nworthy to be exploded by all that know the laws of disputation. Those\nwords in the proposition, \u201cunder Christ, and for Christ,\u201d can have no\nother sense but to be serviceable to Christ, to take part with him, and to\nbe for the glory of Christ, as is clear by the confirmation added, \u201cHe\nthat is not with me is against me.\u201d But the same words in the assumption\nmust needs have another sense, \u201cUnder Christ, and for Christ;\u201d that is,\n_vice Christi_, in Christ\u2019s stead. For that which I denied was, That\nmagistracy is derived from Christ as Mediator, or that Christ as Mediator\nhath given a commission of vicegerentship and deputyship to the Christian\nmagistrate to manage his office and authority under, and for him, and in\nhis name; as is clear in my examination, p. 42. Nay, Mr Coleman himself, a\nlittle before his syllogism, p. 19, takes notice of so much. His words are\nthese: \u201cThe Commissioner saith, Magistracy is not derived from Christ: I\nsay, Magistracy is given to Christ to be serviceable in his kingdom; so\nthat, though the Commissioners assertion be sound (which in due place will\nbe discussed), yet it infringeth nothing that I said.\u201d Now then, _qua\nfide_ could he, in his argument against me, confound these two things\nwhich he himself had but just now carefully distinguished? If he will make\nanything of his syllogism he must hold at one of these two senses. In the\nfirst sense it is true that all are either for Christ or against Christ;\nand it is as true that his assumption must be distinguished. For, _de\nfacto_, the Christian magistrate is for Christ when he doth his duty\nfaithfully, and is against Christ if he be unfaithful. But, _de jure_, it\nholds true universally, that the Christian magistrate manageth his office\nunder and for Christ; that is, so as to be serviceable for the kingdom and\nglory of Christ. In the second sense (which only concerneth me) taking\n\u201cunder and for Christ,\u201d to be in Christ\u2019s stead, as his deputies or\nvicegerents, so his assumption is lame and imperfect, because it doth not\nhold forth my opinion clearly. That which I did, and still do hold, is\nthis: That the civil magistrate, whether Christian or pagan, is God\u2019s\nvicegerent, who, by virtue of his vicegerentship, is to manage his office\nand authority under God, and for God; that is, in God\u2019s stead, and as God\nupon earth: but he is not the vicegerent of Christ as Mediator, neither is\nhe, by virtue of any such vicegerentship, to manage his office and\nauthority under Christ, and for Christ; that is, in Christ\u2019s stead, and as\nChrist Mediator upon earth. This was and is my plain opinion (not mine\nalone, but of others more learned), and Mr Coleman hath not said so much\nas yo\u03c5 to confute it. So much for the assumption. But in the same sense I\nutterly deny his proposition, as being a great untruth in divinity; for\nthe sense of it can be no other than this: Whosoever do not manage their\noffice and authority in Christ\u2019s stead, or as deputies and vicegerents of\nChrist, as he is Mediator, they manage it in the devil\u2019s stead, as the\ndevil\u2019s deputies and vicegerents. Now I assume pagan magistrates do not\nmanage their office as the deputies and vicegerents of Jesus Christ, as he\nis Mediator, therefore as the devil\u2019s deputies. Which way was the\nauthority derived to them from Christ as Mediator? Mr Coleman, p. 19,\nsaith in answer to this particular, formerly objected, that Christ is\nrightful king of the whole earth, and all nations ought to receive Christ,\nthough as yet they do not. But this helpeth him not. That which he had to\nshow was, that the pagan magistrate, even while continuing pagan and not\nChristian, doth manage his office as Christ\u2019s deputy and vicegerent; if\nnot, then I conclude by his principles, a pagan magistrate is the devil\u2019s\ndeputy and vicegerent, which is contrary to Paul\u2019s doctrine, who will have\nus to be subject for conscience\u2019 sake, even to heathen magistrates, as the\nministers of God for good, Rom. xiii. 1-7. By the same argument Mr Coleman\nmust grant that generals, admirals, majors, sheriffs, constables,\ncaptains, masters, yea, every man that hath an office, is either Christ\u2019s\nvicegerent, or the devil\u2019s vicegerent, than which what can be more absurd?\nI might, beside all these, show some other flaws in his divinity, as,\nnamely, p. 9 and 13, he doth not agree to this proposition, that \u201cthe\nadmitting of the scandalous and profane to the Lord\u2019s table, makes\nministers to partake of their sins;\u201d and he supposeth that ministers may\ndo their duty, though they admit the scandalous; but of this elsewhere.\n\n\n\n\nHIS ABUSING OF THE HONOURABLE HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.\n\n\nMost honourable senators, I humbly beseech you to look about you, and take\nnotice how far you are abused by Mr Coleman.\n\n1. While he pretendeth to give you more than his brethren, he taketh a\ngreat deal more from you, and, so far as in him lieth, even shaketh the\nfoundation of your authority. The known tenure of magistracy is from God.\nHe is the minister of God (for good, and the powers that are, are ordained\nof God, saith the Apostle). The magistrate is God\u2019s vicegerent; but now\nthis brother seeketh a new tenure and derivation of magistracy, which\ntakes away the old. He told in his sermon, p. 27: \u201cChrist hath placed\ngovernments in his church, 1 Cor. xii. 28; of other governments besides\nmagistracy I find no institution, of them I do, Rom. xiii. 1, 2. I find\nall government given to Christ, and to Christ as Mediator (I desire all to\nconsider it), Eph. i. 21-23; and Christ as head of those given to the\nchurch.\u201d Here you have these three in subordination, God, Christ, and the\nChristian magistrate. God gives once all government, even civil, to\nChrist, and to him as Mediator. Well, but how comes it then to the\nmagistrate? Not straight by a deputation from God. Mr Coleman\u2019s doctrine\nmakes an interception of the power. He holds that God hath put it in\nChrist\u2019s hands as Mediator. How then? The brother holdeth that Christ, as\nMediator, hath instituted and placed the Christian magistrate, yea, and no\nother government, in his church. This was the ground of my answer, p. 42,\nthat he \u201cmust either prove from Scripture, that Christ, as Mediator, hath\ngiven such a commission of vicegerentship and deputyship to the Christian\nmagistrate, or otherwise acknowledge that he hath given a most dangerous\nwound to magistracy, and made it an empty title, claiming that power which\nit hath no warrant to assume.\u201d I added: \u201cAs the Mediator hath not anywhere\ngiven such a commission and power to the magistrate, so, as Mediator, he\nhad it not to give; for he was not made a judge in civil affairs, Luke\nxii. 14; \u2018And his kingdom is not of this world,\u2019 John xviii. 36.\u201d Now, but\nwhat reply hath he made to all this? Page 19, he saith, Granting it all to\nbe true and sound, yet it infringeth not what he said. \u201cThe commissioner\n(saith he) saith magistracy is not derived from Christ.\u201d I say,\n\u201cMagistracy is given to Christ to be serviceable in his kingdom.\u201d But by\nhis good leave and favour, he said a great deal more than this, for he\nspake of Christ\u2019s being head of all civil governments, and his placing\nthese in his church as he is Mediator. Yea, that fourth rule delivered by\nhim in his sermon, did hold forth these assertions: 1. That God gave all\ngovernment, even civil, to Christ, and to him as Mediator; 2. That Christ,\nas Mediator, hath power and authority to place, and substitute under and\nfor him, the Christian magistrate; 3. That Christ hath placed and\ninstituted civil governments in his church, to be under and for him, as he\nis Mediator; 4. That the Christian magistrate doth, and all magistrates\nshould, manage their office under and for Christ (that is, as his\nvicegerents), he being, as Mediator, head of all civil government. Now\ninstead of defending his doctrine from my just exceptions made against it,\nhe resileth, and having brought the magistrate in a snare, leaves him\nthere. He endeavours to vindicate no more but this, That magistracy is\ngiven to Christ to be serviceable in his kingdom. But if he had said so at\nfirst, I had said with him, and not against him, in that point; and if he\nwill yet hold at that, why doth he, p. 19, refer my assertion to further\ndiscussion?\n\nSecondly, He hath abused the Parliament in holding forth that rule to them\nin his sermon, \u201cEstablish as few things _jure divino_ as can well be.\u201d And\nyet now he is made, by strength of argument, to acknowledge, p. 5, that\nthis is a good rule, \u201cEstablish as many things _jure divino_ as can well\nbe.\u201d\n\nThirdly, I having stated the question to be not whether this or that form\nof church government be _jure divino_, but whether a church government be\n_jure divino_; whether Christ hath thus far revealed his will in his word,\nthat there are to be church censures, and those to be dispensed by\nchurch-officers. I said the brother is for the negative of this question,\np. 32. This he flatly denieth, p. 5, 6, whereby he acknowledgeth the\naffirmative, that there is a church government _jure divino_, and that\nJesus Christ hath so far revealed his will in his word, that there are to\nbe church censures, and those to be dispensed by church-officers. But how\ndoth this agree with his sermon? \u201cChrist hath placed governments in his\nchurch. Of other governments (said he) beside magistracy I find no\ninstitution, of them I do.\u201d Is magistracy church government? Are\nmagistrates church officers? Are the civil punishments church censures? Is\nthis the mystery? Yes, that it is. He will tell us anon that the Houses of\nParliament are church officers; but if that bolt do any hurt I am much\nmistaken.\n\nFourthly, He professeth to subscribe to the votes of Parliament concerning\nchurch government, p. 11; and yet he still pleadeth that all\necclesiastical government is merely doctrinal, p. 11, the Parliament\nhaving voted that power to church-officers which is not doctrinal (as I\nshowed before). And he adviseth the Parliament to keep wholly in their own\nhands the corrective part of church government, p. 14, though the\nParliament hath put into the hands of elderships a power of suspension\nfrom the sacrament, which is corrective.\n\nFifthly, He did deliver, in that sermon before the honourable House of\nCommons, divers particulars, which being justly excepted against, and he\nundertaking a vindication, yet he hath receded from them, or not been able\nto defend them, as that concerning two co-ordinate governments in one\nkingdom; and his argument concerning the fear of an ambitious ensnarement\nin ministers, these being by me infringed, he hath not so much as offered\nto make them good.\n\nSixthly, Having acknowledged, under his own hand, that he was sorry he had\ngiven offence to the reverend Assembly, and to the Commissioners from\nScotland, he now appealeth to the Parliament, and tells us they are able\nto judge of a scandalous sermon, and they thought not so of it, p. 3. I\nknow they are able to judge of a scandalous sermon: that they thought not\nso of it, it is more than I know or believe. However I know they have a\ntender respect to the offence of others, even when themselves are not\noffended, and so they, and all men, ought to do according to the rule of\nChrist. For his part, after he had acknowledged he had given offence, it\nis a disservice to the Parliament to lay over the thing upon them. For my\npart, I think I do better service to the Parliament in interpreting\notherwise that second order of the House, not only desiring, but enjoining\nMr Coleman to print that sermon,\u2014as near as he could,\u2014as he preached it.\nThis was not, as he takes it, one portion of approbation above all its\nbrethren (for I shall not believe that so wise an auditory was not at all\nscandalised at the hearing of that which was contrary both to the covenant\nand to their own votes concerning church government, nor at that which he\ntold them out of the Jewish records, that \u201cHezekiah was the first man that\nwas ever sick in the world, and did recover\u201d); but, as I humbly conceive\nit was a real censure put upon him, his sermon being so much excepted\nagainst and stumbled at, the honourable House of Commons did wisely enjoin\nhim to print his sermon, that it might abide trial in the light of the\nworld, and lie open to any just exceptions which could be made against it\nabroad, and that he might stand or fall to himself.\n\nSeventhly, He abuseth the Parliament by arrogating so much to himself, as\nthat his sermon \u201cwill, in the end, take away all difference, and settle\nunion,\u201d p. 3; and that his _Model_ will be, when he is dead, \u201cthe model of\nEngland\u2019s church government,\u201d as he saith in his postscript. Whether this\nbe _prophesying_ or _presuming_ I hope we are free to judge. And what if\nthe wisdom and authority of the honourable Houses, upon advice from the\nreverend and learned Assembly, choose another way than this? Must all the\nsynodical debates, and all the grave parliamentary consultations, resolve\nthemselves into Mr Coleman\u2019s way, like Jordan into _Mare Mortuum_.\n\nEighthly, He doth extremely wound the authority of Parliament in making\ntheir office to be a church office, and of the same kind with the\nminister\u2019s office. P. 14, \u201cDo not I hold ministers church officers?\u201d And a\nlittle after, \u201cI desire the Parliament to consider another presbyterian\nprinciple that excludes your honourable Assembly from being church\nofficers.\u201d If so, then the offices of the magistrate and of the minister\nmust stand and fall together; that is, if the nation were not Christian\nthe office of magistracy should cease as well as that of the ministry. And\nif he make the magistrate a church officer, he must also give him\nordination, except, with the Socinians, he deny the necessity of\nordination.\n\n\n\n\nHIS ABUSING THE REVEREND ASSEMBLY OF DIVINES.\n\n\nWhereas I had objected that his sermon had given no small scandal and\noffence, he replieth, p. 3, \u201cBut hath it given offence? To whom? I appeal\nto the honourable audience.\u201d Is this candid or fair dealing, when he\nhimself knew both that he had given offence, and to whom? I shall give him\nno other answer but his own declaration which he gave under his hand after\nhe had preached that sermon:\u2014\n\n\u201cFor much of what is reported of my sermon I utterly deny; and refer\nmyself to the sermon itself. For what I have acknowledged to be delivered\nby me, although it is my judgment, yet, because I see it hath given a\ngreat deal of offence to this Assembly and the reverend Commissioners of\nScotland, I am sorry I have given offence in the delivery thereof. And for\nthe printing, although I have an order, I will forbear, except I be\nfurther commanded.\u2014THO. COLEMAN.\u201d\n\nPage 33, I had this passage: \u201cAnd where he asketh where the Independents\nand we should meet,\u201d I answer, \u201cIn holding a church government _jure\ndivino_; that is, that the pastors and elders ought to suspend or\nexcommunicate (according to the degree of the offence) scandalous sinners.\nWho can tell but the purging of the church from scandals, and the keeping\nof the ordinances pure (when it shall be actually seen to be the great\nwork endeavoured on both sides), may make union between us and the\nIndependents more easy than many imagine.\u201d What reply hath he made to\nthis? P. 6, \u201cSure I dream (awake then); but I will tell you news: The\nPresbyterians and Independents are (he should have said _may be_) united;\nnay, more, the Lutherans and Calvinists; nay, more yet, the Papist and\nProtestant; nay, more than so, the Turk and Christian.\u201d But wherein? \u201cIn\nholding that there is a religion wherein men ought to walk.\u201d No, Sir. They\nmust be united upon the like terms; that is, you must first have Turks to\nbe Christians, and Papists to be Protestants; and then you must have them\nas willing to purge the church of scandals, and to keep the ordinances\npure. We will never despair of an union with such as are sound in the\nfaith, holy in life, and willing to a church-refining and sin-censuring\ngovernment in the hands of church officers. In the meanwhile, it is no\nlight imputation upon the Assembly to hint this much, that the harmony and\nconcord among the members thereof, for such a government as I have now\nnamed (though in some other particulars dissenting), can no more unite\nthem than Turks and Christians, Papists and Protestants, can be united.\nAnd now I will tell you my news: The Presbyterians and Independents are\nboth equally interested against the Erastian principles.\n\nHe reflecteth also upon the Assembly in the point of _jus divinum_, p. 6.\nBut what his part hath been, in reference to the proceedings in the\nAssembly, is more fully, and in divers particulars, expressed in the\n_Brief View of Mr Coleman\u2019s New Model_, unto which he hath offered no\nanswer.\n\n\n\n\nHIS CALUMNIES.\n\n\nPage 3, He desireth me, with wisdom and humility, to mind what\nchurch-refining and sin-censuring work this church government, with all\nits activity, hath made in Scotland, in the point of promiscuous\ncommunicating. I shall desire him, with wisdom and humility, to mind what\ncharity or conscience there is in such an aspersion. I dare say divers\nthousands have been kept off from the sacrament in Scotland, as unworthy\nto be admitted. Where I myself have exercised my ministry there have been\nsome hundreds kept off; partly for ignorance, and partly for scandal. The\norder of the church of Scotland, and the acts of General Assemblies, are\nfor keeping off all scandalous persons; which every godly and faithful\nminister doth conscientiously and effectually endeavour. And if, here or\nthere, it be too much neglected by some Archippus, who takes not heed to\nfulfil the ministry which he hath received of the Lord, let him and his\neldership bear the blame, and answer for it.\n\nPage 4, I having professed my unwillingness to fall upon such a\ncontroversy in a Fast sermon, he replieth, \u201cHow can you say you were\nunwilling?\u201d But how can you, in brotherly charity, doubt of it after I had\nseriously professed it? My doing it at two several Fasts (the only\nopportunities I then had to give a testimony to that presently\ncontroverted truth) is no argument of the contrary. May not a man do a\nthing twenty times over, and yet do it unwillingly?\n\nPage 5, He slandereth those that did, in their sermons, give a public\ntestimony against his doctrine; the occasion (as he gives out) not being\noffered, but taken. But had they not a public calling and employment to\npreach as well as himself? And if a Fast was not an occasion offered to\nthem, how was a Fast an occasion offered to him to fall upon the same\ncontroversy first, and when none had dons the like before him.\n\nA fourth calumny is this: He had first blamed two parties that they came\nbiassed to the Assembly; I answered, How then shall he make himself\nblameless who came biassed a third way; which was the Erastian way; and\nthat, for our part, we came no more biassed to this Assembly than the\nforeign divines came to the Synod of Dort, Alexander to the Council of\nNice, Cyril to that of Ephesus, and Paul to the synod at Jerusalem. But\nnow, p. 6, 7, instead of doing us right he doth us greater injury; for now\nhe makes us biassed, not only by our own judgments, but by something\nadventitious from without; which he denieth himself to be (but how truly I\ntake not on me to judge: beholders do often perceive the biassing better\nthan the bowlers); yea, he saith that I have acknowledged the bias, and\njustify it. Where, Sir? where? I deny it. It is no bias for a man to be\nsettled, resolved and engaged in his judgment for the truth, especially\nwhen willing to receive more light, and to learn what needeth to be\nfurther reformed. Hath he forgotten his own definition of the bias which\nhe had but just now given? But he will needs make it more than probable,\nby the instances which I brought, that the Commissioners from Scotland\ncame not to this Assembly as divines, by dispute and disquisition, to find\nout truth, but as judges, to censure all different opinions as errors; for\nso came foreign divines to Dort, Alexander to the Council of Nice, Cyril\nto Ephesus. Is it not enough that he slander us, though he do not, for our\nsakes, slander those worthy divines that came to the Synod of Dort,\nAlexander also, and Cyril, prime witnesses for the truth in their days?\nCould no less content him than to approve the objections of the Arminians\nagainst the Synod of Dort, which I had mentioned, p. 33? But he gets not\naway so. The strongest instance which I had given he hath not once\ntouched: it was concerning Paul and Barnabas, who were engaged (not in the\nbehalf of one nation, but of all the churches of the Gentiles) against the\nimposition of the Mosaical rites, and had so declared themselves at\nAntioch, before they came to Jerusalem. Finally, Whereas he doubts, though\nnot of our willingness to learn more, yet of our permission to receive\nmore: That very paper, first given in by us (which I had cited, and unto\nwhich he makes this reply), did speak not only of our learning, but of the\nchurch of Scotland\u2019s receiving, and, which is more, there is an actual\nexperiment of it, the last General Assembly having ordered the laying\naside of some particular customs in that church, and that for the nearer\nuniformity with this church of England, as was expressed in their own\nletter to the reverend Assembly of Divines.\n\nA fifth calumny there is, p. 9, 6. \u201cThe Commissioner is content that _jus\ndivinum_ should be a _noli me tangere_ to the Parliament, yet blames what\nhimself grants.\u201d I was never content it should be a _noli me tangere_ to\nthe Parliament, but at most a _non necesse est tangere_, for so I\nexplained myself, p. 32, 33. If the Parliament establish that thing which\nis agreeable to the word of God, though they do not establish it as _jure\ndivino_, I acquiesce; in the meantime, both they and all Christians, but\nespecially ministers, ought to search the Scriptures, that what they do in\nmatters of church government, they may do it in faith and assurance, that\nit is acceptable to God. It was not of parliamentary sanction, but of\ndivines doctrinal asserting of the will of God that I said, Why should\n_jus divinum_ be such a _noli me tangere_?\n\n6. It seems strange to him that I did at all give instance of the\nusefulness of church government in the preservation of purity in the\nordinances and in church-members. He saith, For an Independent to have\ngiven this instance had been something; but it seems strange to him that\n\u201cI should have given an instance of the power and efficacy of government,\nas it is presbyterial, and contradistinct to congregational.\u201d This is a\ncalumny against presbyterial government, which is neither privative nor\ncontradistinct, but cumulative to congregational government; and the\ncongregational is a part of that government which is comprehended under\nthe name of presbyterial. But in cases of common concernment, difficulty,\nappeals, and the like, the preserving of the ordinances and church-members\nfrom pollution, doth belong to presbyteries and synods.\n\n7. He saith of me, p. 9, \u201cHe ascribeth this power of purifying men, and\nmeans of advancing the power of godliness afterward, to government.\u201d A\ncalumny. It was only a _sine quo non_ which I ascribed to government thus\nfar, that without it, ministers \u201cshall not keep themselves nor the\nordinances from pollution,\u201d p. 23. But that church government hath power\nto purify men, I never thought it, nor said it. That which I said of the\npower (which he pointeth at) was, that his way can neither preserve the\npurity, nor advance the power of religion, p. 40, and the reason is,\nbecause his way provideth no ecclesiastical effectual remedy for removing\nand purging away the most gross scandalous sins, which are destructive to\nthe power of godliness. God must, by his word and Spirit, purify men, and\nwork in them the power of godliness. The church government which I plead\nfor against him, is a means subservient and helpful, so far as _removere\nprohibens_, to remove that which apparently is impeditive and destructive\nto that purity and power.\n\n8. Having told us of the proud swelling waves of presbyterial government,\nI asked upon what coast had those waves done any hurt, France, or\nScotland, or Holland, or _terra incognita_? He replieth, p. 12, \u201cI confess\nI have had no great experience of the presbyterial government.\u201d Why make\nyou bold then to slander it, when you can give no sure ground for that you\nsay? He tells us, His fears arise from Scotland and from London. The\nreverend and worthy ministers of London can speak for themselves _oetatem\nhabent_, for my part, though I know not the particulars, I am bound in\ncharity not to believe those aspersions put upon them by a discontented\nbrother. But what from Scotland? \u201cI myself (saith he) did hear the\npresbytery of Edinburgh censure a woman to be banished out of the gates of\nthe city. Was not this an encroachment?\u201d It had been an encroachment\nindeed, if it had been so. But he will excuse me if I answer him in his\nown language (which I use not), p. 3 and 5: \u201cIt is, at the best, a most\nuncharitable slander,\u201d and \u201cThere was either ignorance or mindlessness in\nhim that sets it down.\u201d\n\nThere is no banishment in Scotland but by the civil magistrate, who so far\naideth and assisteth church discipline, that profane and scandalous\npersons, when they are found unruly and incorrigible, are punished with\nbanishment or otherwise. A stranger coming at a time into one of our\npresbyteries, and hearing of somewhat which was represented to or reported\nfrom the magistrate, ought to have had so much, both circumspection and\ncharity, as not to make such a rash and untrue report. He might have at\nleast inquired when he was in Scotland, and informed himself better,\nwhether presbyteries or the civil magistrate do banish. If he made no such\ninquiry, he was rash in judging; if he did, his offence is greater, when,\nafter information, he will not understand.\n\n9. He makes this to be a position of mine, p. 13, That \u201ca learned ministry\nputs no black mark upon profaneness more than upon others.\u201d A calumny.\nFor, first, He makes me to speak nonsense; Secondly, I did not speak it of\na learned ministry, but of \u201chis way,\u201d p. 40. How long ago since a learned\nministry was known by the name of Mr Coleman\u2019s way! His way is a ministry\nwithout power of government or church censures. Of this his way I said,\nthat \u201cit putteth no black mark upon profaneness and scandal in church\nmembers more than in any other;\u201d and the reason is, because the corrective\nor punitive part of government he will have to be only civil or temporal,\nwhich striketh against those that are without, as well as those within.\nBut the Apostle tells us of such a corrective government as is a judging\nof those that are within, and of those only, 1 Cor. v. 12; and this way\n(which is not only ours, but the apostolical way) puts a black mark upon\nprofaneness and scandalous sins in church members more than in any others.\n\n10. He saith of me, p. 17, \u201cThe Commissioner is the only man that we shall\nmeet with, that, forsaking the words, judgeth of the intentions.\u201d A\ncalumny. I judged nothing but _ex ore tuo_; but in this thing he himself\nhath trespassed. I will instance but in two particulars: In that very\nplace he saith, \u201cAdmonition is a spiritual censure in the Commissioner\u2019s\nopinion.\u201d Whence knows he that to be my opinion? Consistorial or\npresbyterial admonition given to the unruly may be called a censure; and\nif this were his meaning, then, ascribing to elderships power of\nadmonition, he gives them some power of spiritual censures, and so\nsomething of the corrective part of government, which were contrary to his\nown principles. But he speaketh it of the ministers\u2019 admonishing, who are\nbut a part of the elderships, as himself there granteth. Now, where did I\never say or write, that admonition, by a minister, is a spiritual censure?\nAgain, p. 4, he so judgeth me, that he not only forsaketh, but\ncontradicteth my words, \u201cHow can you say you were unwilling?\u201d\n\n11. He saith, p. 16, \u201cNow the Commissioner speaks out, &c. What! Not the\nParliament of England meddle with religion?\u201d A horrid calumny! Where have\nI said it? _Dic sodes._ I never preached before them but I exhorted them\nto meddle with religion, and that in the first place, and above all other\nthings. I shall sooner prove that Mr Coleman will not have the Parliament\nof England to meddle with civil affairs, because he makes them church\nofficers. It is a _non sequitur_. Their power is civil, therefore they are\nnot to meddle with religion. It will be a better consequence: They are\nchurch officers: so he makes them, p. 14; and \u201cChristian magistracy is an\necclesiastical administration,\u201d so he saith, p. 20, therefore they are not\nto meddle with civil government.\n\n\n\n\nTHE REPUGNANCY OF HIS DOCTRINE TO THE SOLEMN LEAGUE AND COVENANT.\n\n\nMr Coleman, p. 13, acknowledgeth, that to assert anything contrary to the\nsolemn league and covenant, is a great fault in any, in himself more than\nin divers others, if made out; he having, for his own part, taken it with\nthe first, and not only so, but having administered it to divers others.\nYes; and take this one circumstance more: In his sermon upon Jer. xxx. 21,\nat the taking of the covenant, Sept. 29, 1643, he answereth this objection\nagainst the extirpation of Prelacy: \u201cBut what if the exorbitances be\npurged away, may not I, notwithstanding my oath, admit of a regulated\nPrelacy?\u201d For satisfaction to this objection he answereth thus: \u201cFirst, We\nswear not against a government that is not; Secondly, We swear against the\nevils of every government, and doubtless many materials of Prelacy must of\nnecessity be retained as absolutely necessary; Thirdly, Taking away the\nexorbitances, the remaining will be a new government and no Prelacy.\u201d Let\nthe brother now deal ingenuously. What did he understand by those\nmaterials of Prelacy absolutely necessary to be retained? Did he\nunderstand the dispensing of the word and sacraments, which is common to\nall pastors? Or did he understand the privileges of Parliament? Were\neither of those two materials of Prelacy? And if he had meant either of\nthese, was this the way to satisfy that scruple concerning the extirpation\nof Prelacy? Again, What was that new government which he promised them\nafter the taking away of the exorbitances of the old? Was it the\nminister\u2019s doctrinal part? That is no new thing in England. Was it the\nParliament\u2019s assuming of the corrective part of church government, as he\nimproperly distinguisheth, wholly and solely into their own hands,\nexcluding the ministry from having any hand therein? This were a new\ngovernment, I confess. But, sure, he could not, in any reason, intend this\nas a satisfaction to the scruples of such as desired a regulated Prelacy,\nwhose scruples he then spoke to, for this had been the way to dissuade\nthem from, not to persuade them to, the covenant.\n\nBut I go along with his _Re-examination_. P. 14, He explaineth himself and\nme thus: \u201cHe should have said that I advised the Parliament to lay no\nburden of government upon them whom he, this Commissioner, thinks church\nofficers, then had he spoken true.\u201d I thank him for his explanation. And,\nI pray, who were the church officers whom I said he excluded from church\ngovernment? Were they not pastors and ruling elders? And doth not himself\nthink these to be church officers? Yes; of the ministers he thinks so, but\nof ruling elders he seems to doubt, except they be magistrates. Well, but\nexcluding those church officers from church government he takes with the\ncharge. Why seeks he a knot in the rush? But now how doth he explain\nhimself? He will have the Parliament to be church officers (of which\nbefore), and such church officers as shall take the corrective part of\nchurch government wholly into their own hands; yet not to dispense the\nword and sacraments, but to leave the doctrinal part to the ministry, and\ntheir power to be merely doctrinal, as he saith, p. 11. Thus you have his\nexplanation. But doth this solve the violating of the covenant? Nay, it\nmakes it more apparent; for the government of the church, which the first\narticle of the covenant speaks of, is distinguished from the doctrinal\npart: \u201cThat we shall endeavour the reformation of religion in the kingdoms\nof England and Ireland, in doctrine, worship, discipline and government.\u201d\nSo that, excluding pastors and ruling elders from the corrective part of\ngovernment, and from all power which is not merely doctrinal, he thereby\nexcludeth them from that discipline and government which the covenant\nspeaks of as one special part of the reformation of religion. Come on to\nthe reasons.\n\nI had given four reasons; he takes notice but of three. This is the second\ntime he hath told three for four, yet even these three will do the\nbusiness.\n\n1. \u201cThe extirpation of church government is not the reformation of it.\u201d\nHere the brother addeth these words following as mine, which are not mine:\n\u201cTherefore he that finds no church government breaks his covenant.\u201d His\nreply is, \u201cWe must reform it according to the word of God, if that hold\nout none, here is no tailing.\u201d He addeth a simile of a jury sworn to\ninquire into the felony of an accused person, but finds not guilty; and of\nthree men taking an oath to deliver in their opinions of church government\n(where, by the way, he lets fall that I hold the national synod to be\nabove all courts in the kingdom; which, if he means of ecclesiastical\ncourts, why did he speak so generally? If he mean, above all or any civil\ncourts, it is a gross calumny.) But now, if this be the sense which he\ngives of that first article in the covenant, then, 1. All that is in the\nsecond article might have been put into the first article: for instance,\nwe might, in Mr Coleman\u2019s sense, have sworn \u201cto endeavour the reformation\nof Prelacy, and even of Popery itself, according to the word of God, and\nthe example of the best reformed churches;\u201d that is, taking an oath to\ndeliver in our opinions of these things according to the word of God, and\nto inquire into the evils of church government by archbishops, bishops,\ndeans, &c., whether guilty or not guilty. I strengthened my argument by\nthe different nature of the first and second article. I said, \u201cThe second\narticle is of things to be extirpated, but this of things to be preserved\nand reformed.\u201d Why did he not take the strength of my argument and make a\nreply? 2. By the same principle of his we are not tied by the first\narticle of our covenant to have any, either doctrine or worship, but only\nto search the Scriptures whether the word hold out any; for doctrine,\nworship, discipline and government, go hand in hand in the covenant. 3.\nHis own simile hath this much in it against him. If a jury, sworn to\ninquire into the felony of an accused person, should, after such an oath,\nnot only find the person not guilty, but further take upon them to\nmaintain that there is no such thing as felony, surely this were\ninconsistent with their oath, so he that swears to endeavour the\nreformation of religion in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government,\nand yet will not only dislike this or that form of government, but also\nhold that there is no such thing as church government, he holds that which\ncannot agree with his oath. 4. This answer of Mr Coleman, leaving it free\nto debate whether there be such as church government, being his only\nanswer to my first argument from the covenant, must needs suppose that the\ngovernment mentioned in the covenant, the reformation whereof we have\nsworn to endeavour, is understood even by himself of church officers\u2019\npower of corrective government, it being the corrective part only, and not\nthe doctrinal part, which he casts upon an uncertainty whether the world\nhold out any such thing.\n\n2. \u201cChurch government as mentioned in the covenant is a spiritual, not a\ncivil thing. The matters of religion are put together,\u2014doctrine, worship,\ndiscipline and government. The privileges of Parliament come after in the\nthird article.\u201d The reverend brother replies, \u201cWhat if it be? therefore\nthe Parliament is not to meddle with it, and why?\u201d And here he runs out\nagainst me, as if I held that the Parliament is not to meddle with\nreligion, an assertion which I abominate. Princes and magistrates\u2019 putting\noff themselves all care of the matters of religion, was one of the great\ncauses of the church\u2019s mischief, and of popish and prelatical tyranny. But\nis this just and fair, Sir, to give out for my opinion that for which you\nare not able to show the least colour or shadow of consequence from any\nthing that ever I said? That which was to be replied unto was, Whether do\nnot the materials of the first article of the covenant differ from the\nmaterials of the third article of the covenant? or whether are they the\nsame? Whether doth the privilege of Parliament belong to the first article\nof the covenant? Whether is that government mentioned in the first article\na civil thing or a spiritual? If civil, why is discipline and government\nranked with doctrine and worship, and all these mentioned as parts of the\nreformation of religion? If spiritual, then why doth the brother make it\n\u201ccivil or temporal?\u201d p. 11. To all this nothing is answered, but, \u201cWhat if\nit be?\u201d Then is my argument granted.\n\nAnd to put it yet further out of question, I add other two arguments from\nthat same first article of the covenant. One is this: In the first part of\nthat first article we swear all of us to endeavour \u201cthe preservation of\nthe reformed religion in the church of Scotland, in doctrine, worship,\ndiscipline, and government,\u201d where all know that the words \u201cdiscipline\u201d\nand \u201cgovernment\u201d (especially being mentioned as two of the principal\nthings in which the reformed religion in that church doth consist) signify\nchurch government and church discipline distinct both from doctrine and\nworship (which, by the way, how Mr Coleman endeavoureth to preserve, I\nwill not now say, but leave it to others to judge), therefore, in that\nwhich immediately followeth,\u2014our endeavouring \u201cthe reformation of religion\nin the kingdoms of England and Ireland, in doctrine, worship, discipline\nand government,\u201d\u2014the words \u201cdiscipline\u201d and \u201cgovernment\u201d must needs have\nthe same sense thus far, that it is a church discipline and a church\ngovernment distinct from the civil power of the magistrate, and distinct\nalso from doctrine and worship in the church; for we cannot make these\nwords, \u201cdiscipline\u201d and \u201cgovernment,\u201d in one and the same article of a\nsolemn oath and covenant, to suffer two senses differing _toto genere_\n(especially considering that the civil government is put by itself in\nanother article, which is the third), unless we make it to speak so as\nnone may understand it.\n\nThe other argument which I now add is this. In the third part of that\nfirst article we swear that we \u201cshall endeavour to bring the churches of\nGod in the three kingdoms to the nearest conjunction and uniformity in\nreligion, confession of faith, form of church government, directory for\nworship and catechising,\u201d where, 1. Church government doth agree\ngenerically with a confession of faith, directory of worship, and\ncatechising. I mean all these are matters of religion, none of them civil\nmatters. 2. It is supposed there is such a thing as church government\ndistinct from civil government, and therefore it is put out of all\nquestion, that so far there shall be an uniformity between the churches of\nGod in the three kingdoms (and otherwise it were an unswearing of what was\nsworn in the first part of that article), but it tieth us to endeavour the\nnearest conjunction and uniformity \u201cin a form of church government;\u201d which\nwere a vain and rash oath, if we were not tied to a church government in\ngeneral, and that as a matter of religion. 3. The uniformity in a form of\nchurch government which we swear to endeavour must needs be meant of\ncorrective government; it being clearly distinguished from the confession\nof faith and directory of worship. So that Mr Coleman\u2019s distinction of the\ndoctrinal part, and of the dispensing of the word and sacraments, cannot\nhere help him.\n\nFrom these two arguments (beside all was said before) I conclude that the\ncovenant doth undeniably suppose, and plainly hold forth this thing as\nmost necessary and uncontrovertible, that there ought to be a church\ngovernment which is both distinct from the civil government, and yet not\nmerely doctrinal. And if so, what Apollo can reconcile Mr Coleman\u2019s\ndoctrine with the covenant? And now I go on.\n\nMy last reason formerly brought was this: \u201cWill the brother say that the\nexample of the best reformed churches leadeth his way?\u201d For the covenant\ntieth us to a reformation of the government of the church both according\nto the word of God and the example of the best reformed churches: that as\n_regula regulans_; this as _regula regulata_.\n\nThe reverend brother replieth: 1. \u201cThe best reformed church that ever was\nwent this way; I mean the church of Israel.\u201d\n\n_Ans._ 1. Is the church of Israel one of the reformed churches which the\ncovenant speaks of? 2. Was the church of Israel better reformed than the\napostolical churches? Why then calls he it the best reformed church that\never was? 3. That in the Jewish church there was a church government\ndistinct from civil government, and church censures distinct from civil\npunishments, is the opinion of many who have taken great pains in the\nsearching of the Jewish antiquities; and it may be he shall hear it ere\nlong further proved, both from Scripture and from the very Talmudical\nwriters.\n\n2. \u201cI desire (saith he) the Commissioner to give an instance in the New\nTestament of such a distinction (civil and church government) where the\nstate was Christian.\u201d\n\n_Ans._ I desire him to give an instance in the New Testament of these\nthree things, and then he will answer himself. 1. Where was the state\nChristian? 2. Where had the ministry a doctrinal power in a Christian\nstate? 3. Where doth the New Testament hold out that a church government\ndistinct from civil government may be where the state is not Christian,\nand yet may not be where the state is Christian? Shall the church\u2019s\nliberties be diminished, or rather increased, where the state is\nChristian?\n\nIn the third and fourth place, the brother tells us of the opinions of\nGualther, Bulhager, Erastus, Aretius. The question is of the examples of\nchurches, not of the opinions of men. But what of the men? As for that\npestilence that walketh in darkness through London and Westminster,\nLiastus\u2019 book against Beza, let him make of it what he can, it shall have\nan antidote by and by. In the meanwhile, he may take notice, that, in the\nclose of the sixth book, Erastus casts down that which he hath built, just\nas Bellarmine did, in the close of his five books of justification. But as\nfor the other three named by the brother, they are ours, not his, in this\npresent controversy. Gualther(1340) expounds 1 Cor. v. all along of\nexcommunication, and of the necessity of church discipline; insomuch that\nhe expounds the very delivering to Satan (the phrase most controverted by\nErastus and his followers) of excommunication, and the not eating with the\nscandalous (ver 9-11) he takes also to import excommunication. He thinks\nalso that ministers shall labour to little purpose except they have a\npower of government. Bullinger is most plain for excommunication, as a\nspiritual censure ordained by Christ, and so he understands Matt. xviv.\n17.\n\nAretius holds(1341) that God was the author of excommunication in the Old\nTestament, and Christ in the New. And now are these three Mr Coleman\u2019s\nway? Or doth not his doctrine flatly contradict theirs? Peradventure he\nwill say, Yet there is no excommunication in the church of Zurich, where\nthose divines lived, nor any suspension of scandalous sinners from the\nsacrament. I answer, This cannot infringe what I hold, that the example of\nthe best reformed churches maketh for us and against him; for, 1. The book\nwritten by Lavater, another of the Zurich divines, _de Ritibus et\nInstitutis Ecclesioe Tigurinoe_, tells us of divers things in that church\nwhich will make the brother easily to acknowledge that it is not the best\nreformed church, such as festival days, cap. 8, that upon the Lord\u2019s days,\nbefore the third bell, it is published and made known to the people, if\nthere be any houses, fields, or lands, to be sold, cap. 9. They have no\nfasts indicted, cap. 9, nor psalms sung in the church, cap. 10.\nResponsories in their Litany at the sacrament, the deacon upon the right\nhand saith one thing, the deacon upon the left hand saith another thing,\nthe pastor a third thing, cap. 13. 2. Yet the church of Zurich hath some\ncorrective church government besides that which is civil or temporal, for\nthe same book, cap. 23, tells us, that in their synods, any minister who\nis found scandalous or profane in his life, is censured with deposition\nfrom his office, _ab oficio deponitur_. Then follows, _finita censura,\nsinguli decani, &c._ Here is a synodical censure, which I find also in\nWolphius,(1342) a professor of Zurich, and the book before cited, cap.\n24,(1343) tells us of some corrective power committed to pastors and\nelders, which elders are distinguished from the magistrates. 3. The Zurich\ndivines themselves looked upon excommunication as that which was wanting\nthrough the injury of the times; the thing having been so horribly abused\nin Popery, and the present licentiousness abounding among people, did\nhinder the erecting of that part of the church discipline at that time.\nBut they still pleaded the thing to be held forth in Scripture, and were\nbut expecting better times for restoring and settling of excommunication,\nwhich they did approve in Geneva, and in other reformed churches, who had\nreceived it. I give you their own words for the warrant of what I\nsay.(1344)\n\nI have been the longer upon this point as being the chief objection which\ncan be made by Mr Coleman concerning that clause in the covenant, \u201cThe\nexample of the best reformed churches.\u201d\n\nHe hath only one thing more, which may well pass for a paradox. He will\ntake an instance, forsooth, from Geneva itself, though presbyterian in\npractice. And why? Because in the Geneva Annotations upon Matt. ix. 16, it\nsaid, that \u201cthe external discipline is to be fitted to the capacity of the\nchurch.\u201d \u201cThis is no Scotland presbytery,\u201d saith the brother. Nay, Sir,\nnor yet Geneva presbytery; for it doth not at all concern presbytery. It\nis spoken in reference to the choosing of fit and convenient times for\nfasting and humiliation,\u2014that as Christ did not, at that time, tie his\ndisciples to fasting, it being unsuitable to that present time; so other\nlike circumstances of God\u2019s worship, which are not at all determined to\nthe word, are to be accommodated to emergent occasions, and to the\nchurch\u2019s condition for the time, which both Scotland and Geneva, and other\nreformed churches do.\n\nIf I have now more fully and convincingly spoken to that point of the\ncovenant, let the brother blame himself that put me to it.\n\nThe Lord guide his people in a right way, and rebuke the spirit of error\nand division, and give us all more of his Spirit, to lead us into all\ntruth, and into all self-denial, and grant that none of his servants be\nfound unwilling to have the Lord Jesus Christ to reign over them in all\nhis ordinances!\n\nTHE END.\n\n\n\n\n\nMALE AUDIS; OR, AN ANSWER TO MR COLEMAN\u2019S MALE DICIS.\n\n\n                               MALE AUDIS;\n\n                                    OR\n\n                  AN ANSWER TO MR COLEMAN\u2019S MALE DICIS:\n\n                                 WHEREIN\n\n       THE REPUGNANCY OF HIS ERASTIAN DOCTRINE TO THE WORD OF GOD,\n\n TO THE SOLEMN LEAGUE AND COVENANT, AND TO THE ORDINANCES OF PARLIAMENT;\n\n    ALSO HIS CONTRADICTIONS, TERGIVERSATIONS, HETERODOXIES, CALUMNIES,\n\n                      AND PERVERTING OF TESTIMONIES,\n\n                  ARE MADE MORE APPARENT THAN FORMERLY.\n\n                              TOGETHER WITH\n\n   SOME ANIMADVERSIONS UPON MR HUSSEY\u2019S PLEA FOR CHRISTIAN MAGISTRACY:\n\n                                 SHOWING,\n\n THAT IN DIVERS OF THE AFORE-MENTIONED PARTICULARS HE HATH MISCARRIED AS\n                                 MUCH AS,\n\n              AND IN SOME PARTICULARS MORE THAN, MR COLEMAN.\n\n                           BY GEORGE GILLESPIE,\n\n                       MINISTER AT EDINBURGH, 1649.\n\n                                EDINBURGH:\n\n                     ROBERT OGLE, AND OLIVER & BOYD.\n\n               M. OGLE & SON, AND WILLIAM COLLINS, GLASGOW.\n\n      J. DEWAR, PERTH. W. MIDDLETON, DUNDEE. G. & R. KING, ABERDEEN.\n\n                           W. M\u2019COMB, BELFAST.\n\n          HAMILTON, ADAMS & CO., AND JAMES NISBET & CO., LONDON.\n\n                                  1649.\n\n            REPRINTED BY A. W. MURRAY, MILNE SQUARE, EDINBURGH\n\n                                  1844.\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE TO THE READER.\n\n\nAs I did not begin this present controversy, so I do not desire to hold up\nthe ball of contention, yet having appeared in it (neither alone, nor\nwithout a calling and opportunity offered), I hold it my duty to vindicate\nthe truth of Christ, the solemn league and covenant, the ordinances of\nParliament, the church of Scotland, and myself. For this end was I born,\nand for this end came I into the world, that I might bear witness to the\ntruth, whereunto I am so much the more encouraged, because it appeareth\nalready in this debate, that _magna est vis veritatis_,\u2014great is the force\nof truth, and so great, that my antagonists, though men of parts, and such\nas could do much for the truth, yet, while they have gone about to do\nsomewhat against the truth, they have mired themselves in foul errors;\nyea, so far is in them lieth, have most dangerously shaken and endangered\nthe authority of magistrates, who are God\u2019s vicegerents, and particularly\nthe authority of Parliament, and of parliamentary ordinances. They have\nstumbled and fallen, and shall not be able to rise but by the\nacknowledgment of the truth.\n\nIn this following reply, I have not touched much of the argumentative part\nin Mr Hussey\u2019s _Plea for Christian Magistracy_, reserving most of it to\nanother work, unto which this is a _prodromus_ (howbeit much of what he\nsaith is the same with what I did confute in my _Nihil Respondes_, and his\nbook, coming forth a month after, takes no notice of that second piece of\nmine, but speaketh only to the first). Meanwhile, let him not believe that\nhis big looking title can, like Gorgon\u2019s head, blockify or stonify\nrational men, so as they shall not perceive the want or weakness of\nargument. It hath ever been a trick of adversaries to calumniate the way\nof God and his servants, as being against authority, but I will, by God\u2019s\nassistance, make it appear to any intelligent man, that the reverend\nbrother hath pleaded very much against magistracy, and so hath fallen\nhimself into the ditch which he hath digged for others, whilst I withal\nescape.(1345)\n\nBut, now, what may be the meaning of Mr Coleman\u2019s cabalistical title,\n_Male Dicis Maledicis_? Great philologists will tell him that _maledico_\nis taken in a good sense as well as in a bad, according to the difference\nof matter and circumstances. If any kind of malediction be justifiable, it\nis _male dicere maledicis_,\u2014to speak evil to evil speakers, for \u201cas he\nloved cursing, so let it come unto him as he delighted not in blessing, so\nlet it be far from him.\u201d But he doth worse, and his title, with a\ntransposition of letters, will more fitly reflect upon himself _male dicis\nde amicus_. You, Sir, speak evil of your friends, and of those that never\nwronged you. For my part, I have not shared with him in evil speaking, nor\nrendered revilings for revilings. I am sorry that he is so extremely ill\nof hearing, as to take reason to be railing, and good sayings to be evil\nsayings. He applieth to himself the Apostle\u2019s words, \u201cBeing reviled, we\nbless.\u201d But where to find these blessings of his, those unwritten\nverities, I know not. I am sure he had spoken more truly if he had said,\n\u201cBeing not reviled, we do revile.\u201d\n\nFor the matter and substance of his reply, there are divers particulars in\nit which serve rather to be matter of mirth than of argument, as that a\nParliament parasite cannot be called an abuser of the Parliament, and that\npassage, \u201cHow can a clause delivered in a postscript, concerning my\nopinion of my way, be abusive to the Parliament?\u201d A great privilege either\nof postscripts or of his opinions, that they cannot be abusive to the\nParliament. Many passages are full of acrimony, many extravagant, and not\nto the point in hand, many void of matter. Concerning such\nLactantius(1346) gives me a good rule, Otiosum est persequi singula,\u2014it is\nan idle and unprofitable thing to persecute every particular. And much\nmore I have in my eye the Apostle\u2019s rule, \u201cLet all things be done to\nedifying.\u201d 1 Cor. xiv. 26. I have accordingly endeavoured to avoid such\njangling, and such debates as are unprofitable and unedifying, making\nchoice of such purposes as may edify, and not abuse the reader.\n\nPeradventure some will think I might have wholly saved myself this labour.\nI confess I do not look upon that which I make reply unto, as if it were\nlike to weigh much with knowing men, yet the Apostle tells me that some\nmen\u2019s mouths must be stopped, and Jerome tells me(1347) there is nothing\nwritten without skill, which will not find a reader with as little skill\nto judge, and some men grow too wise in their own eyes when they pass\nunanswered. Besides all this, a vindication and clearing of such things as\nI mentioned in the beginning, may, by God\u2019s blessing, anticipate future\nand further mistakes. Read therefore and consider, and when thou hast\ndone, I trust thou shalt not think that I have lost my labour. I pray the\nLord that all our controversies may end in a more cordial union for\nprosecuting the ends expressed in the covenant and especially the\nreformation of religion, according to the word of God and the example of\nthe best reformed churches, and more particularly the practical part of\nreformation, that the ordinances of Jesus Christ may be kept from\npollution, profaneness and scandals shamed away, and piety commended and\nmagnified.\n\n\n\n\n                                CHAPTER I.\n\n\nTHAT MR COLEMAN DOTH STILL CONTRADICT HIMSELF IN THE STATING OF THIS\nPRESENT CONTROVERSY ABOUT CHURCH GOVERNMENT.\n\n\nIt was before both denied and yielded by Mr Coleman, that there is a\nchurch government which is distinct from the civil, and yet not merely\ndoctrinal. He did profess to subscribe heartily to the votes of\nParliament, and yet advised the Parliament to do contrary to their votes,\nas I proved in _Nihil Respondes_, p. 3. He answereth now, in his _Male\nDicis_, p. 4, \u201cI deny an institution; I assent to prudence; Where is the\nself-contradiction now?\u201d and, p. 5, \u201cThe advice looks to _jus divinum_;\nthe Parliament votes to prudence.\u201d Sir, you have spoken evil for yourself;\nyou have made the self-contradiction worse. Will you acknowledge your own\nwords, in your sermon, p. 25, \u201cLay no more burden of government upon the\nshoulders of ministers than Christ hath plainly laid upon them; have no\nmore hand therein than the Holy Ghost clearly gives them. The ministers\nhave other work to do, and such as will take up the whole man,\u201d &c.; \u201cI\nfear an ambitious ensnarement,\u201d &c.; and, in your _Re-examination_, p. 14,\n\u201cHe should have said, I advised the Parliament to lay no burden of\ngovernment upon them whom he (this Commissioner) thinks church officers,\nthen had he spoken true.\u201d Now let the reverend brother take heed to\ncheckmate, and that three several ways (but let him not grow angry, as bad\nplayers use to do). For, 1. _Eo ipso_ that he denies the institution, by\nhis principles he denies the prudence; for he that denieth the\ninstitution, and adviseth the Parliament to lay no more burden of\ngovernment upon ministers than Christ hath plainly laid upon them, is\nagainst the settling of the thing in a prudential way, because it is not\ninstituted. But Mr Coleman denies the institution, and adviseth the\nParliament to lay no more burden of government upon ministers than Christ\nhath plainly laid upon them; therefore Mr Coleman is against the settling\nof the thing in a prudential way, because it is not instituted. And how to\nreconcile this with his denying of the institution and yielding of the\nprudence, will require a more reconciling head than Manasseh Ben Israel\nConciliator himself. 2. He that adviseth the Parliament to lay no burden\nof government upon ministers, because they have other work to do which\nwill take up the whole man, and because of the fear of an ambitious\nensnarement, is against the laying of any burden of corrective government\nupon ministers, so much as in a prudential way. But Mr Coleman adviseth\nthe Parliament, &c.; therefore the consequence in the proposition is\nnecessary, unless he will say that it is agreeable to the rules of\nprudence to lay upon them more work besides that which will take up the\nwhole man, or to commit that power unto them which is like to prove an\nambitious ensnarement. 3. He that adviseth the Parliament to lay no burden\nat all of corrective government upon ministers and other officers joined\nwith them in elderships, but to keep that power _wholly_ in their own\nhands, is against the prudence of the thing, as well as against the\ninstitution of it. But Mr Coleman adviseth the Parliament to lay no burden\nat all of corrective government upon these, but to keep that power\n_wholly_ in their own hands; therefore the proposition is proved by that\nwhich himself saith, The Parliament votes look to prudence. So that the\nParliament, having voted a power of suspension from the sacrament unto\nelderships, for so many scandals as are enumerate in the ordinance (which\npower is a part of that which he calls _corrective_), he that is against\nthis power in elderships is both against the prudence and against the\nordinance of Parliament. The assumption I prove from his _Re-examination_,\np. 14, where, after his denial of the power to those whom we think church\nofficers, being charged with advising the Parliament to take church\ngovernment _wholly_ into their own hands, his answer was, \u201cIf you mean the\ncorrective power, I do so.\u201d\n\nAnd now, after all this, I must tell the reverend brother that he might\nhave saved himself much labour had he, in his sermon to the Parliament,\ndeclared himself (as now he doth) that he was only against the _jus\ndivinum_, but not against their settling of the thing in a parliamentary\nand prudential way. Did I not, in my very first examination of his sermon,\np. 32, remove this stumbling block?\n\nAnd, withal, seeing he professeth to deny the _jus divinum_ of a church\ngovernment differing from magistracy, why doth he hold, p. 19, that the\nIndependents are not so much interested against his principles as the\nPresbyterians? Did he imagine that the Independents are not so much for\nthe _jus divinum_ of a church government and church censures as the\nPresbyterians? But, saith he, \u201cThe Independents\u2019 church power seems to me\nto be but doctrinal.\u201d But is their excommunication doctrinal? and do they\nnot hold excommunication to be _jure divino_? Either he had little skill\nin being persuaded, or some others had great skill in persuading him that\nthe Independents\u2019 church power is but doctrinal, and that they are not so\nmuch interested against the Erastian principles as the Presbyterians are;\nas if, forsooth, the ordinance of excommunication (the thing which the\nErastian way mainly opposeth) and a church government distinct from\nmagistracy, were not common to them both.\n\nLastly, If the reverend brother deny the institution of church censures,\nbut assent to the prudence, why doth he allege the Zurich divines to be so\nmuch for him? _Male Dicis_, p. 23; for it was upon prudential grounds, and\nbecause of the difficulty and (as they conceived) impossibility of the\nthing, that they were against it, still acknowledging the scriptural\nwarrants for excommunication, as I shall show, yea, have showed already;\nso that, if Mr Coleman will follow them, he must rather say, \u201cI assent to\nan institution; I deny a prudence.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER II.\n\n\nA CONFUTATION OF THAT WHICH MR COLEMAN HATH SAID AGAINST CHURCH\nGOVERNMENT; SHOWING ALSO THAT HIS LAST REPLY IS NOT MORE, BUT LESS\nSATISFACTORY THAN THE FORMER, AND FOR THE MOST PART IS BUT A\nTERGIVERSATION AND FLEEING FROM ARGUMENTS BROUGHT AGAINST HIM, AND FROM\nMAKING GOOD HIS OWN ASSERTIONS AND ARGUMENTS CONCERNING THE DISTINCTION OF\nCIVIL AND CHURCH GOVERNMENT.\n\n\nThe reverend brother said in his sermon, \u201cI could never yet see how two\ncoordinate governments, exempt from superiority and inferiority, can be in\none state.\u201d To overthrow this general thesis, I brought some instances to\nthe contrary; such as the governments of a general and an admiral, of a\nmaster and a father, of a captain and a master in a ship. He being thus\nput to his vindication, replieth, \u201cThe Commissioner acknowledgeth he did\nnot apply them to the Assembly (I said the General Assembly) and\nParliament; yet that was the controversy in hand,\u201d _Male Dicis_, p. 5.\nBut, by his favour, that was not the controversy; for he was not speaking\nparticularly against the distinction of the government of the General\nAssembly and of the government of the Parliament (neither had he one\nsyllable to that purpose), but generally against the distinction of church\ngovernment and civil government, and particularly against excommunication;\nin all which he excluded presbyteries as well as General Assemblies.\nWherefore he doth now recede not only from defending his thesis, but from\napplying it against the power of presbyteries. And so far we are agreed.\n\n2. I having confuted his argument grounded on Psal. xxxiii. 15; Prov.\nxxvii. 19, he shifteth the vindication of it, and still tells me he\ngrounded no argument on those places, but spake \u201cby way of allusion,\u201d\n_Male Dicis_, p. 6. Now let the reader judge. His words to the Parliament\nwere these: \u201cMight I measure others by myself, and I know not why I may\nnot (God fashions men\u2019s hearts alike; and as in water face answers face,\nso the heart of man to man), I ingenuously profess I have a heart that\nknows better how to be governed than govern; I fear an ambitious\nensnarement,\u201d &c. This argument, there largely prosecuted, hath no other\nground but the parenthesis using the words (though not quoting the places)\nof Scripture. And now, forsooth, he hath served the Parliament well, when,\nbeing put to make good the sole confirmation of his argument, he tells it\nwas but an allusion. But this is not all. I confuted the whole argument\ndrawn from his own heart to the hearts of others, and gave several\nanswers: but neither before, nor now, hath he offered to make good his\nargument.\n\n3. The reverend brother cited 1 Cor. x. 33, to prove that all government\nis either a heathenish government, or a Jewish government, or a church\ngovernment. This I denied: \u201cBecause the government of generals, admirals,\nmayors, sheriffs, is neither a Jewish government, nor a church government,\nnor a heathenish government.\u201d What saith he to this? \u201cI deny it; a Jewish\ngeneral is a Jewish government,\u201d &c., _Male Dicis_, p. 6. Deny it? No,\nSir, you must prove (because you are the affirmer) that a Christian\ngeneral, a Christian admiral, are church governments. For I deny it. You\ntell us, p. 7, you are persuaded it will trouble the whole world to bound\ncivil and ecclesiastical jurisdiction, the one from the other. You shall\nhave them bounded and distinguished ere long, and the world not troubled\nneither. Meanwhile you have not made out your assertion from 1 Cor. x. 33.\n\n4. The reverend brother had cited Rom. xiii. 4, to prove that the\ncorrective part of church government belongs to the Christian magistrate.\nAnd now he brings in my reply thus: that I said he abuseth the place,\n\u201cBecause spiritual censures belong not to the civil magistrate;\u201d which,\nsaith he, begs the question, _Male Dicis_, p. 7. I replied no such thing\nupon this argument. Look at my words again. How can the brother answer\nit,\u2014to shape answers of his own devising as if they were mine? My answer\nwas, That the punitive part, Rom. xiii. 4, belongs to all magistrates,\nwhether Christian or infidel; which he takes notice of in the second\nplace, and bids me prove \u201cthat Scripture-commands belong to infidels;\u201d not\nobserving that the question is not of Scripture-commands, but whether a\nduty mentioned in this or that scripture may not belong to infidels. There\nare two sorts of duties in Scripture; some which are duties by the law of\nGod, written in man\u2019s heart at his creation, some principles and notions\nwhereof remain in the hearts of all nations, even infidels by nature;\nother duties are such, by virtue of special commands given to the church,\nwhich are not contained in the law of nature. The first sort (of which the\npunishing of evil doers, mentioned Rom. xiii. 4, is one) belongs to those\nthat are without the church as well as those within. The other only to\nthose that are within.\n\n5. The reverend brother had said in his sermon, \u201cOf other governments\nbesides magistracy I find no institution.\u201d I cited 1 Thess. v. 12; 1 Tim.\nv. 17; Heb. xiii. 7, 17, to prove another government (yea, the institution\nof another government) besides magistracy. And, in my _Nihil Respondes_, I\ntold he had laughed, but had not yet loosed the knot. Now hear his two\nanswers: _Male Dicis_, p. 8, \u201cFirst, for the institution; for the\nCommissioner affirms so much. Had he said that these texts hold out an\noffice or officer already instituted, the words would have borne him out,\u201d\n&c. \u201cBut the institution in this place I cannot see.\u201d See the like in Mr\nHussey, p. 19, 22. I thank them both. That Scripture which supposeth an\ninstitution, and holds out an office already instituted, shall to me (and,\nI am confident, to others also) prove an institution; for no text of\nScripture can suppose or hold out that which is not true. Nay, hath Mr\nColeman forgotten that himself proved an institution of magistracy from\nRom. xiii. 1, 2? Yet that text doth but hold out the office of magistracy\nalready instituted: but the institution itself is not in that place.\n\nSecondly, Mr Coleman answereth to all these three texts. To that, 1 Thess.\nv. 12, \u201cThem which are over you in the Lord,\u201d he saith that these words\nprove not that it is not meant of magistracy. But he takes not the\nstrength of the argument. My words were, \u201cHere are some who are no civil\nmagistrates set over the Thessalonians in the Lord.\u201d This the reverend\nbrother must admit to be a good proof, or otherwise say that the civil\nmagistrates set over the Thessalonians, though they were heathens, yet\nwere set over them in the Lord.\n\nFor that of 1 Tim. v. 17, he saith it doth not hold out ruling elders.\nWhether it doth hold ruling elders or not, doth not at all belong to the\npresent question. It is easy to answer something, so that a man will not\ntie himself to the point. The place was brought by me to prove \u201canother\ngovernment beside magistracy,\u201d which he denied. Now suppose the place to\nbe meant only of preaching elders, yet here is a rule or government:\n\u201cElders that rule well;\u201d and these are no civil magistrates, but such as\n\u201clabour in the word and doctrine.\u201d Come on now. \u201cBut I will deal clearly\n(saith the brother): These officers are ministers which are instituted not\nhere, but elsewhere,\u2014and these are the rulers here mentioned. And so have\nI loosed the knot.\u201d Now, Sir, you shall see I will not _male dicere_, but\n_bene dicere_. My blessing on you for it. You have at last loosed the knot\nso perfectly, that you are come to an agreement with me in this great\npoint, which I thus demonstrate: He that acknowledgeth ministers to be\ninstituted rulers, acknowledgeth another instituted government beside\nmagistracy. But Mr Coleman acknowledgeth ministers to be instituted\nrulers, therefore Mr Coleman acknowledgeth another instituted government\nbeside magistracy.\n\nTo the other texts, Heb. xiii. 7, 17, he saith nothing against my\nargument, only expounds the rulers to be guides, as Mr Hussey also doth,\nof which more elsewhere; meanwhile it is certain that \u1f41 \u1f21\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 is\nusually taken for a name of highest authority, yea, given to emperors; for\nwhich see learned Salmasius in his _Walo Messalinus_, p. 219, 220. It is\nJoseph\u2019s highest title to express his government of Egypt, Acts vii. 10.\nIt must the rather be a name of government and authority in this place,\nHeb. xiii. 17, because subjection and obedience is required: \u201cObey them\nthat have the rule over you, and submit yourselves.\u201d When the word\nsignifieth \u1f40\u03b4\u03b7\u03b3\u1f78\u03bd, _seu vi\u00e6 ducem_ (and it is very rarely so used by the\nSeptuagints, but frequently, and almost in innumerable places, they use it\nfor a name of rule and authority), obedience and subjection is not due to\nsuch an one _qua talis_; for obedience and subjection cannot be\n_correlata_ to the leading of the way, when it is without authority and\ngovernment.\n\n6. I having charged Mr Coleman\u2019s doctrine with this consequence, \u201cThat\nthere ought to be neither suspension from the sacrament, nor\nexcommunication, nor ordination, nor deposition of ministers, nor\nreceiving of appeals, except all these things be done by the civil\nmagistrate,\u201d which things, I said, \u201care most of them corrective, and all\nof them more than doctrinal,\u201d\u2014instead of making answer, the reverend\nbrother expresseth the error, which I objected to him, thus: \u201cThat here\nare no church censures,\u201d which is the _qu\u00e6situm_, saith he, _Male Dicis_,\np. 10. Here, again, he brings an imagination of his own, both for matter\nand words, instead of that which I said, and doth not take the argument\nright. If the minister\u2019s power be merely doctrinal, and government wholly\nin the magistrate\u2019s hands, then all the particulars enumerated; for\ninstance, suspension from the sacrament, and the receiving of appeals\n(which he must not bring under the _qu\u00e6situm_, except he bring the\nordinance of Parliament under the _qu\u00e6situm_), shall be wholly in the\nmagistrate\u2019s hand; and elderships may not suspend from the sacrament;\nclasses and synods may not receive appeals, which yet, by the ordinance,\nthey have power to do. One of the particulars, and but one, the reverend\nbrother hath here touched, and it is this: \u201cFor ordination of ministers, I\nsay, it is within the commission of teaching, and so appertains to the\ndoctrinal part.\u201d This is the effect of his zeal to maintain that all\necclesiastical ministerial power is merely doctrinal. But mark the\nconsequence of it: He that holds ordination of ministers to be within the\ncommission of teaching, and to appertain to the doctrinal part, must hold,\nby consequence, that the power of ordination is given _uni_ as well as\n_unitati_; that is, that every single minister hath power to ordain, as\nwell as the classes. But Mr Coleman holds ordination of ministers to be\nwithin the commission of teaching, &c. The reason of the proposition is\nclear, because the commission of teaching belongs to every single\nminister, so that if the power of ordination be within that commission, it\nmust needs belong to every single minister. _Quid respondes_?\n\n7. The reverend brother having brought an odious argument against me,\nwhich did conclude the magistrate to manage his office for and under the\ndevil, if not for and under Christ, I show his syllogism to have four\nterms, and therefore worthy to be exploded. I get now two replies:\n\nFirst, \u201cThis is an error (if one) in logic, not divinity. Is it an error\nin divinity to make a syllogism with four terms?\u201d _Male Dicis_, p. 15. See\nnow if he be a fit man to call others to school, who puts an _if_ in this\nbusiness\u2014_if one_. Who did ever doubt of it? And if it be an error in\ndivinity to be fallacious, and to deceive, then it is an error in divinity\nto make a syllogism with four terms, yea, as foul an error as can be.\n\nSecondly, He admitteth not my distinction of those words, \u201cUnder Christ,\nand for Christ.\u201d I said the Christian magistrate is under Christ, and for\nChrist, that is, he is serviceable to Christ, but he is not under Christ\nnor for Christ as Christ\u2019s vicegerent, _vice Christi_, in Christ\u2019s stead,\nas Christ is Mediator. The reverend brother saith, He foresaw that this\nwould be said (the greater fault it was to make his argument so unclear\nand undistinct), but he rejecteth the distinction as being _distinctio\nsine differentia_. \u201cIf a magistrate (saith he) be thus far a servant of\nChrist, as Mediator, that he is to do his work, to take part with him, to\nbe for his glory, then he doth it _vice Christi_.\u201d He adds the simile of a\nservant. Hence it follows, by the reverend brother\u2019s principles, that the\nking\u2019s cook, because he doth work and service for the king, therefore he\ndoth it _vice regis_, and as the king\u2019s vicegerent. Likewise, that a\nservant who obeyeth his master\u2019s wife, and executeth her commands, because\nit is his master\u2019s will, and for his master\u2019s honour, doth therefore obey\nhis master\u2019s wife _vice domini_, as his master\u2019s vicegerent; and, by\nconsequence, that the duty of obedience to the wife doth originally belong\nto the husband; for the capacity of a vicegerent, which he hath by his\nvicegerentship, is primarily the capacity of him whose vicegerent he is.\nThese, and the like absurd consequences, will unavoidably follow upon the\nreverend brother\u2019s argumentation, that he who doth Christ service doth it\n_vice Christi_, as Christ\u2019s vicegerent; and that to be a man\u2019s vicegerent,\nand to do a man\u2019s work or service, which I made two different things, are\nall one. But, further, observe his tergiversation. I had, p. 13, proved my\ndistinction out of these words of his own: \u201cThe Commissioner saith,\nMagistracy is not derived from Christ. I say, magistracy is given to\nChrist to be serviceable in his kingdom; so that, though the\nCommissioner\u2019s assertion be sound (which in due place will be discussed),\nyet it infringeth nothing that I said.\u201d I asked, therefore, _qua fide_ he\ncould confound in his argument brought against me those two things which\nhimself had so carefully distinguished. There is no reply to this in _Male\nDicis_. When the brother thought it for his advantage, he denied that the\nmagistrate\u2019s being serviceable to Christ doth enter the derivation of his\npower by a commission of vicegerentship from Christ (for that was the\nderivation spoken of), and yielded that the magistrate may be said to be\nserviceable to Christ, though his power be not derived from Christ. Now he\ndenieth the very same distinction for substance.\n\n8. Whereas the reverend brother had told the Parliament that he seeth not,\nin the whole Bible, any one act of that church government which is now in\ncontroversy, I brought some scriptural instances against his opinion, not\nlosing either the argument from Matt. xviii. (concerning which he asketh\nwhat is become of it), or other scriptural arguments, which I intend, by\nGod\u2019s assistance, to prosecute elsewhere. Now hear what is replied to the\ninstances which were given. First, To that, 1 Cor. v. 13, \u201cPut away that\nwicked person from among you,\u201d his answer is, \u201cI say, and it is sufficient\nagainst the Commissioner, If this be a church censure, then the whole\nchurch jointly, and every particular person, hath power of church\ncensure.\u201d _Male Dicis_, p. 10. I hope, Sir, it is not sufficient against\nme that you say it, so long as you say nothing to prove it. I told you\nthat Mr Prynne himself (who holds not that every particular person hath\npower of church censure) acknowledged that text to be a warrant for\nexcommunication, and when you say \u201cevery particular person,\u201d you say more\nthan the Independents say, and I am sure more than the text will admit,\nfor the text saith, \u201cPut away from among you,\u201d therefore this power was\ngiven not _uni_, but _unitati_, and this _unitas_ was the presbytery of\nCorinth. The sentence was inflicted \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd,\u2014_by many_, 2 Cor.\nii. 6, it is not said _by all_. I might say much for this, but I will not\nnow leave the argument in hand; for it is enough against Mr Coleman that\nthe place prove an act of church government, flowing from a power not\ncivil but ecclesiastical. To whom the power belonged is another question.\n\nTo the next instance, from 2 Cor. ii. 6, which is coincident with the\nformer, a punishment or censure inflicted _by many_. \u201cIt is only a\nreprehension (saith he),\u2014\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03af\u03b1,\u2014which, by all the places in the New\nTestament, can amount no higher than to an objurgation, and so is\ndoctrinal.\u201d _Ans._ 1. He made it even now an act of the whole church\njointly, and of every particular person. Why did he not clear himself in\nthis,\u2014how the whole church, men, women, children and all, did doctrinally\nreprehend him? 2. If the objurgation must be restricted, To whom? Not to a\nsingle minister (yet every single minister hath power of doctrinal\nobjurgation), but to the presbytery. It was an act of those \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03cc\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 I\nspake of; and this is a ground for that distinction between ministerial\nand presbyterial admonition, which Mr Coleman, p. 22, doth not admit. 3.\nIf it were granted that \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03af\u03b1 in this text amounteth to no more but an\nobjurgation, yet our argument stands good; for the Apostle having, in his\nfirst epistle, required the Corinthians to put away from among them that\nwicked person, which they did accordingly resolve to do (which makes the\nApostle commend their obedience, 2 Cor. ii. 9), no doubt either the\noffender was at this time actually excommunicated and cast out of the\nchurch, or (as others think) they were about to excommunicate him, if the\nApostle had not, by his second epistle, prevented them, and taken them off\nwith this _sufficit_: Such a degree of censure is enough, the party is\npenitent, go no higher. 4. When the reverend brother appealeth to all the\nplaces in the New Testament, he may take notice that the word \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03af\u03b1 is\nnowhere found in the New Testament, except in this very text. And if his\nmeaning be concerning the verb \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9\u03c1\u03ac\u03c9 he may find it used to express a\ncoercive power, as in Christ\u2019s rebuking of the winds and waves, Matt.\nviii. 26; Mark iv. 39; his rebuking of the fever, Luke iv. 39; his\nrebuking of the devil (which was not a doctrinal, but a coercive rebuke),\nMark i. 25; ix. 25; Luke iv. 35; ix. 42. Sometimes it is put for an\nauthoritative charge, laying a restraint upon a man, and binding him from\nliberty in this or that particular, as Matt. xii. 16; Mark iii. 12; viii.\n30; Luke ix. 21. The word \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03af\u03b1 I find in the apocryphal book of\nWisdom, chap. iii. 10. It is said of the wicked, \u1f13\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03bd, they\nshall have _correction_ or _punishment_. The whole chapter maketh an\nopposition between the godly and the wicked, in reference to punishments\nand judgments. The Hebrew \u05d2\u05e2\u05d3 (which, if the observation hold which is\nmade by Arias Montanus, and divers others, following Kimchi, when it is\nconstrued with \u05d1 signifieth _objurgavit_, _duriter reprehendit_; when\nwithout \u05d1, it signifieth _corrupit_, _perdidit_, or _maledixit_), the\nSeptuagint do most usually turn it \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03ac\u03c9 and that in some places where\nit is without \u05d1, as Psal. cxix. 21, \u201cThou hast rebuked the proud that are\ncursed;\u201d \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03af\u03bc\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2,\u2014Pagnin, _disperdidisti_,\u2014thou hast destroyed, so the\nsense is; it is rebuke, with a judgment or a curse upon them. The second\npart of the verse, in the Greek, is exegetical to the first part, \u201cThou\nhast rebuked the proud, \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9, cursed are they,\u201d &c.; so Zech. iii.\n2, \u201cThe Lord rebuke (\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9) thee, O Satan.\u201d The same phrase is used\nin Jude, ver. 9, which must needs be meant of a coercive, efficacious,\ndivine power, restraining Satan. The same original word they render by\n\u1f00\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03c9, which signifieth to separate and to excommunicate, Mal. ii. 3,\n\u201cBehold I will corrupt your seed,\u201d &c. In the preceding words, God told\nthem that he would curse them. The same word they render by \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03b6\u03c9,\n_extermino_, Isa. xvii. 13, a place which speaks of a judgment to be\ninflicted, not of a doctrinal reproof. Yet Aquila readeth there\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9; likewise the word which the Septuagint render \u1f00\u03c0\u03ce\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1,\n_perdition_, Prov. xiii. 6, and \u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2, _wrath_, Isa. li. 20, in other\nplaces they render it \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03af\u03bc\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2: Psal. lxxvi. 6, \u201cAt thy rebuke, O God of\nJacob, both the chariot and horse are cast into a dead sleep;\u201d lxxx. 16,\n\u201cThey perish at the rebuke of thy countenance.\u201d These are _real_ rebukes,\nthat is, judgments and punishments.\n\n4. What saith Mr Coleman to Pasor, who expounds \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03af\u03b1 to be the same\nwith \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03af\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, _mulcta_, and that, 2 Cor. ii. 6. it is meant of\nexcommunication; which he proves by this reason, Because, in the same\nplace, the Apostle exhorteth the Corinthians to forgive him. Add hereunto\nErasmus\u2019s observation upon the word \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9(1348) (ver. 8, to \u201cconfirm\nyour love toward him\u201d); that it implies an authoritative ratification of a\nthing by judicial suffrage and sentence. Which well agreeth to the\n\u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03cc\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2, ver. 6; that is, that they who had judicially censured him,\nshould also judicially loose him and make him free. Now, therefore, the\ncircumstances and context being observed, and the practice, 2 Cor. ii. 6,\ncompared with the precept, 1 Cor. v. 13, I conclude, that, whether this\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03af\u03b1 was excommunication already inflicted, or whether it was a lesser\ndegree of censure, tending to excommunication,\u2014a censure it was, and more\nthan ministerial objurgation. And it is rightly rendered by the English\ntranslators _punishment_ or _censure;_ which well agreeth with the\nsignification of the verb \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03ac\u03c9 given us by Hesychius,(1349) and by\nJulius Pollux;(1350) who makes \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u1fb6\u03bd, to _punish_ or _chastise_, and\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03af\u03bc\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1, _punishment_ or _chastisement_. Clemens Alexandrinus(1351)\nuseth \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03af\u03b1 as well as \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, _pro poena vel supplicio_. So\nStephanus, in _Thes. Ling. Gr._ From all which it may appear that the text\nin hand holds forth a corrective church government in the hands of church\nofficers; the thing which Mr Coleman denieth.\n\nTo the next instance, from 1 Tim. v. 19, \u201cAgainst an elder receive not an\naccusation, but before two or three witnesses,\u201d the reverend brother\nanswereth, \u201cIt is either in relation to the judgment of charity, or\nministerial conviction, as the verses following.\u201d _Ans._ 1. That of two or\nthree witnesses is taken from the law of Moses, where it is referred only\nto a forensical proceeding. But in relation either to the judgment of\ncharity, or ministerial conviction, it is not necessary that there be two\nor three witnesses. If a scandalous sin be certainly known to a minister,\nthough the thing be not certified by two or three witnesses, yet a\nminister, upon certain knowledge had of the fact, may both believe it and\nministerially convince the offender. But there may not be a consistorial\nproceeding without two or three witnesses. 2. Since he appealeth to the\nfollowing verses, let ver. 22 decide it: \u201cLay hands suddenly on no man.\u201d\nTo whom the laying on of hands or ordination did belong, to them also it\ndid belong to receive an accusation against an elder: but to the\npresbytery did belong the laying on of hands, or ordination, 1 Tim. iv.\n14; therefore to the presbytery did belong the receiving of an accusation\nagainst an elder. And so it was not the act of a single minister, as\nministerial conviction is.\n\nTo the last instance, from Rev. ii. 14, 15, 20, the reverend brother\nanswers, That he had striven to find out how church censures might be\nthere grounded, but was constrained to let it alone. But what is it, in\nhis opinion, which is there blamed in the angels of those churches? Doth\nhe imagine that those who are so much commended by Christ himself for\ntheir holding fast of his name, and of the true faith, did not so much as\ndoctrinally or ministerially oppose the foul errors of the Balaamites and\nof Jezebel? No doubt but this was done: but Christ reproves them, because\nsuch scandalous persons were yet suffered to be in the church, and were\nnot cast out. \u201cI have a few things against thee, because thou hast there\nthem that hold the doctrine of Balaam;\u201d and, ver. 20, \u201cThou sufferest that\nwoman Jezebel.\u201d And why was the very having or suffering them in the\nchurch a fault, if it had not been a duty to cast them out of the church?\nwhich casting out could not be by banishment, but by excommunication. It\ndid not belong to the angel to cast out the Balaamites out of Pergamos,\nbut he might, and ought to have cast them out of the church in Pergamos.\n\n9. Mr Coleman hath another passage against the distinction of church\ncensures and civil punishments. \u201cBut what are ecclesiastical censures\n(saith he)? Let us take a taste. Is deposition from the ministry? This\nkings have done,\u201d &c., _Male Dicis_, p. 7. Now _similia labra lactucis_.\nBut for all that, the taste is vitiated, and doth not put a difference\nbetween things that are different. Deposition is sometimes taken,\nimproperly, for expulsion; as Balsamon, in _Conc. Nicoen._, can. 19, doth\nobserve. And so the Christian magistrate may remove or put away ministers\nwhen they deserve to be put away, that is, by a coercive power to restrain\nthem, imprison or banish them, and, in case of capital crimes, punish them\nwith capital punishments. King James, having once heard a dispute in St.\nAndrews about the deposition of ministers, was convinced that it doth not\nbelong to the civil magistrate, \u201cyet (said he) I can depose a minister\u2019s\nhead from his shoulders.\u201d Which was better divinity than this of Mr\nColeman. If we take deposition properly, as it is more than the expelling,\nsequestering or removing of a minister from this or that place, and\ncomprehendeth that which the Council of Ancyra, can. 18, calls \u1f08\u03c6\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9\n\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u1f74\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, _the honour of presbytership to be taken\naway_, or a privation of that _presbyteratus_, the order of a presbyter,\nand that \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1, the authority and power of dispensing the word,\nsacraments, and discipline, which was given in ordination, so none have\npower to depose who have not power to ordain. It belongeth not to the\nmagistrate either to make or unmake ministers. Therefore, in the ancient\nchurch, the bishops had power of the deposition as well as of the\nordination of presbyters, yet they were bound up that they might not\ndepose either presbyter or deacon without the concurrence of a presbytery\nor synod in the business.(1352) Mark, of the _synod_, not of the\nmagistrate. As for the testimonies brought by Mr Coleman, he doth, both\nhere and in divers other places, name his authors, without quoting the\nplaces. It seems he hath either found the words cited by others, but durst\nnot trust the quotations, or else hath found somewhat in those places\nwhich might make against him. However, all that he can cite of that kind\nconcerning deposition of ministers by emperors, is meant of a coercive\nexpulsion, not of that which we call properly deposition. And to this\npurpose let him take the observation of a great antiquary.(1353)\n\nAnd, withal, he may take notice that Protestant writers(1354) do disclaim\nthe magistrate\u2019s power of deposing ministers, and hold that deposition is\na part of ecclesiastical jurisdiction: ministers being always punishable\n(as other members of the commonwealth), according to the law of the land,\nfor any offence committed against law.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER III.\n\n\nTHAT MR COLEMAN\u2019S AND MR HUSSEY\u2019S OPPOSING OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT NEITHER IS\nNOR CAN BE RECONCILED WITH THE SOLEMN LEAGUE AND COVENANT.\n\n\nMr Coleman\u2019s doctrine was by me charged to be a violation of the solemn\nleague and covenant. This he acknowledged in his _Re-examination_, p. 13,\n17, to be a very grievous charge, and a greater fault in him than in\ndivers others, if made out; and he desired seriously, yea, challenged it\nby the right of a Christian, and by the right of a minister, that I should\nprosecute this charge; whereupon I did, in my _Nihil Respondes_, prosecute\nit so far, that, by five strong arguments, I did demonstrate the\nrepugnancy of his doctrine to the covenant. About a month afterward comes\nout Mr Hussey\u2019s book, wherein the charge itself (before desired to be\nprosecuted) is declined expressly by Mr Coleman in the few lines by him\nprefixed (which are ranked together with the errata), in which he desires\nthat the argumentative part may be so prosecuted as that the charge of\ncovenant-breaking may be laid aside; which, if it be taken up, he lets me\nknow beforehand it shall be esteemed by them a _nihil respondes_. It is\nalso declined by Mr Hussey, p. 15: \u201cThe argument of the covenant is too\nlow to be thought on in the discourse: we are now in an higher region than\nthe words of the covenant,\u201d &c.:\u2014a tenet looked upon by the reformed\nchurches as proper to those that are inspired with the ghost of\nArminius;(1355) for the remonstrants, both at and after the Synod of Dort,\ndid cry down the obligation of all national covenants, oaths, &c., in\nmatters of religion, under the colour of taking the Scripture only for a\nrule. Well, we see the charge declined as nothing. But this is not all.\nAlmost two months after my proof of the charge, Mr Coleman comes out with\nhis _Male Dicis_, and declines both the charge itself (which he calls an\n\u201cimpertinent charge,\u201d p. 22), and my five arguments too, without so much\nas taking notice of them, or offering replies to them; yea, all that I\nsaid in my _Nihil Respondes_, p. 27-34, in prosecution of this argument\nconcerning covenant-breaking, the reverend brother hath skipped over\n_sicco pede_ in the half of one page, p. 23; all that follows is new and\nother matter, wherein he did not mind his own answer to the learned\nviewer, p. 33, \u201cI will keep you to the laws of disputation, and will not\nanswer but as it is to the matter in hand.\u201d I leave it to be judged by men\nof knowledge and piety, whether such an one doth not give them some ground\nto apprehend that he is \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, that is, self-judged, who first\ncalleth so eagerly for making out a charge against him, and then when it\nis made out, doth decline the charge, and not answer the arguments; and\nsuch as esteem the charge of covenant-breaking to be a _nihil respondes_,\nand the argument of the covenant too low to be thought on in a controversy\nabout church government, \u201cO my soul, come not thou into their secret; unto\ntheir assembly, mine honour, be not thou united.\u201d It is in vain for them\nto palliate or shelter their covenant-breaking with appealing from the\ncovenant to the Scripture, for _subordinata non pugnant_. The covenant is\n_norma recta_,\u2014a right rule, though the Scripture alone be _norma\nrecti_,\u2014the rule of right. If they hold the covenant to be unlawful, or to\nhave anything in it contrary to the word of God, let them speak out. But\nto profess the breach of the covenant to be a grievous and great fault,\nand worthy of a severe censure, and yet to decline the charge and proofs\nthereof, is a most horrible scandal; yea, be astonished, O ye heavens, at\nthis, and give ear, O earth! how small regard is had to the oath of God by\nmen professing the name of God.\n\nAs for that little which the reverend brother hath replied unto; first, he\ntakes notice of a passage of his sermon at the taking of the covenant,\nwhich I had put him in mind of, but he answereth only to one particular,\nviz., concerning that clause, \u201cDoubtless many materials of Prelacy must of\nnecessity be retained, as absolutely necessary.\u201d I asked what he\nunderstood by this clause? Now observe his answer: \u201cI answer ingenuously,\nas he desires, and fully, as I conceive, These materials of Prelacy are\nordination.\u201d Remember you said, \u201c_many_ materials of Prelacy.\u201d I beseech\nyou, Sir, How many is ordination? Ordination, ordination, ordination; tell\non till you think you have made many materials; and, withal, tell us (if\nthis be the meaning, that ordination should be retained without any power\nof ecclesiastical government in the ministry) how was it imaginable that\nhe could hereby satisfy that scruple which then he spoke to, viz., the\nscruple about the purging away of the exorbitances of Prelacy, and\nretaining a regulated Prelacy? And after all this, I shall desire him to\nexpound that other clause (which I desired before, but he hath not done\nit), \u201cTaking away (said he) the exorbitancies, the remaining will be a new\ngovernment, and no Prelacy.\u201d Either he means this of a new church\ngovernment distinct from the civil, so that the ministry should have new\npower of government; or he meant it of the way which now he pleads for. If\nthe former, I have what I would. Mr Coleman himself, as well as other men,\ntook the covenant with an intention to have an ecclesiastical government\ndistinct from the civil. If the latter, then let him answer these two\nthings: 1. What good sense there was in applying such an answer to such a\nscruple, as if the Erastian way, or the appropriating of all\necclesiastical jurisdiction wholly to the civil magistrate, could be the\nway to satisfy those who scrupled the total abolition of Prelacy. 2. How\nwill he reconcile himself with himself; for here, p. 22, he saith, That\nhis way was in practice before I was born, \u201cand the constant practice of\nEngland always.\u201d This, as it is a most notorious untruth (for the constant\npractice of England hath granted to the clergy, as he calls them, after\nthe popish dialect, a power of deposition and excommunication, whereas his\nway denies all corrective power or church censures to the ministry), so,\nif it were a truth, it is utterly inconsistent with that which he said of\nthe remaining part, namely, that it will be a new government. If it be his\nway, how will he make it the constant practice of England always, and a\nnew government too?\n\nIn the next place, the reverend brother makes short work of my five\narguments to prove the repugnancy of his doctrine to the solemn league and\ncovenant. They were too hot for him to be much touched upon: \u201cAll is but\nthis much (saith he), the covenant mentioneth and supposeth a distinct\nchurch government.\u201d It is hard when arguments are neither repeated nor\nanswered. He repeats a point which was proved (and but a part of that),\nbut not the proofs; and so he answereth (rather to the conclusion than to\nthe arguments) these two things: \u201cFirst (saith he), the expressions in the\ncovenant are according to the general apprehensions of the times, which\ntook such a thing for granted, yet I believe Mr Gillespie cannot make such\na supposition obligatory.\u201d Now you yield, Sir, what before you eagerly\ncontended against, viz., that the covenant doth suppose a church\ngovernment. Remember your simile of the jury sworn to inquire into the\nfelony of a prisoner, which oath doth not suppose the prisoner to be\nguilty of felony, but he is to be tried, guilty or not guilty. We are now\nso far agreed, that the covenant doth suppose a church government distinct\nfrom the civil government, and yet not merely doctrinal, for that was the\npoint which I proved, and which here he yields. As for the obligation of\nan oath sworn upon such supposition, I answer, 1. It is more than\nsupposed, the words and expressions of the covenant do plainly hold out\nthe thing as I proved, and as the reverend brother here seems to yield. 2.\nThat which an oath doth necessarily suppose, if the oath be lawful, and\nthe thing supposed lawful, is without all controversy obligatory. Now the\nreverend brother doth acknowledge both the covenant itself to be a lawful\noath, and that which the covenant supposeth, namely, a church government\ndistinct from the civil government, and yet not merely doctrinal, to be a\nlawful thing; for he professeth to yield it (though not _jure divino_,\nyet) in prudence, which he cannot do, if he make the thing unlawful. 3.\nThat which an oath doth suppose is sometimes supposed _vi materi\u00e6_, or\n_consequenti\u00e6_, that is, the words of the oath do necessarily imply such a\nthing, though it be not intended by the swearer; and here I will tell Mr\nColeman one story of Alexander for another: When Alexander was coming\nagainst a town to destroy it, he met Anaximenes, who, as he understood,\ncame to make intercession and supplication for sparing the town. Alexander\nprevented him with an oath that he would not do that thing which\nAnaximenes should make petition for, whereupon Anaximenes made petition\nthat he would destroy the town. Alexander found himself bound by the plain\nwords of his oath not to do what he intended, and so did forbear. And to\nadd a divine story to an human, Joshua and the princes of Israel did swear\nto the Gibeonites upon a supposition that was not true, yet they found\nthemselves tied by their oath. So he that sweareth to his own hurt must\nnot change, the oath being otherwise lawful, Psal. xv. 4, yet that\nself-hurt which is wrapped up in the matter of his oath was not intended\nin swearing. Sometimes, again, that which is supposed and implied in an\noath, lieth also in the thoughts and intentions of those that swear. Now,\nwhere those two are coincident, that is, where the thing supposed in an\noath is both implied necessarily in the words of the oath, and is also\naccording to the apprehensions of those that swear (which is the case here\nin the covenant, and is acknowledged by the reverend brother), I should\nthink it most strange how any divine can have the least doubt concerning\nthe obligation of such a thing, except he conceive the thing itself to be\nunlawful.\n\nHis second answer is this: \u201cIn my way (saith he) the governments, civil\nand ecclesiastical, are in the subject matter clearly distinct. When the\nParliament handles matters of war, it is a military court; when business\nof state, it is a civil court; when matters of religion, it is an\necclesiastical court.\u201d If this hold good, then it will follow, 1. That the\nParliament, when they deliberate about matters of war or matters of\nreligion, are not, at least formally and properly, a civil court, else how\nmakes he these so clearly distinct? 2. That ministers may be called civil\nofficers, for consider his words in his _Re-examination_, p. 11: \u201cI do not\nexclude ministers, neither from ecclesiastical nor civil government, in a\nministerial way, doctrinally and declaratively.\u201d Compare this with his\npresent answer, it will amount to thus much: That different denominations\nbeing taken from the different subject matter, ministers, when they handle\ndoctrinally matters of religion, are ecclesiastical ministers; and when\nthey handle doctrinally matters of civil government, which himself\nalloweth them to do, they are civil ministers. But now to apply his answer\nto the argument, How doth all this solve the repugnancy of his doctrine to\nthe covenant? If he had examined my arguments, he had found that most of\nthem prove from the covenant a church government distinct from civil\ngovernment, subjective as well as objective; that is, another government\nbesides magistracy; different agents as well as different acts; different\nhands as well as handling of different matters. I know the Christian\nmagistrate may and ought to have a great influence in matters of religion;\nand whatsoever is due to him by the word of God, or by the doctrine either\nof the ancient or reformed churches, I do not infringe, but do maintain\nand strengthen it. But the point in hand is, that the covenant doth\nundeniably suppose, and clearly hold forth a government in the church\ndistinct from magistracy, which is proved by these arguments (which, as\nthey are not yet answered, so I will briefly apply them to the proof of\nthat point which now Mr Coleman sticks at): 1. The church covenant\nmentioned in the covenant is as distinct from the privileges of\nparliament, as the first article of the covenant is distinct from the\nthird article. 2. The church government in the first article of the\ncovenant, the reformation whereof we are to endeavour, differeth from\nchurch government by archbishops, bishops, &c., mentioned in the second\narticle, as much as a thing to be reformed differeth from a thing to be\nextirpated; so that the church government formerly used in the church of\nEngland is looked upon two ways in the covenant, either _qua_ church\ngovernment, and so we swear to endeavour the reformation of it (which I\nhope was not meant of reforming that part of the privileges of Parliament\nwhereby they meddle with religion in a parliamentary way), or _qua_ church\ngovernment, by archbishops, bishops, &c., and so we swear to endeavour the\nextirpation of it. This difference between the first and second articles,\nbetween reformation and extirpation, proveth that the covenant doth\nsuppose that the church government formerly used in the church of England,\nin so far as it was a church government, is not _eatenus_ to be abolished,\nbut in so far as it was a corrupt church government, that is, prelatical.\n3. Church government, in the covenant, is matched with doctrine, worship,\nand catechising. Now these are subjectively different from civil\ngovernment, for the civil magistrate doth not act doctrinally nor\ncatechetically, neither can he dispense the word and sacraments, as Mr\nColeman acknowledgeth. 4. In the first part of the first article of the\ncovenant, concerning \u201cthe preservation of the reformed religion in the\nchurch of Scotland, in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government,\u201d it\nis uncontroverted, that discipline and government are ecclesiastical, and\nsubjectively different from civil government, that is, though divers who\nhave a hand in the civil government are ruling elders, yet it is as true\nthat divers members of Parliament and inferior civil courts are not church\nofficers; and of the ministry none are civil governors which makes the two\ngovernments clearly distinct subjectively. Now the second part of that\narticle concerning \u201cthe reformation of religion in the kingdoms of England\nand Ireland, in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government,\u201d cannot so\nfar differ from the first part of that article in the sense of the words,\n\u201cdiscipline and government,\u201d as that the same words, in the same article\nof the same covenant, should signify things differing _toto genere_, which\nwill follow, unless \u201cdiscipline and government\u201d in the second branch, and\n\u201cform of church government\u201d in the third branch, be understood of the\npower of church officers, and not of the magistrate. 6. We did swear to\n\u201cendeavour the reformation of religion in the kingdoms of England and\nIreland, in doctrine, worship, discipline and government, according to the\nword of God and the example of the best reformed churches.\u201d Now the word\nof God holds forth another government besides magistracy; for Mr Coleman\nhimself hath acknowledged, that he finds in the New Testament ministers to\nbe rulers, yea, instituted rulers; and the example of the best reformed\nchurches, without all doubt, leadeth us to an ecclesiastical government\ndifferent from magistracy. Neither hath the reverend brother so much as\nonce adventured to allege the contrary, except of the church of Israel,\nwhich, as it is heterogeneous, being none of the reformed churches\nmentioned in the covenant, so it shall be discussed in due place; from all\nwhich reasons I conclude, that the wit of man cannot reconcile Mr\nColeman\u2019s doctrine with the covenant. 6. I add a confutation of him out of\nhimself, thus: No such church government as Mr Coleman casts upon an\nuncertainty, whether the word hold out any such thing, can be, by his\nprinciples, the power of magistracy in things ecclesiastical, but another\ngovernment beside magistracy. But the church government, mentioned in the\nfirst article of the covenant, is such a church government as Mr Coleman\ncasts upon an uncertainty, whether the word hold out any such thing;\ntherefore the church government mentioned in the first article of the\ncovenant cannot be, by his principles, the power of magistracy, but\nanother government beside magistracy. The proposition he will easily\nadmit, unless he alter his assertions; the assumption is clear from his\n_Re-examination,_ p. 15.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER IV.\n\n\nMR COLEMAN AND MR HUSSEY\u2019S ERRORS IN DIVINITY.\n\n\nMr Hussey all along calls for divinity schools: I confess himself hath\nmuch need of them, that he may be better grounded in his divinity; and\nthat if he will plead any more for Christian magistracy, he may not\ninvolve himself into such dangerous heterodoxies as have fallen from his\npen in this short tractate. I instance in these:\u2014\n\nFirst, In his epistle to the Parliament he hath divers passages against\nsynodical votes; he will have no putting to the vote: \u201cFor votes (saith\nhe, p. 6) are of no other use but to gather parties, and ought nowhere to\nbe used but by those that have the power of the sword.\u201d And, p. 3, he will\nhave the business of assemblies to be only doctrinal, and \u201cby dispute to\nfind out truth. Their disputes ought to end in a brotherly accord, as in\nActs xv., much disputing, but all ended in accord, no putting to the\nvote.\u201d And, p. 5, he will have things carried \u201cwith strength of argument\nand unanimous consent of the whole clergy.\u201d Behold how he joineth issue\nwith the remonstrants against the contra-remonstrants, to introduce not\nonly an academical, but a sceptical and Pyrrhonian dubitation and\nuncertainty, so that there shall never be an end of controversy, nor any\nsettlement of truth and of the ordinances of Jesus Christ, so long as\nthere shall be but one tenacious disputer to hold up the ball of\ncontention. One egg is not liker another than Mr Hussey\u2019s tenet is like\nthat of the Arminians, for which see the Synod of Dort, sess. 25.(1356) It\nwas the ninth condition which the Arminians required in a lawful and\nwell-constituted synod, that there might be no decision of the\ncontroverted articles, but only such an accommodation as both sides might\nagree to. And, generally, they hold that synods ought not to meet for\ndecision, or determination, but for examining, disputing, discussing; so\ntheir _Examen Censurae_, cap. 25; and their _Vindiciae_, lib. 2, cap. 6,\np. 131, 133.\n\nSecondly, In that same epistle to the Parliament, p. 4, he hath this\npassage: \u201cWill-worship is unlawful, I mean in matters that are essential\nto God\u2019s worship, which are matters of duty; as for circumstantials of\ntime and place, except the Sabbath, which are matters of liberty, in these\nthe commonwealth may vote, &c.; and this is your Christian liberty, that\nin matters of liberty ye make rules and laws to yourselves, not crossing\nthe ends that you are tied to in duty.\u201d And is the Sabbath only a\ncircumstantial of time contradistinct from matters of duty? It seems he\nwill cry down not only the _jus divinum_ of church censures with the\nErastians, but the _jus divinum_ of the Sabbath with the Canterburians.\nAnd if will-worship be unlawful only in the essentials of God\u2019s worship,\nwhy was the argument of will-worship so much tossed, not only between\nPrelates and Nonconformists, but between Papists and Protestants, even in\nreference to ceremonies? And whether hath not Mr Hussey here engaged\nhimself to hold it free and lawful to the Christian magistrate, yea, to\nprivate Christians (for he calls it Christian liberty, not parliamentary\nliberty\u2014now Christian liberty belongs to all sorts of Christians), to make\nlaws to themselves for taking the sacrament anniversarily on Christmas,\nGood-Friday, and Easter, or to appoint a perpetual monthly fast or\nthanksgiving; yea, another Parliament may, if so it should seem good to\nthem, impose again the surplice and cross in baptism, fonts, railing of\ncommunion tables, the reading of divert passages of Apocrypha to the\ncongregations, doxologies, anthems, responsories, &c., as heretofore they\nwere used; or they may appoint all and every one to sit in the church with\ntheir faces towards the east, to stand up at the epistles and gospels,\n&c.; yea, what ceremonies, Jewish, popish, heathenish, may they not\nimpose, provided they only hold the foundation, and keep to those\nessentials which he calls matters of duty? By restraining the unlawfulness\nof will-worship to the essentials, he leaves men free to do anything in\nreligion, _pr\u00e6ter verbum_, so that it appear not to them to be _contra\nverbum_; anything they may add to the word, or do beside the word, so that\nthe thing cannot be proved contrary to the word.\n\nThirdly, Mr Hussey, ibid., p. 4, 5, saith, That the Parliament may require\nsuch as they receive for preachers of truth, \u201cto send out able men to\nsupply the places, and that without any regard to the allowance or\ndisallowance of the people,\u201d where, in the first part of that which he\nsaith, there is either a heterodoxy or a contradiction. A heterodoxy, if\nhe mean that ministers are to be sent out without ordination: a\ncontradiction, if he mean that they must be ordained; for then he gives\nclasses a work which is not merely doctrinal. But most strange it is, that\nhe so far departeth from Protestant divines in point of the church\u2019s\nliberty in choosing ministers. He tells us, p. 14, that Mr Herle, \u201cfor\nwant of skill and theological disputations,\u201d hath granted to people a\nright to choose their minister. Mr Herle\u2019s skill, both logical and\ntheological, is greater than it seems he can well judge of; neither can\nthis bold arrogant censure of his derogate from Mr Herle\u2019s, but from his\nown reputation. For the matter itself, it is one, and not the least, of\nthe controversies between the Papists and Protestants, what right the\nchurch hath in the vocation of ministers: read Bellarmine, _de Cleric._,\nand those that write against him, and see whether it be not so. The\nHelvetic Confession tells us that the right choosing of ministers is by\nthe consent of the church, and the Belgic Confession saith, \u201cWe believe\nthat the ministers, seniors and deacons, ought to be called to those their\nfunctions, and by the lawful elections of the church to be advanced into\nthose rooms.\u201d See both these in the _Harmony of Confessions_, sect. 11. I\nmight here, if it were requisite, bring a heap of testimonies from\nProtestant writers; the least thing which they can admit of is, that a\nminister be not obtruded _renitente ecclesia. Factum valet, fieri non\ndebet._ It may be helped after it is done, without making null or void the\nministry; but in a well-constituted church there ought to be no intrusion\ninto the ministry, the church\u2019s consent is requisite; for which also I\nmight bring both scripture and antiquity, but that is not my present\nbusiness. One thing I must needs put Mr Hussey in mind of, that when the\nprelates did intrude ministers, without any regard to the disallowance of\nthe people, it was cried out against as an oppression and usurpation, and\nwe are often warned by Mr Prynne, by Mr Coleman, and by myself, to cast\naway the prelates\u2019 usurpation with themselves. But who lords it now over\nthe Lord\u2019s inheritance, the Presbyterians or the Erastians? Nay, he who\nwill have ministers put in churches \u201cwithout any regard to the allowance\nor disallowance of people,\u201d falls far short of divers prelatical men, who\ndid much commend the ancient primitive form of calling ministers, not\nwithout the church\u2019s consent. See Dr Field, _Of the Church_, lib. 5, cap.\n54; Bilson, _de Gubern. Eccl._, cap. 15, p. 417; the author of _The\nHistory of Episcopacy_, part 2, p. 360.\n\nFourthly, Mr Hussey, _Epist._, p. 7, saith, That upon further\nconsideration he found \u201cthe minister charged only with preaching and\nbaptising.\u201d The like he hath afterwards, p. 39, \u201cLet any man prove that a\nminister hath any more to do from Christ than to teach and baptise.\u201d And\nagain, p. 44, he propounds this query, \u201cWhether Christ gave any more\ngovernment (he should have said any more to do, for preaching and\nbaptising are not acts of government) than is contained in preaching and\nbaptising,\u201d and he holds the negative. If only preaching and baptising,\nthen not praying and reading in the congregation, ministering the Lord\u2019s\nsupper, visiting the sick and particular families.\n\nFifthly, He holdeth, p. 20, That a heathen magistrate is unlawful, \u201cand\nfor his government, if sin be lawful, it is lawful.\u201d A gross heterodoxy.\nThe Apostle exhorteth to be subject even to heathen magistrates, Rom.\nxiii., for there were no other at that time, and to pray for them, 1 Tim.\nii.; so that by Mr Hussey\u2019s divinity, the Apostle would have men to be\nsubject unto, and to pray for an unlawful government. It is an\nanabaptistical tenet, that an heathen magistrate is not from God, which\nGerhard, _de Magistrate Politico_, p. 498, 499, fully confutes.\n\nSixthly, He saith of Christ, p. 40, \u201cHe doth nothing as Mediator which he\ndoth not as God or as man.\u201d It is a dangerous mistake, for take the work\nof mediation itself, he neither doth it as God, nor as man, but as\nGod-man.\n\nSeventhly, He saith, p. 35, \u201cNothing can be said of Christ as second\nperson in Trinity, in opposition to Mediator, but in opposition to man\nthere may.\u201d So that he will not admit of this opposition. Christ, as the\nSecond Person in the Trinity, is equal and consubstantial to the Father,\nbut, as Mediator, he is not equal to his Father, but less than his Father,\nand subject and subordinate to his Father\u2014a distinction used by our\ndivines against the Anti-Trinitarians and Socinians. Now by his not\nadmitting of this distinction, he doth by consequence mire himself in\nSocinianism; for Christ, as Mediator, is the Father\u2019s servant, Isa. xlii.\n1; and the Father is greater than he, John xiv. 28; and as the head of the\nman is Christ, so the head of Christ is God, 1 Cor. xi. 3. If, therefore,\nit cannot be said of Christ, as he is the Second Person in the Trinity,\nthat his Father is not greater than he, and that he is not subordinate to\nGod as his head, then farewell Anti-Socinianism. I dare boldly say, it is\nimpossible to confute the Socinians, or to assert the eternal Godhead of\nJesus Christ, except somewhat be affirmed of him as the Second Person of\nthe Trinity, which must be denied of him as he is Mediator, and something\nbe denied of him as he is the Second Person in the Trinity, which must be\naffirmed of him as he is Mediator.\n\nEighthly, He saith, p. 36, That Christ, \u201cby his mediation, hath obtained\nfrom the Father that he shall not judge any man according to rigour, but\nas they are in or out of Christ; all deferring of judgment from the wicked\nis in and for Christ, which otherwise the justice of God would not allow.\u201d\nThen Christ did thus far make satisfaction to the justice of God in the\nbehalf of the wicked, and die for them, that judgment might be deferred\nfrom them, and thus far perform acts of mediation for the savages and\nMohammedans, and for them that never heard the gospel, that by such\nmediation he hath obtained of the Father that they shall be judged not\naccording to rigour, but by the gospel. Which intimateth that Christ hath\ntaken away all their sins against the law, so that all men shall now go\nupon a new score, and none shall be condemned or judged by the law, but by\nthe gospel only; for if Christ have not taken away their sins against the\nlaw, the justice of God will judge them according to the rigour of the\nlaw. Must not every jot of the law be fulfilled? And is there not a\nnecessity that every one undergo the curse and rigour of the law, or else\nthat the Mediator hath undergone it for them?\n\nNinthly, He propounds this query, p. 44: \u201cWhether ministers have any right\nto those privileges which are given to the church more than another\nChristian,\u201d and he holds the negative. Now the preaching of the word, the\nadministration of the sacraments, and the power of the keys, are\nprivileges given to the church, that is, for the church\u2019s good: \u201cFor all\nthings are yours (saith the Apostle), whether Paul, or Apollos,\u201d &c., 1\nCor. iii. 21, 22. Therefore, by Mr Hussey\u2019s divinity, any other Christian\nhath as much right to administer word, sacraments, keys, as the minister.\n\nCome on now to Mr Coleman\u2019s errors in divinity, not to repeat what was\nexpressed in my _Nihil Respondes_, but to take off the _Male Dicis_ in the\nmain points.\n\nTenthly, The tenth heterodoxy shall therefore be this, That whatsoever is\ngiven to Christ, he hath it not as the eternal Son of God. Into this ditch\ndid Mr Coleman first fall, and then Mr Hussey, p. 25, after him. I said\nthis tenet leadeth to a blasphemous heresy. For the better understanding\nwhereof let it be remembered what I did promise in my _Nihil Respondes_,\np. 11, in reply to his proposition, \u201cThat which is given to Christ he hath\nit not as God. This (said I) is in opposition to what I said, p. 45,\nconcerning the headship and dignity of Christ, as the natural Son of God,\nthe image of the invisible God, Col. i. 15, and, p. 43, of the dominion of\nChrist, as he is the eternal Son of God. This being premised,\u201d &c. Mr\nColeman, without taking the least notice of that which I did purposely and\nplainly premise, begins to speak of God _essentially_; and that if\nsomething may be given to Christ as God, then something may be given to\nGod, and then God is not absolutely perfect, &c., _Male Dicis_, p. 13, 14.\nThus he turneth over to the essence and nature of God what I spake of the\nSecond Person in the Trinity, or of Christ as he is the eternal Son of\nGod. Was not the question between him and me, Whether the kingdom and\ndominion over all things may be said to be given to Christ as he is the\neternal Son of God. This is the point which he did argue against, because\nit takes off his argument first brought to prove that all government, even\ncivil, is given to Christ as he is Mediator. And still from the beginning\nI spake of Christ as the Second Person in the Trinity, or the eternal Son\nof God. Thus therefore the case stands: The reverend brother, to prove\nthat an universal sovereignty and government over all things is given to\nChrist as he is Mediator, and to confute my assertion that it is given to\nChrist as he is the eternal Son of God, doth frame this argument against\nme, \u201cThat which is given to Christ he hath it not as God. But here dignity\nis given to Christ; therefore not here to be taken as God;\u201d where there is\nmore in the conclusion than in the premises; for the conclusion which\nnaturally follows had been this, Therefore Christ hath not here dignity as\nGod. It seems he was ashamed of the conclusion, yet not of the premises\nwhich infer the conclusion. But this by the way. I speak to his\nproposition, \u201cThat which is given to Christ he hath it not as God.\u201d These\nwords \u201cas God,\u201d either he understands \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03b9\u03c9\u03b4\u1ff6\u03c2, _essentially_, or\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03c2, _personally_; that is, either in regard of the nature and\nessence of God, which is common to the Son of God with the Father and the\nHoly Ghost, and in respect whereof they three are one; or in regard of the\nperson of the Word, as Christ is the Second Person in the Trinity, and\npersonally distinct from the Father and the Holy Ghost. If in the former\nsense, then he must lay aside his whole argument, as utterly impertinent,\nand making nothing at all against my thesis, which affirmed that an\nuniversal dominion and kingdom over all things is given to Christ, not as\nhe is Mediator (in which capacity he is only King of the church), but as\nhe is the eternal Son of God. In opposing of which assertion, as the\nreverend brother was before _nihil respondens_, so now he is twice nought.\nBut if in the other sense he understands his proposition (which I must\nneeds suppose he doth, it being in opposition to what I said), then I\nstill aver his proposition will infer a blasphemous heresy, as I proved\nbefore by a clear demonstration: That which is given to Christ he hath it\nnot as God. But life, glory, &c., is given to Christ; therefore Christ\nhath not life, glory, &c., as God. The reverend brother saith, \u201cI\nacknowledge the conclusion unsound, and I deny not but that the major is\nmine own, and the minor is the very Scripture.\u201d Yet he denies the\nconclusion, and clears himself by this simile, \u201cThat which was given this\npoor man he had not before. But a shilling was given this poor man;\ntherefore he had not a shilling before: where both propositions are true,\nyet the conclusion is false (saith he), contrary to the axiom, _Ex veris\nnil nisi verum_.\u201d You are extremely out, Sir: your syllogism of the poor\nman is _fallacia ab amphibolia_. The major of it is ambiguous, dubious,\nand fallacious, and cannot be admitted without a distinction. But here you\nacknowledge the major of my argument to be your own, and so not fallacious\nin your opinion. You acknowledge the minor to be Scripture. You have not\nfound four terms in my premises, nor charged my major or minor with the\nleast fault in matter or form, and yet, forsooth, you deny the conclusion,\nand do not admit that incontrovertible maxim in logic, _Ex veris nil nisi\nverum_; or, as Kekerman hath it, _Ex veris pr\u00e6emissis falsam conclusionem\ncolligi est impossibile_,(1357)\u2014It is impossible that a false conclusion\nshould be gathered from true premises. Now let us hear what he would say\nagainst my conclusion;\u2014it is concerning the sense of the word _hath_: \u201cFor\n_hath_ (saith he) by me is used for receiving or having by virtue of the\ngift, but by him for having fundamentally, originally.\u201d You are still out,\nSir. I take it just as you take it. For though the Son of God, as God\nessentially, or in respect of the nature and essence of God, which is\ncommon to all Three Persons in the blessed Trinity, hath originally of\nhimself a kingdom and dominion over all; yet, as he is the Second Person\nin the Trinity, begotten of, and distinct from the Father, he hath the\nkingdom and dominion over all not of himself, but by virtue of the gift of\nhis Father. So that the reverend brother is still _nihil respondens_, and\ntherefore he shall be concluded in this syllogism: He who holds that\nwhatsoever is given to Christ he hath it not by virtue of the gift, as he\nis the eternal Son of God or Second Person in the Trinity, but only as\nMediator,\u2014he holds, by consequence, that Christ hath not glory by virtue\nof his Father\u2019s gift, as he is the eternal Son of God or Second Person in\nthe Trinity. But Mr Coleman holds the former; therefore Mr Coleman holds\nthe latter. The consequence in the proposition is proved from John xvii.\n22, \u201cThe glory which thou gavest me.\u201d The assumption he will own, or else\nquit his argument against my distinction of the double kingdom given to\nChrist, as he is the eternal Son of God, and as Mediator. The conclusion\nwhich follows is heretical; for whereas the Nicene Creed said of Christ,\nin regard of his eternal generation, that he is _Deus de Deo, Lumen de\nlumine_,\u2014God of God, Light of light, Mr Coleman\u2019s argument will infer that\nhe is not only _ex seipso Deus_, but _ex seipso Filius_; and so deny the\neternal generation of the Son of God, and the communication of the\nGodhead, and the sovereignty, glory, and attributes thereof, from the\nFather to the Son. For if Christ, as he is the eternal Son of God, hath\nnot glory by virtue of his Father\u2019s gift, then he hath it not by virtue of\nthe eternal generation and communication, but fundamentally and originally\nof himself.\n\nAs for the other branch of Mr Coleman\u2019s argument, tending to prove that\nChrist, as he is the eternal Son of God, cannot be given, which he\nendeavours to vindicate, p. 14, 15, I answer these two things:\n\n_First_, Granting all that he saith, he concludes nothing against me; for\nI did from the beginning expound these words, Eph. i. 22, \u201cAnd gave him to\nbe the head over all things to the church,\u201d in this sense, That Christ as\nMediator is given only to the church, to be her head, but he that is given\nas Mediator to the church is _over all_. So that the giving of Christ\nthere spoken of is as Mediator, and he is given to the church only, which\nI cleared by the Syriac, \u201cAnd him who is over all he gave to be the head\nto the church.\u201d But his being _over all_, there spoken of, if understood\nof glory, dignity, excellency over all, so Christ is over all as Mediator\n(yea, in regard of the exaltation of his human nature), and this helpeth\nnot Mr Coleman, who intends to prove from that place that all government,\neven civil, is given to Christ as Mediator. But if understood of a kingdom\nand government over all, so he is over all, as he is the eternal Son of\nGod or Second Person of the Trinity, and not as Mediator.\n\n_Secondly_, The question which the reverend brother falls upon, concerning\nthe personal inhabitation of the Holy Ghost, will never follow from\nanything which I said, more than God\u2019s giving of his Son to us will infer\na personal inhabitation of the Son of God in us. That which I said was to\nthis intent, That both the Son of God and the Holy Ghost are given, not as\nGod essentially; that is, in respect of the Godhead itself, or as they are\none in nature with the Father (for so the Father that giveth, and the Holy\nGhost which is given, could not be distinguished), but the Son is given as\nthe Son proceeding from the Father, and the Holy Ghost is given as the\nHoly Ghost proceeding and sent from the Father and the Son. Whether he be\ngiven to dwell personally in us, or by his gracious operations only, is\nanother question, which hath nothing to do with the present argument, and\ntherefore I will not be led out of my way.\n\nEleventhly, The eleventh heterodoxy is this: \u201cI see no absurdity to hold\nthat every man in authority is either Christ\u2019s vicegerent, or the\ndevil\u2019s.\u201d _Male Dicis_, p. 16. Here I make this inference: Heathen and\ninfidel magistrates, either, 1. They are not men in authority; or, 2. They\nare Christ\u2019s vicegerents; or, 3. They are the devil\u2019s, _Male Dicis._ If he\nsay they are not men in authority, he shall contradict the apostle Paul,\nwho calls them higher powers, Rom. xiii. 1, and men in authority, 1 Tim.\nii. 2, speaking in reference even to the magistrates of that time, who\nwere infidels. If he say they are Christ\u2019s vicegerents, then, 1. He must\nsay, that Christ, as Mediator, reigns without the church, and is a king to\nthose to whom he is neither priest nor prophet. 2. He must find a\ncommission given by Christ to the infidel magistrate. 3. Whom in authority\nwill he make to be the devil\u2019s vicegerents if infidel magistrates be\nChrist\u2019s vicegerents? If he say that they are the devil\u2019s vicegerents,\nthen it follows, 1. That they who resist the devil\u2019s vicegerent resist the\nordinance of God; for they that resist an infidel magistrate, and do not\nsubmit to his lawful authority (which his infidelity takes not away), is\nsaid, Rom. xiii. 2, to resist the ordinance of God. 2. That the apostle\nPaul bade pray for the devil\u2019s vicegerent, 1 Tim. ii. 1, 2. The reverend\nbrother doth but more and more wind himself into a labyrinth of errors,\nwhile he endeavours to take away the distinction of the twofold kingdom,\nand the twofold vicegerentship of God and of Christ.\n\nTwelfthly, The twelfth heterodoxy followeth: \u201cNow it is true that Christ,\nbeing God as well as man, hath of himself originally, as God, whatsoever\nhe hath by virtue of gift as Mediator,\u201d _Male Dicis_, p. 13. Now subsume\nChrist hath, by virtue of gift, as Mediator, the priestly office;\ntherefore, by Mr Coleman\u2019s principles, Christ hath of himself originally,\nas God, the priestly office. And if Christ hath it of himself originally\nas God, then the Father and the Holy Ghost hath it also; so that by his\ndoctrine the Father and the Holy Ghost shall be the priests of the church\nas well as Christ, for Christ hath nothing of himself originally as God\nwhich the Father and the Holy Ghost have not likewise.\n\nThirteenthly, The thirteenth and last error concerneth the office of\ndeacons. Not only a widow but a deacon is denied to be a church officer,\nor to have any warrant from Scripture. \u201cI hold not a widow a church\nofficer (saith he); no more do I a deacon; both having a like foundation\nin Scripture, which is truly none at all,\u201d _Male Dicis,_ p. 9. If this was\nhis opinion formerly, why did he not in so main a point enter his dissent\nfrom the votes of the Assembly concerning deacons, together with his\nreasons? Well, his opinion is so now, whereby he runneth contrary not only\nto the reformed churches (which it seems weigh not much in his balance),\nbut to the plain Scripture, which speaks of the office of a deacon, 1 Tim.\niii. 10; and this could be no civil office, but an ecclesiastical office,\nfor the deacons were chosen by the church, were ordained with prayer and\nlaying on of hands, and their charge was to take special care of the poor;\nall which is clear, Acts vi. If he had given us the grounds of his opinion\nhe should have heard more against it.\n\n\n\n\n                                CHAPTER V.\n\n\nTHE PRELATICAL WAY AND TENETS OF MR COLEMAN AND MR HUSSEY, REPUGNANT ALSO,\nIN DIVERS PARTICULARS, TO THE VOTES AND ORDINANCES OF PARLIAMENT.\n\n\n1. Mr Coleman, in his _Re-examination_, p. 14, makes the Parliament to be\nchurch governors and church officers to the whole kingdom. It was an\nargument used against the prelates, that ecclesiastical and civil\ngovernment, spiritual and secular administrations, are inconsistent in the\nsame persons, either of which requireth the whole man. It was another\nexception against the prelate, that he assumed the power of church\ngovernment and ecclesiastical jurisdiction over the whole diocese, which\nwas much more than he could discharge. How will Mr Coleman avoid the\ninvolving the Parliament into prelatical guiltiness by his principles,\nwhich we avoid by ours?\n\n2. The prelates sought great things for themselves rather than to purge\nthe church of scandals. What other thing was it when Mr Coleman, in his\nthird rule, instead of exhorting to the purging the church, called only\nfor learning and competency, and told it out, that this will \u201cget us an\nable ministry, and procure us honour enough.\u201d Mr Hussey, in his Epistle to\nmyself, tells me, that our attending on reading, exhortation and doctrine\n(without government) will obtain the magistrate\u2019s love, \u201cmore honour, more\nmaintenance:\u201d something for shame he behoved to add of the punishing of\nsin (yet he will not have the minister called from his study to be\ntroubled or to take any pains in discipline), but behold the love of the\nmagistrate; more honour and more maintenance, are strong ingredients in\nthe Erastian electuary.\n\n3. Mr Hussey will have ministers placed \u201cwithout any regard to the\nallowance or disallowance of the people,\u201d _Epist. to the Parliament._ This\nis prelatical, or rather more than prelatical.\n\n4. The prelates were great enemies to ruling elders: so are Mr Coleman and\nMr Hussey, who acknowledge no warrant from the word of God for that\ncalling, nor admit of any ruling elders who are not magistrates,\u2014a\ndistinction which was used by Saravia and Bilson in reference to the\nJewish elders, and by Bishop Hall in reference to the elders of the\nancient church who were not preaching elders, _Assert. of Episcop. by\nDivine Right_, p. 208, 209, 221,\u2014and now, forsooth, Mr Hussey, in his\n_Epistle to the Parliament_, doth earnestly beseech them to \u201cset up\nclasses, consisting only of ministers, whose work should be only to preach\nthe word,\u201d &c. Such classes, I dare say, the prelates themselves will\nadmit of. Sure the Scottish prelates, when they were at their highest,\nyielded as much.\n\nMr Coleman and Mr Hussey hold, that ruling elders and a church government\ndistinct from the civil government, in the times of persecution and under\npagan magistrates, can be no warrant for the like where the state is\nChristian. This plea for Christian magistracy was Bishop Whitgift\u2019s plea\nagainst the ruling elders, _Answer to the Admon._, p. 114.\n\n6. Mr Hussey, p. 22, saith, That granting the incestuous Corinthian to be\nexcommunicated, \u201cthe decree was Paul\u2019s and not the Corinthians\u2019,\u201d and that\nit no way appertained to them under the notion of a church. This is\nSaravia\u2019s answer to Beza, _de Tripl. Epist. Genere_, p. 42, 43, yea, the\nPapists\u2019 answer to Protestant writers, by which they would hold up the\nauthority and sole jurisdiction of the prelates, as the apostles\u2019\nsuccessors, to excommunicate.\n\nThey do not more agree with the prelatical principles than they differ\nfrom the votes and ordinances of Parliament, which is the other point that\nI have here undertaken to discover; and I shall do it by the particular\ninstances following:\u2014\n\nFirst, The ordinance of the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament, for\nthe calling of an assembly of divines, beginneth thus: \u201cWhereas, among the\ninfinite blessings of Almighty God upon this nation, none is, or can be,\nmore dear unto us than the purity of our religion, and for that as yet\nmany things remain in the liturgy, discipline, and government of the\nchurch, which do necessarily require a farther and more perfect\nreformation than as yet hath been attained: and whereas it hath been\ndeclared and resolved, by the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament,\nthat the present church government, by archbishops, bishops, &c., is evil\nand justly offensive, &c.; and that, therefore, they are resolved that the\nsame shall be taken away, and that such a government shall be settled in\nthe church as may be most agreeable to God\u2019s holy word, and most apt to\nprocure and preserve the peace of the church at home, and nearer agreement\nwith the church of Scotland, and other reformed churches abroad.\u201d After it\nwas resolved and voted in both the honourable houses of Parliament, and\nsent as one of the propositions to the treaty at Uxbridge, \u201cThat many\nparticular congregations shall be under one presbyterial government.\u201d Now,\ntherefore, what can be more contrary to the votes and ordinances of\nParliament than that which Mr Coleman and Mr Hussey hold, that there ought\nto be no ecclesiastical government beside civil magistracy, except we\nplease to take preaching and baptism under the name of government, as if,\nforsooth, the Parliament had meant, by presbyterial government,\nParliamentary government; or as if, by the purity of religion in point of\nthe discipline of government of the church, they had intended nothing but\ntheir civil rights and privileges; or as if the wise and honourable Houses\nhad understood themselves no better than to intend that for a nearer\nagreement with the church of Scotland and other reformed churches, which\nis the widest difference from them, to wit, the Erastian way.\n\nSecondly, In the same ordinance of Parliament for the calling of an\nassembly of divines, it is ordained that the assembly, after conferring\nand treating among themselves touching the liturgy, discipline, and\ngovernment of the church, or vindication and clearing of the doctrine of\nthe same, shall deliver their opinions or advices of or touching the\nmatters aforesaid to both or either of the houses of Parliament, yet Mr\nHussey, _Epist. to the Parliament_, p. 36, will not have classes to put\nanything to the vote, but to hold on the disputes till all end in accord,\nand in unanimous consent of the whole clergy. But how can the Assembly,\nafter disputes, express their sense, and deliver their opinions and advice\nto the Parliament, as they are required, except they do it by putting to\nthe vote? Mr Coleman himself hath consented, yea, sometime called to put\nthings to the vote; and as for classes, will any man imagine, that when\nboth houses of Parliament did vote \u201cthat many particular congregations\nshall be under one presbyterial government,\u201d their meaning was, that the\nclassical presbytery shall only schoolwise dispute, and put nothing to the\nvote; or that the classical presbytery shall in common dispense the word\nand sacraments to many congregations, and that either the classical\npresbytery shall go to the several congregations successively, or the many\ncongregations come to the classical presbytery, for preaching and\nbaptising? I admire what opinion Mr Hussey can have of the Parliamentary\nvote concerning presbyterial government.\n\nThirdly, Mr Hussey, _Epistle to the Parliament_, p. 4, 5, will have\nministers placed \u201cwithout any regard to the allowance and disallowance of\nthe people,\u201d yet the ordinance of Parliament, for giving power to\nclassical presbyteries to ordain ministers, doth appoint that he who is\nexamined and approved by the presbytery shall be \u201csent to the church or\nother place where he is to serve (if it may be done with safety and\nconveniency), there to preach three several days, and to converse with the\npeople, that they may have trial of his gifts for their edification, and\nmay have time and leisure to inquire into, and the better to know his life\nand conversation,\u201d after which the ordinance appointeth public notice to\nbe given, and a day set to the congregation to put in what exceptions they\nhave against him.\n\nFourthly, Mr Hussey in that _Epistle to the Parliament_, p. 5, saith, \u201cOh\nthat this honourable court would hasten to set up classes consisting only\nof ministers whose work should be only to preach the word, and weekly meet\nin schools of divinity!\u201d Here is a double contradiction to the ordinances\nof Parliament, for in the directions of the Lords and Commons for choosing\nof ruling elders, and speedy settling of presbyterial government, it is\nappointed that ruling elders shall be members both of classes and\nsynodical assemblies, together with the ministers of the word. Again, the\nordinance about suspension of scandalous persons from the sacrament\nappointeth other work to classes, beside preaching and disputing, namely,\nthe receiving and judging of appeals from the congregational eldership. Mr\nColeman, in _Male Dicis_, p. 12, professeth that he excludeth ruling\nelders from church government, yet he can hardly be ignorant that as the\nParliament hath voted \u201cthat many particular congregations shall be under\none presbyterial government,\u201d so their votes do commit that government to\npastors and ruling elders jointly.\n\nI will not here repeat the particulars wherein I showed in my _Nihil\nRespondes_ that Mr Coleman hath abused the honourable houses of\nParliament, unto which particulars he hath answered as good as nothing.\nThe honourable houses, in their wisdom, will soon observe whether such\nmen, whose avouched tenets are so flatly repugnant to the parliamentary\nvotes and ordinances, are like to be good pleaders for Christian\nmagistracy.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER VI.\n\n\nMR COLEMAN\u2019S WRONGING OF THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.\n\n\nMr Coleman ends his _Male Dicis_ with a resentment of accusations charged\nupon him by a stranger, a commissioner from another church. The lot of\nstrangers were very hard, if, when they are falsely accused to authority,\nthey may not answer for themselves. He may remember the first accusation\nwas made by himself, when in his sermon to the Parliament, he did flatly\nimpute to the commissioners from the church of Scotland a great part of\nthe fault of hindering union in the Assembly of Divines, as having come\nbiassed with a national determination; his doctrine also at that time\nbeing such, as did not only reflect upon the government of the church of\nScotland, but tend to the subversion of the covenant in one principal\npoint, without which there can be small or no hopes of attaining the other\nends of the covenant. Since that time he did in his _Re-examination_, and\nnow again in his _Male Dicis_, fall foully upon the church of Scotland,\nnot only by gross mistakes and misrepresentations of our way, but by most\ngroundless aspersions and most uncharitable and unjust calumnies. I am\nsure I am not so much a stranger to this doctrine as he is to the church\nof Scotland, of which notwithstanding he boldly speaks his pleasure in\ndivers particulars, which he will never be able to make good.\n\nFirst, He hath aspersed that church in the point of promiscuous\ncommunicating. This I confuted in my _Nihil Respondes_: and told him both\nof the order of the church and practice of conscientious ministers to the\ncontrary. Now what replieth he?\n\n\u201c_First_, This refining work, I think, is not one year old in Scotland, or\nmuch more. I was lately informed that in Edinburgh it is begun: whether\nanywhere else I know not,\u201d _Male Dicis_, p. 20. Are not these now good\ngrounds of censuring and aspersing a reformed church (whose name hath been\nas precious ointment among other churches abroad), \u201cI think; I was\ninformed; whether it be otherwise I know not?\u201d He will sit in Cornhill,\nand tell the world what he imagines or hears of the church of Scotland,\nand that, forsooth, must be taken for a truth. Yet there was both rules\nand practice in the church of Scotland for debarring ignorant and\nscandalous persons from the sacrament before he was born, though all was\nput out of course under the prelates.\n\n\u201c_Secondly_ (saith the reverend brother), It is not a very effectual\nsin-censuring and church-refining government, under which, after fourscore\nyears\u2019 constant practice, divers thousands in the kingdom, and some\nhundreds in one particular parish, because of ignorance and scandal, are\nyet unfit to communicate,\u201d _Male Dicis_, p. 20. _Ans._ 1. It is\nnotoriously false that there hath been fourscore years\u2019 constant practice\nof presbyterial government in Scotland; for the prelates there were above\nthirty years\u2019 standing. 2. \u201cShall the earth be made to bring forth in one\nday, or shall a nation be born at once?\u201d saith the prophet, Isa. lxvi. 8.\nIt is no easy matter to get a whole nation purged of ignorant and\nscandalous persons. 3. He may take notice that the apostle Paul, almost in\nall his epistles, maketh mention of scandalous persons among those to whom\nhe wrote, warning them not to have fellowship with such, to note them, to\navoid them. If the apostolic churches were not free of such, what great\nmarvel if we be not? 4. Before he objected promiscuous communicating. This\nbeing cleared to be a calumny, now he objecteth that there are such as are\nunfit to communicate. But while he thus seeketh a quarrel against church\ngovernment, he doth upon the matter quarrel the preaching of the gospel\nitself; for he that imputeth it as a fault to the church government that\nthere are still divers thousands who, by reason of ignorance or scandal,\nare unfit to communicate, doth, by consequence, yea, much more, impute it\nas a fault to the preaching of the gospel in England, Scotland, Ireland,\nFrance, Germany, the Low Countries, Switzerland, Sweden, Poland,\u2014that in\nall these, and other reformed churches, after fourscore years\u2019 constant\npreaching of the gospel (which is appointed of God to turn unconverted and\nunregenerate persons from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan\nto God), there are not only divers thousands, but divers millions, who, by\nreason of ignorance or scandal, are yet unfit to communicate. If the word\ndo not open the eyes of the ignorant, and convert the scandalous, what\nmarvel that church government cannot do it? Church government is not an\nilluminating and regenerating ordinance as the word is. But this church\ngovernment can and will do, yea, hath done, where it is duly executed: It\nis a most blessed means for keeping the ordinances from visible and known\npollution, which doth very much honour God, shame sin, and commend piety;\nit putteth a visible difference between the precious and the vile, the\nclean and the unclean, the silver and the dross; and may well be,\ntherefore, called a church-refining ordinance.\n\nSecondly, The second calumny was this, \u201cI myself (said he) did hear the\npresbytery of Edinburgh censure a woman to be banished out of the gates of\nthe city.\u201d I answered him in his own language, \u201cIt is at the best a most\nuncharitable slander:\u201d and told him there is no banishment in Scotland but\nby the civil magistrate; and that he ought to have inquired and informed\nhimself better.\n\nNow he doth neither adhere to his calumny, or offer to make it good, nor\nyet quit it, or confess he was mistaken, but propoundeth three new queries\n(_Male Dicis_, p. 21), still forgetting his own rule of keeping to the\nlaws of disputation and matter in hand. For the particular in hand he only\nsaith thus much, \u201cI did make inquiry, and from the presbytery itself I\nreceived information, but not satisfaction.\u201d He tells not what information\nhe received. If he will say that he received information that the\nbanishment was by the magistrate, how could he then report that it was by\nthe presbytery. If he say that the information he had from the presbytery\ngave him any ground for the report which he hath made, let him speak it\nout, and the world shall know the untruth of it. He may remember, withal,\nthat by his principles an accusation may not be received against an elder\n(much less against an eldership), in reference either to the judgment of\ncharity, or to ministerial conviction, except under two or three\nwitnesses. If, therefore, he would have his accusation believed, let him\nfind two or three witnesses.\n\nThirdly, Whereas I had rectified a great mistake of the reverend brother\nwhen I told him, \u201cIt is accidental to the ruling elder to be of the\nnobility, or to nobles to be ruling elders; there are but some so, and\nmany otherwise,\u201d he is not pleased to be rectified in this, but replieth,\n\u201cI say, first, It is continually so; secondly, The king\u2019s commissioner in\nthe General Assembly, is his presence accidental?\u201d _Male Dicis_, p. 10.\nSee now here whether he understandeth what he saith, or whereof he\naffirmeth. That which he saith is continually so, is almost continually\notherwise; that is, there are continually some ruling elders who are not\nnobles, and there are continually some nobles who are not ruling elders.\nSo that, if anything be accidental, this is accidental, that an elder be\nof the nobility, or nobles be elders; they are neither nobles _qua_\nelders, nor elders _qua_ nobles. It is no less accidental that the king\u2019s\ncommissioner be present in the General Assembly; for there have been\nGeneral Assemblies in Scotland, both before the erection and since the\nlast casting out of Prelacy, in which there was no commissioner from the\nking. And when the king sends a commissioner, it is accidental that he be\nof the nobility; for the king hath sent commissioners to General\nAssemblies who were not of the nobility.\n\nFourthly, A fourth injury, not to be passed in silence, is this: Mr\nColeman hath endeavoured to make the world believe that the commissioners\nfrom the church of Scotland came to the Assembly biassed with something\nadventitious from without, which he calls a national determination, and\nthat we are not permitted by those that sent us to receive any further\nlight from the word of God. I shall say no more of the bias, because, as I\ntold him before, the standers by see well enough which way the bias runs.\nBut most strange it is, that after I had confuted his calumny, not only\nfrom our paper first presented to the grand committee, but from the\nGeneral Assembly\u2019s own letter to the Assembly of Divines, showing that\nthey had ordered the laying aside of some particular customs in the church\nof Scotland, for the nearer uniformity with the church of England, so much\nendeared unto them, yet he still adhereth to his former calumny (_Male\nDicis_, p. 20), without taking notice of the evidence which I had given to\nthe contrary. And not content with this, he still quarrelleth with my\nallegation of certain parallel examples, which are by him so far\ndisesteemed, that he hath not stuck to pass the very same censure upon the\nforeign divines who came to the Synod of Dort which the Arminians did. The\nsame he saith of Alexander\u2019s coming to the Council of Nice, and of Cyril\u2019s\ncoming to the Council of Ephesus; all these, I say, he still involveth\nunder the same censure with us; for whereas he had alleged that I\njustified the bias, this I denied, and called for his proof. His reply now\nis thus: \u201cIs not the allegation of the examples of the like doing a\njustification of the act done?\u201d _Male Dicis_, p. 20. This reply can have\nno other sense but this, That I justified the thing which he thinks our\nbias, because I justified those other divines who (as he holds) came also\nbiassed in like manner. I am persuaded this one particular, his joining\nwith the Arminians in their exceptions against the Synod of Dort, would\nmake all the reformed churches, if they could all speak to him _uno ore_,\nto cry _Male audis_. And I am as firmly persuaded that the confession\nwhich I have extorted from him in this place, that he knoweth no\nadventitious engagements those divines had, makes him irreconcileably to\ncontradict himself; for he made them but just now biassed in the same\nmanner as he thinks us, and made my allegation of their examples to be a\njustification of the bias charged by him upon us: as, therefore, he doth\nmust uncharitably and untruly judge us to be biassed with adventitious\nengagements, so doth he judge of them. Neither can he assoil them while he\ncondemneth us; for the articles concerning predestination, the death of\nChrist, grace, free will, and perseverance, were determined before the\nSynod of Dort by most (if not by all) of those reformed churches who sent\ncommissioners thither, as much as presbyterial government was determined\nin the church of Scotland before the reverend Assembly of Divines was\ncalled. And this pre-engagement and predetermination of those reformed\nchurches was the main objection of the Arminians against the foreign\ndivines who came to the Synod of Dort. To conclude this point, Mr Coleman\nhimself, in his _Re-examination_, p. 7, avoucheth roundly, that the\nforeign divines came to Dort, not as divines, by dispute and disquisition\nto find out truth, but as judges, to censure all different opinions as\nerroneous.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER VII.\n\n\nCALUMNIES CONFUTED, AND THAT QUESTION BRIEFLY CLEARED, WHETHER THE\nMAGISTRATE BE CHRIST\u2019S VICEGERENT.\n\n\nMr Hussey, in his title page, tells us he hath prosecuted the\nargumentative part without any personal reflections, yet I could instance\ndivers personal reflections in his book which any moderate impartial man\nwill extremely dislike; but what should this be to the edifying of my\nreader, the end which, next to the glory of God and the promoting of\nreformation, I have proposed to myself? Yet I must needs take notice of\nsome calumnies.\n\nFirst, In his _Epistle_, p. 8, he offereth it to be examined whether I was\nnot beside my text, Mal. iii. 2, when I pressed from it reformation by\necclesiastical discipline: whether that refiner\u2019s fire and fuller\u2019s soap\ndoth not point at another and a nearer operation upon the souls and\nspirits of men by the blood, word, Spirit, and grace of Christ: and\nwhether such handling of a similitude in a text be to preach the mind of\nGod, or men\u2019s own fancy. It is no discontent to me, but I shall rejoice in\nit, that men of piety and judgment examine my doctrine by the word of God,\nand hold fast what they find agreeable to the Scriptures, and no more. But\nis this brotherly, or fair, or conscionable dealing, to offer my sermon to\nbe examined under such a notion, when he hath not only said nothing to\nconfute any of my doctrines, as not arising from my text, or any of my\napplications, as not arising from my doctrines; but hath also untruly\nrepresented my sermon, as coming short of, or not expressing that which\nindeed it hath most principally and most expressly in it? That of\nreformation was but a part of my sermon; and that of church censures,\nagainst scandalous sinners, was but the least part of that part. And why\nshould not the fuller\u2019s soap in the house of God, take off those spots in\nour feasts? Why should not the refiner\u2019s fire purge away the wicked of the\nearth like dross? so David calls them. That reformation is one part of the\nHoly Ghost\u2019s intendment in that text, is Gualther\u2019s opinion as well as\nmine, yet he thinks Gualther his own. Nay, I proved it from comparing\nscripture with scripture, which is the best way that I know to clear\nscripture. Why did he not answer my proofs? But beside all that I said of\nreformation, had I not other three doctrines out of that text\ncomprehending all that which Mr Hussey hinteth as omitted by me, and yet\nintended in the text? Dare he say that I did not take in purgation by the\nword? (though I confess he doth not well prove it from the words which he\nciteth, \u201cIs not my word an hammer?\u201d But it is proved by the words which he\nciteth not, \u201cIs not my word like as a fire?\u201d) Did I not expressly say that\nChrist is to us as a refiner\u2019s fire and as fuller\u2019s soap three ways,\u2014by\nreformation, by tribulation, by mortification? Did I not handle the last\ntwo as well as the first? Oh let no more such gross calumnies be found\namong those who profess to be brethren!\n\nSecondly, Mr Hussey, in his epistle to myself, gives it out that I say,\n\u201cWe have leave from the civil magistrate to preach the gospel,\u201d which he\ninterprets as if I denied that we preach the word with authority from\nChrist. It was _de facto_, not _de jure_, that I spake it. The magistrate\nhath power in his hand to hinder both doctrine and discipline, if he be an\nadversary, though it be the will of Christ that there be both doctrine and\ndiscipline, and the authority of both is from Christ. When the magistrate\nassisteth or countenanceth, or so much as doth not hinder the preaching of\nthe gospel, then he gives leave to it.\n\nThirdly, Mr Coleman, in his _Male Dicis_, p. 3, saith, \u201cI am confident the\nchurch of Scotland sent this Commissioner to dispute down our reasons, not\nto revile our persons.\u201d Why did he not, if he could, give instance of some\nreviling word written by me against his person? I have not so learned\nChrist. The Lord rebuke every railing and reviling spirit. I have given\nhim reason against railing; he hath given me railing against reason; I\nspake to his doctrine, he speaks to my place and relation, which is both\nthe _alpha_ and _omega_ of his _Male Dicis_.\n\nFourthly, \u201cKnowledge (saith he) is only with Mr Gillespie; others\nunderstand neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm,\u201d p. 3. He will\nsooner bring water out of flint than prove this consequence out of my\ntitle-page. Although I confess himself hath affirmed divers things of the\nchurch of Scotland which he doth not understand, as I have made plainly to\nappear. If he take a review of the title-page of his _Re-examination_, he\ngives more ground for this consequence,\u2014that Mr Coleman is the only man\nthat denies himself; others seek great things for themselves. Or from the\ntitle-page of his _Male Dicis_ this consequence will be as good,\u2014that Mr\nColeman is the only man that blesseth; others are revilers.\n\nFifthly, Thus saith Mr Coleman, \u201cO ye honourable house of Parliament, take\nyou notice that you manage that great place of yours under Christ and for\nChrist: He is your head, and you are his servants; and take you notice\nwithal that Mr Gillespie accounts this your reproach,\u201d _Male Dicis\nMaledicis_, p. 17. But O ye honourable house of Parliament, be pleased to\ntake notice of my own plain expression of my mind in my _Nihil Respondes._\np. 13: \u201cThe Christian magistrate manageth his office under and for Christ,\nthat is, so as to be serviceable for the kingdom and glory of Christ.\u201d And\nnow judge whether it be suitable to the sincerity and candour of a\nminister of the gospel to endeavour to make me odious to authority, by\nimputing to me that which not only I did not say, but the contrary whereof\nI did plainly express. The thing which I charged his doctrine with was\nthis, that by holding all government to be given to Christ as Mediator,\nand from him, as Mediator, derived to the magistrate as his vicegerent, he\nshaketh the foundation of magistracy. I am sure that which I hold, that\nall lawful magistrates are powers ordained by God, and are to be honoured\nand obeyed as God\u2019s vicegerents, is a firm and strong foundation for\nmagistracy. But that which Mr Coleman and Mr Hussey hold, viz., that the\nChristian magistrate holdeth his office of, under, and for Christ, as he\nis Mediator, and doth act _vice Christi_, as Christ\u2019s vicegerent, gives a\nmost dangerous wound to Christian magistracy, which I can demonstrate in\nmany particulars. I shall now give instance only in these few: First, They\nmust prove from Scripture that Christ, as Mediator, hath given a\ncommission of vicegerentship to Christian magistrates, and appointed them\nnot only to be serviceable to him, and to do his work (for that they must\nserve Christ, and be for his glory, is not controverted, nay, can never\nenough be commended to them), but also to govern _vice Christi_, in\nChrist\u2019s stead, and that not only as he is God, which is not controverted\nneither, but as he is Mediator. This, I say, they must prove, which they\nwill never be able to do, or otherwise they do, by their doctrine, lead\nthe magistrate into a snare, and leave him in it. For how shall he be\nacknowledged for a vicegerent who can show no commission nor warrant for\nhis vicegerentship? Secondly, Their doctrine tendeth to the altering of\nthe surest and best known tenure of magistracy, which is from God; for\nthey hold that God hath put all government, and all authority civil, and\nall, into the hands of Christ as Mediator; if the tenure from Christ fail,\nthen, by their doctrine, the tenure from God shall fail too. Thirdly, The\nvicegerent cannot act in that capacity, nor assume that power which his\nsovereign, whose vicegerent he is, ought not to assume if he were\npersonally present; so that, by their principles, it will follow that the\nChristian magistrate can act no farther, nor assume any other power of\ngovernment, than Christ himself might have assumed when he was on earth,\nor might now assume and exercise as Mediator if he were on earth. But\nChrist himself, when he was on earth, neither did exercise, nor was sent\nto exercise, civil judgment, Luke xii. 14; and the temporal sword, John\nxviii. 36; nor external observation and state, Luke xvii. 20, 21; and he\ndeclined to be an earthly king, John vi. 15. Therefore, by their\nprinciples, the Christian magistrate ought to forbear and avoid all these.\n\nA sixth calumny is this: Mr Coleman, descanting upon the governments\nmentioned 1 Cor. xii. 28, chargeth me with a circular argumentation: \u201cHe\ncircularly argues (saith he): they are civil, because God placed them\nthere, and God placed them there because they are civil,\u201d _Male Dicis\nMaledicis_, p. 9. I neither argued the one nor the other; they are both,\nSir, of your own forging. But this is not your first allegation of this\nkind. I sometime admire what oscitancy or supine negligence (to judge it\nno worse) this can be, to fancy to yourself that I have said what you\nwould, and then to bring forth your own apprehensions for my arguments.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER VIII.\n\n\nTHAT MR COLEMAN DOTH GREAT VIOLENCE, BOTH TO HIS OWN WORDS AND TO THE\nWORDS OF OTHERS WHOM HE CITETH.\n\n\nThe reverend brother hath offered extreme violence to his own declaration,\nof which let the leader now judge, comparing his declaration with his\ninterpretation.\u2014\n\n_Declaration_\n\nFor much of what is reported of my sermon I utterly deny, and refer myself\nto the sermon itself, for what I have acknowledged to be delivered by me,\nalthough it is my judgment, yet because I see it hath given a great deal\nof offence to this Assembly and the reverend Commissioners of Scotland, I\nam sorry I have given offence in the delivery thereof; and for the\nprinting, although I have an order, I will forbear, except I be further\ncommanded. THO. COLEMAN.\n\n_Interpretation_\n\nIt is a truth, and a Scripture truth, which I have delivered, and because\nI see a scripture truth hath given offence to the Commissioners of\nScotland, &c. I am sorry. This must needs be the sense; I am sure this was\nthe sense intended, _Male Dicis, Maledicis_, p. 18.\n\nSurely if such Orleans glosses be admitted upon men\u2019s declarations, signed\nwith their hands, and if he who hath subscribed himself sorry that he hath\ngiven offence in the delivery of such a doctrine, shall be allowed to\nexpound himself thus; that he meant he was sorry others had taken offence\nat a Scripture truth, that is, he was sorry for our fault, not for his\nown. I know not how men shall trust one another\u2019s declarations, or how we\ncan practically, as well as doctrinally, confute the Jesuitical\nequivocations and mental reservations. And if this must needs be the sense\nwhich now the reverend brother gives, and was the sense intended, why\nsaith he that he did publicly recal that declaration? He might make a\nrevocation of it, in the sense wherein I understood it: but how could he\nmake a revocation of it as himself understood it, and as he saith the\nsense must needs be? Was this his sorrow for our taking offence at a\nScripture truth, a sorrow to be sorrowed for? Why did he not rather make a\nsecond declaration the next day interpreting the former? And whereas he\nthinks that his revocation ought to have been mentioned together with his\ndeclaration, because the whole truth is to be told as well as the truth,\nhis own heart knows that he himself hath not told the whole truth, for he\ncould tell much more if he pleased, how he was brought upon the business,\nand particularly upon that revocation. Why will he challenge others for\nnot telling the whole truth, when himself doth it not? I should have\nthought that this revocation was neither here nor there as to the point of\nscandal, for proof whereof his declaration was brought; and that, as it\nwas not to the business in hand, so it might rather serve for impairing\nhis credit than for anything else. But seeing himself thinks it more for\nhis credit to tell the world of his saying and unsaying, declaring and\nundeclaring, let him be doing.\n\nIn the next place, Will you see how much violence he offereth to divines\nwhom he citeth? I had cited plain and full testimonies of the Zurich\ndivines, showing that Gualther expounds 1 Cor. v. all along of\nexcommunication; that Bullinger holds excommunication to be instituted by\nChrist, Matt. xviii.; that Aretius saith God was the author of\nexcommunication in the Old Testament, and Christ in the New, all which see\nin _Nihil Respondes_, p. 32.\n\nThe reverend brother, notwithstanding of their plain testimonies, speaking\nfor me and against him in the main controversy between him and me, doth\nstill allege that they are for him, not for me, _Male Dicis_, p. 23, yet\nhe doth not so much as offer any answer to their testimonies by me cited,\nonly he bringeth three other passages of theirs, intimating that there may\nbe a true church without excommunication; that they thought it not\nnecessary where they lived; that they thought it hard, yea\nimpossible\u2014_arduum nec non impossible_\u2014to introduce excommunication in\nthose parts, by which citations the brother hath proved nothing against\nme, but confirmed what I said. Let him remember first, he himself makes\nthe main controversy between him and me about the scriptural warrants of\nchurch censures, now in that they are clearly against him. Next Aretius,\nwho thought it hard, yea impossible, to bring in excommunication at that\ntime, saith also, _Dabit posterior aetas tractabiliores forte\nanimas_,\u2014peradventure the following age shall bring forth more tractable\nsouls; and thereupon he adviseth not to despair of the restitution of\nexcommunication. I cited also other testimonies to show that the Zurich\ndivines did endeavour and long for the discipline of excommunication,\nthough as things stood then and there, they did prudentially supersede the\nrestoring of it where they lived, because of the difficulty and\napprehended impossibility of the thing. If Mr Coleman will follow the\nZurich divines he must change his tone, and quite alter the state of the\nquestion, and make it thus: Whether, as things now stand, it be expedient\nto settle excommunication in the church of England. Now if he makes this\nthe state of the question, then he must make a revocation of that word, \u201cI\ndeny an institution, I assent to a prudence.\u201d For the tables were turned\nwith the Zurich divines; they assented to an institution; they denied a\nprudence; they held an affirmative precept for excommunication, but that\nit doth not bind _ad semper_, that the thing is not at all times, nor in\nall places necessary; that weighty inconveniences may warrant the\nsuperseding of it.\n\nThe reverend brother brings another testimony out of Aretius against\nsuspension from the sacrament: \u201cAnd further (saith he) for this grand\ndesired power, suspension from sacrament, these are his words,\u201d &c. A\ntestimony three ways falsified: 1. Aretius speaks not at all in that place\nof the power or duty of church officers, of which suspension is a part,\nbut he speaks of private Christians, and what is incumbent to them. 2. He\nspeaks of separation, not of suspension from the sacrament; that a man is\nnot bound to withdraw and lie off from the sacrament, because every one\nwho is to communicate with him is not in his opinion a saint. 3. He\nspeaketh against separation from both word and sacrament, because of the\nmixture of good and bad in hearing and in communicating; but scandalous\nsinners are invited to, not suspended from the hearing of the word,\nwherefore take Aretius\u2019s(1358) words as they are, and then let the\nreverend brother consider what he hath gained.\n\nWhat hath this now to do with church officers\u2019 power of suspension from\nthe sacrament?\n\nObserve another testimony which he addeth out of Augustine, _lib. de Fide,\nExcommunicatio debet supplere locum visibilis gladii_, which he Englisheth\nthus: \u201cExcommunication comes in only to supply the want of the civil\nsword.\u201d But how comes in your _only_, Sir? Augustine saith no such thing.\nAnd when I have expunged that word, I must tell you farther, that I can\nfind no such passage in Augustine\u2019s book _de Fide_; but I find somewhat to\nthis purpose in another book of his, which is entitled _De Fide et\nOperibus_, a book which he wrote against the admission of such persons to\nbaptism, as being instructed in the faith, are, notwithstanding, still\nscandalous in their lives (which, by the way, will hold _a fortiori_, for\nthe exclusion of notorious scandalous sinners from the Lord\u2019s supper; for\nthey who ought not to be admitted to the sacrament of initiation, ought\nmuch less to be admitted to the sacrament of confirmation). Now because\ndivers scriptures speak of a mixture of good and bad in the church,\nAugustine takes there occasion to reprove those who abused these\nscriptures against the exercise of discipline and church censures, the\nnecessity whereof he showeth to be the greater, because the magistrate\ndoth not punish by death all such crimes as under the law were punished by\ndeath, as, namely, adultery, the scandal chiefly by him insisted upon. As\nfor that passage concerning excommunication supplying the place of the\nsword,(1359) it plainly holds forth excommunication under Christian\nemperors and magistrates, for such they were at that time, so far it is\nfrom making against us. For these are the words which say no such thing as\nMr Coleman would make them say: \u201cAnd Phinehas the priest did thrust\nthrough the adulterous persons found together with the avenging sword;\u201d\nwhich signified that it should be none by degradations and\nexcommunications in this time, when, in the discipline of the church, the\nvisible sword was to cease.\n\nIf the reverend brother had let me know where to find his other\ntestimonies of Origen and Chrysostom, peradventure I had given him as good\nan account of them. Tertullian\u2019s(1360) words which he citeth, _Praesident\nprobati seniores_, I know very well where to find; and I know also, that\nif there be a passage in all antiquity against the Erastians, that is one.\nWhich therefore I here offer as it is to be considered.\n\nOne instance more of his misalleging and perverting of testimonies. In the\nclose, he citeth a passage of Mr Case\u2019s sermon, Aug. 22, 1645. \u201cHe\n(Christ) is king of nations and king of saints. As king of nations he hath\na temporal kingdom and government over the world,\u201d &c., \u201cand the rule and\nregiment of this kingdom he hath committed to monarchies,\u201d &c. \u201cHere is\nErastianism (saith Mr Coleman, p. 38), a step higher than ever I or\nErastus himself went. And I desire to know of Mr Gillespie, if he will own\nthis as good divinity?\u201d Yes, Sir, I own it for very good divinity; for my\nreverend brother, Mr Case, saith not that Christ, as Mediator, is king of\nnations, and hath a temporal kingdom in the world, and hath committed rule\nand regiment to monarchies or other lawful magistrates (which is the point\nthat you and Mr Hussey contend for, being a great heterodoxy in divinity),\nbut he saith of the Son of God, that he is king of nations, and hath\ncommitted rule to monarchies, which I own with all my heart. The\ndistinction of the twofold kingdom of Christ,\u2014an universal kingdom,\nwhereby he reigneth over all things as God, and a special economical\nkingdom, whereby he is king to the church only, and ruleth and governeth\nit,\u2014is that which, being rightly understood, overturneth, overturneth,\noverturneth the Erastian principles. Let Mr Coleman but own this\ndistinction, and that which Mr Case addeth concerning the kingdom, which\nChrist, as king of saints (and so as Mediator), doth exercise both\ninvisibly, in the conscience, and visibly, in the church: First, By\nconquering a people and visible subjects; secondly, By giving them laws\ndistinct from all the laws and statutes of all the kingdoms and republics\nin the world, Isa. xxxiii. 22; thirdly, By constituting special officers\nin the church not only to promulgate these laws, Matt, xviii. 19, but to\ngovern his people according to them, Acts xx. 28; Rom. xii. 8; 1 Cor. xii.\n28; xiv. 32; fourthly, In that he hath commanded all his people to obey\nthese ecclesiastical officers, Heb. xiii. 7, 17; fifthly, And hath\nappointed censures proper to this government, Matt, xviii. 17; 1 Cor. v.\n13: I say, let Mr Coleman but own this doctrine of Mr Case, which was\nprinted by order of the honourable House of Commons as well as his was,\nthen we are agreed. And so much for this time.\n\nTHE END.\n\n\n\n\n\nONE HUNDRED AND ELEVEN PROPOSITIONS CONCERNING THE MINISTRY AND GOVERNMENT\nOF THE CHURCH.\n\n\n                          ONE HUNDRED AND ELEVEN\n\n                               PROPOSITIONS\n\n                                CONCERNING\n\n                THE MINISTRY AND GOVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH.\n\n                           BY GEORGE GILLESPIE,\n\n                       MINISTER AT EDINBURGH, 1642\n\n                                EDINBURGH:\n\n                     ROBERT OGLE AND OLIVER AND BOYD.\n\nM. OGLE & SON AND WILLIAM COLLINS, GLASGOW. J. DEWAR, PERTH. W. MIDDLETON,\n                                 DUNDEE.\n\n               G. & R. KING, ABERDEEN. W. M\u2019COMB, BELFAST.\n\n         HAMILTON, ADAMS, & CO., AND JAMES NISBET & CO., LONDON.\n\n                                  1642.\n\n           REPRINTED BY A. W. MURRAY, MILNE SQUARE, EDINBURGH.\n\n                                  1844.\n\n_Act approving Eight general Heads of Doctrine against the Tenets of\nErastianism, Independency, and Liberty of Conscience, asserted in the One\nHundred and Eleven Propositions, which are to be examined against the next\nAssembly._\n\nBeing tender of so great an engagement by solemn covenant,\u2014sincerely,\nreally, and constantly to endeavour in our places and callings, the\npreservation of the reformed religion in this kirk of Scotland, in\ndoctrine, worship, discipline, and government, the reformation of religion\nin the kingdoms of England and Ireland, in doctrine, worship, discipline,\nand government, according to the word of God and the example of the best\nreformed kirks, and to endeavour the nearest conjunction and uniformity in\nall these, together with the extirpation of heresy, schism, and whatsoever\nshall be found contrary to sound doctrine: and considering, withal, that\none of the special means which it becometh us in our places and callings\nto use in pursuance of these ends is, in zeal for the true reformed\nreligion, to give our public testimony against the dangerous tenets of\nErastianism, Independency, and (which is falsely called) _Liberty of\nConscience_, which are not only contrary to sound doctrine, but more\nspecial lets and hinderances as well to the preservation of our own\nreceived doctrine, worship, discipline and government, as to the work of\nreformation and uniformity in England and Ireland. The General Assembly\nupon these considerations, having heard publicly read the one hundred and\neleven following propositions, exhibited and tendered by some brethren who\nwere appointed to prepare articles or propositions for the vindication of\nthe truth in those particulars, doth unanimously approve and agree unto\nthese eight general heads of doctrine therein contained and asserted, viz,\n1. That the ministry of the word and the administration of the sacraments\nof the New Testament, baptism and the Lord\u2019s supper, are standing\nordinances, instituted by God himself, to continue in the church to the\nend of the world; 2. That such as administer the word and sacraments ought\nto be duly called and ordained thereunto; 3. That some ecclesiastical\ncensures are proper and peculiar to be inflicted only upon such as bear\noffice in the kirk; other censures are common, and may be inflicted both\non ministers and other members of the kirk; 4. That the censure of\nsuspension from the sacrament of the Lord\u2019s supper, inflicted because of\ngross ignorance, or because of a scandalous life and conversation, as\nlikewise the censure of excommunication or casting out of the kirk\nflagitious or contumacious offenders, both the one censure and the other\nis warrantable by and grounded upon the word of God, and is necessary (in\nrespect of divine institution) to be in the kirk; 5. That as the rights,\npower, and authority of the civil magistrate are to be maintained\naccording to the word of God, and the confessions of the faith of the\nreformed kirks, so it is no less true and certain, that Jesus Christ, the\nonly Head and only King of the kirk, hath instituted and appointed a kirk\ngovernment, distinct from the civil government or magistracy; 6. That the\necclesiastical government is committed and entrusted by Christ to the\nassemblies of the kirk, made up of the ministers of the word and ruling\nelders; 7. That the lesser and inferior ecclesiastical assemblies ought to\nbe subordinate and subject unto the greater and superior assemblies; 8.\nThat notwithstanding hereof, the civil magistrate may and ought to\nsuppress, by corporal or civil punishments, such as by spreading error or\nheresy, or by fomenting schism, greatly dishonour God, dangerously hurt\nreligion, and disturb the peace of the kirk. Which heads of doctrine\n(howsoever opposed by the authors and fomenters of the foresaid errors\nrespectively) the General Assembly doth firmly believe, own, maintain, and\ncommend unto others, as solid, true, orthodox, grounded upon the word of\nGod, consonant to the judgment both of the ancient and the best reformed\nkirks. And because this Assembly (through the multitude of other necessary\nand pressing business) cannot now have so much leisure as to examine and\nconsider particularly the foresaid one hundred and eleven propositions;\ntherefore a more particular examination thereof is committed and referred\nto the theological faculties in the four universities of this kingdom, and\nthe judgment of each of these faculties concerning the same is appointed\nto be reported to the next General Assembly. In the mean while these\npropositions shall be printed, both that copies thereof may be sent to\npresbyteries, and that it may be free for any that pleaseth to peruse\nthem, and to make known or send their judgment concerning the same to the\nsaid next Assembly.\n\nA. KER.\n\n\n\n\nPROPOSITIONS.\n\n\n1. As our Lord Jesus Christ doth invisibly teach and govern his church by\nthe Holy Spirit; so in gathering, preserving, instructing, building and\nsaving thereof, he useth ministers as his instruments, and hath appointed\nan order of some to teach and others to learn in the church, and that some\nshould be the flock and others the pastors.\n\n2. For beside these first founders of the church of Christ,\nextraordinarily sent, and furnished with the gift of miracles, whereby\nthey might confirm the doctrine of the gospel, he appointed also ordinary\npastors and teachers, for the executing of the ministry, even until his\ncoming again unto judgment, Eph. iv. 11-13. Wherefore also, as many as are\nof the number of God\u2019s people, or will be accounted Christians, ought to\nreceive and obey the ordinary ministers of God\u2019s word and sacraments\n(lawfully though mediately called), as the stewards and ambassadors of\nChrist himself.\n\n3. It is not lawful for any man, how fit soever and how much soever\nenriched or beautified with excellent gifts, to undertake the\nadministration either of the word or sacraments by the will of private\npersons, or others who have not power and right to call, much less it is\nlawful by their own judgment or arbitrement to assume and arrogate the\nsame to themselves. But before it be lawful to undergo that sacred\nministry in churches constituted, a special calling, yea beside, a lawful\nelection (which alone is not sufficient), a mission or sending, or (as\ncommonly it is termed) ordination, is necessarily required, and that both\nfor the avoiding of confusion, and to bar out or shut the door (so far as\nin us lieth) upon impostors; as also by reason of divine institution\ndelivered to us in the Holy Scripture, Rom. x. 15; Heb. v. 4; Tit. i. 5; 1\nTim. ii. 7.\n\n4. The church ought to be governed by no other persons than ministers and\nstewards preferred and placed by Christ, and after no other manner than\naccording to the laws made by him; and, therefore, there is no power on\nearth which may challenge to itself authority or dominion over the church:\nbut whosoever they are that would have the things of Christ to be\nadministered not according to the ordinance and will of Christ revealed in\nhis word, but as it liketh them, and according to their own will and\nprescript, what other thing go they about to do than by horrible sacrilege\nto throw down Christ from his own throne?\n\n5. For our only lawgiver and interpreter of his Father\u2019s will, Jesus\nChrist hath prescribed and foreappointed the rule according to which he\nwould have his worship and the government of his own house to be ordered.\nTo wrest this rule of Christ, laid open in his holy word, to the counsels,\nwills, manners, devices, or laws of men, is most high impiety. But\ncontrarily, the law of faith commandeth the counsel and purposes of men to\nbe framed and conformed to this rule, and overturneth all the reasonings\nof worldly wisdom, and bringeth into captivity the thoughts of the proud\nswelling mind to the obedience of Christ. Neither ought the voice of any\nto take place or be rested upon in the church but the voice of Christ\nalone.\n\n6. The same Lord and our Saviour Jesus Christ, the only Head of the\nchurch, hath ordained in the New Testament, not only the preaching of the\nword and administration of baptism and the Lord\u2019s supper, but also\necclesiastical government, distinct and differing from the civil\ngovernment; and it is his will that there be such a government distinct\nfrom the civil in all his churches everywhere, as well those which live\nunder Christian, as those under infidel magistrates, even until the end of\nthe world. Heb. xiii. 7, 17; 1 Tim. v. 17, 19; Rom. xii. 8; 1 Cor. xii.\n28; 1 Thess. v. 12; Acts i. 20; Luke xii. 42; 1 Tim. vi. 14; Rev. ii. 25.\n\n7. This ecclesiastical government, distinct from the civil, is from God\ncommitted, not to the whole body of the church or congregation of the\nfaithful, or to be exercised both by officers and people, but to the\nministers of God\u2019s word, together with the elders which are joined with\nthem for the care and government of the church, 1 Tim. v. 17. To those,\ntherefore, who are over the church in the Lord, belongeth the authority\nand power, and it lieth upon them by their office, according to the rule\nof God\u2019s word, to discern and judge betwixt the holy and profane, to give\ndiligence for amendment of delinquents, and to purge the church (as much\nas is in them) from scandals, and that not only by inquiring, inspection,\nwarning, reproving, and more sharply expostulating, but also by acting in\nthe further and more severe parts of ecclesiastical discipline, or\nexercising ecclesiastical jurisdiction, even unto the greatest and\nweightiest censures, where deed is.\n\n8. None that is within the church ought to be without the reach of church\nlaw, and exempt from ecclesiastical censures; but discipline is to be\nexercised on all the members of the church, without respect or\nconsideration of those adhering qualities which use to commend a man to\nother men, such as power, nobility, illustrious descent, and the like: for\nthe judgment cannot be right where men are led and moved with these\nconsiderations. Wherefore, let respect of persons be far from all judges,\nchiefly the ecclesiastical: and if any in the church do so swell in pride,\nthat he refuse to be under this discipline, and would have himself to be\nfree and exempt from all trial and ecclesiastical judgment, this man\u2019s\ndisposition is more like the haughtiness of the Roman Pope, than the\nmeekness and submissiveness of Christ\u2019s sheep.\n\n9. Ecclesiastical censure, moreover, is either proper to be inflicted upon\nthe ministers and office-bearers only, or with them common to other\nmembers of the church: the former consisteth in suspension or deposition\nof ministers from their office (which in the ancient canons is called\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2); the latter consisteth in the greater and lesser\nexcommunication (as they speak). Whatsoever in another brother deserveth\nexcommunication, the same much more in a minister deserveth\nexcommunication: but justly sometimes a minister is to be put from his\noffice, and deprived of that power which by ordination was given him,\nagainst whom, nevertheless, to draw the sword of excommunication, no\nreason doth compel.\n\n10. Sometime also it happeneth that a minister, having fallen into heresy\nor apostacy, or other grievous crimes, if he show tokens of true\nrepentance, may be justly received into the communion of the church, whom,\nnotwithstanding, it is no way expedient to restore into his former place\nor charge; yea, perhaps it will not be found fit to restore such an one to\nthe ministry in another congregation as soon as he is received into the\nbosom of the church; which surely is most agreeable as well to the word of\nGod (2 Kings xxiii. 9; Ezek. xliv. 10-14,) as to that ecclesiastical\ndiscipline, which in some ages after the times of the Apostle was in use.\n\nSo true is it that the ministers of the church are liable as well to\npeculiar as to common censures; or that a minister of the church is\ncensured one way, and one of the people another way.\n\n11. Ecclesiastical censure, which is not proper to ministers, but common\nto them with other members of the church, is either suspension from the\nLord\u2019s supper (which by others is called the publican\u2019s excommunication),\nor the cutting off of a member, which is commonly called excommunication.\nThe distinction of this twofold censure (commonly, though not so properly\npassing under the name of the lesser and greater excommunication) is not\nonly much approved by the church of Scotland, and the synod now assembled\nat Westminster, but also by the reformed churches of France, the Low\nCountries, and of Poland, as is to be seen in the _Book of the\nEcclesiastical Discipline of the Reformed Churches in France_, chap. 5,\nart. 9; in the _Harmony of the Belgic Synods_, chap. 14, art. 8, 9; in the\ncanons of the general synod of Torn, held in the year 1597.\n\n12. That the distinction of that twofold church censure was allowed also\nby antiquity, it may be sufficiently clear to him who will consult the\nsixty-first canon of the sixth general synod, with the annotations of\nZonaras and Balsamon; also the thirteenth canon of the eighth synod (which\nis termed the first and second), with the notes of Zonaras; yea, besides,\neven the penitents also themselves of the fourth degree, or \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f10\u03bd\n\u03c3\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b5\u1fd6, that is, which were in the _consistency_, were suspended from\nthe Lord\u2019s supper, though as to other things of the same condition with\nthe faithful; for, to the communion also of prayers, and so to all\nprivileges of ecclesiastical society, the eucharist alone excepted, they\nwere thought to have right: so sacred a thing was the eucharist esteemed.\nSee also, beside others, Cyprian, book 1, epist. 11; that Dionysius, the\nauthor of _The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy_, chap. 3, part. 3; Basil.,\n_Epist. to Amphilochius_, can. 4; Ambrose, _De Officiis_, lib. 2, chap.\n27; Augustine, in his book against the Donatists after the Conference,\ncap. 4; Chrysostom, hom. 83, in Matt.; Gregor. the Great, _Epist._, lib.\n2, chap. 65, 66; Walafridus Strabo, _Of Ecclesiastical Matters_, chap. 17.\n\n13. That first and lesser censure by Christ\u2019s ordinance is to be inflicted\non such as have received baptism, and pretend to be true members of the\nchurch, yet are found unfit and unworthy to communicate in the signs of\nthe grace of Christ with the church, whether for their gross ignorance of\ndivine things, the law, namely, and gospel, or by reason of scandal,\neither of false doctrine or wicked life. For these causes, therefore, or\nfor some one of them, they are to be kept back from the sacrament of the\nLord\u2019s supper (a lawful judicial trial going before) according to the\ninterdiction of Christ, forbidding that that which is holy be given to\ndogs, or pearls be cast before swine, Matt. vii. 6; and this censure of\nsuspension is to continue till the offenders bring forth fruits worthy of\nrepentance.\n\n14. For the asserting and defending of this suspension there is no small\naccession of strength from the nature of the sacrament itself, and the\ninstitution and end thereof. The word of God indeed is to be preached, as\nwell to the ungodly and impenitent, that they may be converted, as to the\ngodly and repenting that they may be confirmed; but the sacrament of the\nLord\u2019s supper is by God instituted, not for beginning the work of grace,\nbut for nourishing and increasing grace, and therefore no one is to be\nadmitted to the Lord\u2019s supper who by his life testifieth that he is\nimpenitent, and not as yet converted.\n\n15. Indeed, if the Lord had instituted this sacrament, that not only it\nshould nourish and cherish faith, and seal the promises of the gospel, but\nalso should begin the work of grace in sinners, and give regeneration\nitself as the instrumental cause thereof, verily even the most wicked,\nmost unclean, and most unworthy, were to be admitted: but the reformed\nchurches do otherwise judge of the nature of this sacrament, which shall\nbe abundantly manifest by the gleaning of these following testimonies.\n\n16. The _Scottish Confession_, art. 23. \u201cBut we confess that the Lord\u2019s\nsupper belongs only to those of the household of faith who can try and\nexamine themselves, as well in faith as in the duties of faith towards\ntheir neighbours. Whoso abideth without faith, and in variance with their\nbrethren, do at that holy table eat and drink unworthily. Hence it is that\nthe pastors in our church do enter on a public and particular examination,\nboth of the knowledge, conversation and life, of those who are to be\nadmitted to the Lord\u2019s table.\u201d The _Belgic Confession_, art. 35:\u2014\u201cWe\nbelieve also and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ hath ordained the holy\nsacrament of his supper, that in it he may nourish and uphold them whom he\nhath already regenerated.\u201d\n\n17. The _Saxon Confession_, art. 15:\u2014\u201cThe Lord willeth that every receiver\nbe particularly confirmed by this testimony, so that he may be certified\nthat the benefits of the gospel do appertain to himself, seeing the\npreaching is common, and by this testimony, by this receiving, he showeth\nthat thou art one of his members, and washed with his blood.\u201d And by and\nby:\u2014\u201cThus, therefore, we instruct the church, that it behoveth them that\ncome to the supper to bring with them repentance or conversion, and (faith\nbeing now kindled in the mediation of the death and resurrection, and the\nbenefits of the Son of God) to seek here the confirmation of this faith.\u201d\nThe very same things are set down, and that in the very same words, in the\nconsent of the churches of Poland in the Sendomirian synod, anno 1570,\nart. \u201cof the Lord\u2019s supper.\u201d\n\n18. The _Bohemian Confession_, art. 11:\u2014\u201cNext our divines teach that the\nsacraments of themselves, or as some say, _ex opere operato_, do not\nconfer grace to those who are not first endued with good motions, and\ninwardly quickened by the Holy Spirit, neither do they bestow justifying\nfaith, which maketh the soul of man in all things obsequious, trusting and\nobedient to God; for faith must go before (we speak of them of ripe\nyears), which quickeneth a man by the work of the Holy Spirit, and putteth\ngood motions into the heart.\u201d And after:\u2014\u201cBut if any come unworthily to\nthe sacraments, he is not made by them worthy or clean, but doth only\nbring greater sin and damnation on himself.\u201d\n\n19. Seeing, then, in the holy supper, that is, in the receiving the\nsacramental elements (which is here distinguished from the prayers and\nexhortations accompanying that action), the benefits of the gospel are not\nfirst received, but for them being received are thanks given; neither by\npartaking thereof doth God bestow the very spiritual life, but doth\npreserve, cherish and perfect that life; and seeing the word of God is\naccounted in the manner of letters patent, but sacraments like seals, (as\nrightly the _Helvetian Confession_ saith, chap. 19), it plainly followeth\nthat those are to be kept back from the Lord\u2019s supper, who by their fruits\nand manners do prove themselves to be ungodly or impenitent, and strangers\nor aliens from all communion with Christ. Nor are the promises of grace\nsealed to any other than those to whom these promises do belong, for\notherwise the seal annexed should contradict and gainsay the letters\npatent; and by the visible word those should be loosed and remitted, who\nby the audible word are bound and condemned: but this is such an\nabsurdity, as that if any would, yet he cannot smooth or heal it with any\nplaster.\n\n20. But as known, impious, and unregenerate persons, have no right to the\nholy table, so also ungodly persons, by reason of a grievous scandal, are\njustly for a time deprived of it; for it is not lawful or allowable that\nthe comforts and promises which belong only to such as believe and repent,\nshould be sealed unto known unclean persons, and those who walk\ninordinately, whether such as are not yet regenerate, or such as are\nregenerate, but fallen, and not yet restored or risen from their fall. The\nsame discipline plainly was shadowed forth under the Old Testament, for\nnone of God\u2019s people, during their legal pollution, were permitted to\nenter into the tabernacle, or to have access to the solemn sacrifices and\nsociety of the church; and much more were wicked and notorious offenders\ndebarred from the temple, until, by an offering for sin, together with a\nsolemn confession thereof, being cleansed, they were reconciled unto God.\nNum. v. 6-8; Lev. v. 1-7; vi. 1-8.\n\n21. Yea that those who were polluted with sins and crimes were reckoned\namong the unclean in the law, Maimonides (_in More Nevoch._, part. 3, ch.\n47,) proveth out of Lev. xx. 3; xviii. 24; Num. xxxv. 33, 34. Therefore\nseeing the shedding of man\u2019s blood was rightly esteemed the greatest\npollution of all, hence it was that as the society of the leprous was\nshunned by the clean, so that the company of murderers by good men was\nmost religiously avoided, Lam. iv. 13-15. The same thing is witnessed by\nAnanias the high priest, in Josephus, _Jewish War_, book 4, ch. 5, where\nhe saith that those false zealots of that time, bloody men, ought to have\nbeen restrained from access to the temple, by reason of the pollution of\nmurder; yea, as Philo the Jew witnesseth (in his book of the _Offerers of\nSacrifices_), whosoever were found unworthy and wicked, were by edict\nforbidden to approach the holy threshold.\n\n22. Neither must that be passed by which was noted by Zonaras, book 4, of\nhis annals (whereof see also Scaliger agreeing with him, in _Elench.\nTriheres. Nicserrar._, cap. 28), namely, that the Essenes were forbidden\nthe holy place, as being heinous and piacular transgressors, and such as\nheld other opinions, and did otherwise teach concerning sacrifices than\naccording to the law, and observed not the ordinances of Moses, whence it\nproceeded that they sacrificed privately; yea, and also the Essenes\nthemselves did thrust away from their congregations those that were\nwicked. Whereof see Drusius, _Of the Three Sects of Jews_, lib. 4, cap.\n22.\n\n23. God verily would not have his temple to be made open to unworthy and\nunclean worshippers; nor was it free for such men to enter into the\ntemple. See Nazianzen, _Orat._ 21. The same thing is witnessed and\ndeclared by divers late writers, such as have been and are more acquainted\nwith the Jewish antiquities. Consult the Annotations of Vatablus, and of\nAinsworth, an English writer, upon Psal. cxviii. 19, 20; also Constantine\nL\u2019Empereur, _Annot. in Cod. Middoth_, cap. 2, p. 44, 45; Cornelius\nBertramus, _Of the Commonwealth of the Hebrews_, cap. 7; Henry Vorstius,\n_Animadvers. in Pirk. Rab. Eliezer_, p. 169. The same may be proved out of\nEzek. xxiii. 30, 38; Jer. vii. 9-12; whence also it was that the solemn\nand public society in the temple, had the name of the assembly of the\nrighteous, and congregation of saints, Psal. lxxxix. 5, 7; cxi. 1; cxlvii.\n1; hence also is that (Psal. cxviii. 19, 20) of the gates of righteousness\nby which the righteous enter.\n\n24. That which is now driven at, is not that all wicked and unclean\npersons should be utterly excluded from our ecclesiastical societies, and\nso from all hearing of God\u2019s word; yea there is nothing less intended: for\nthe word of God is the instrument as well of conversion as of\nconfirmation, and therefore is to be preached as well to the unconverted\nas to the converted, as well to the repenting as the unrepenting: the\ntemple indeed of Jerusalem had special promises, as it were pointing out\nwith the finger a communion with God through Christ, 1 Kings viii. 30, 48;\nDan. vi. 10; 2 Chron. vi. 16; vii. 15, 16. But it is far otherwise with\nour temples, or places of church assemblies, \u201cbecause our temples contain\nnothing sacramental in them, such as the tabernacle and temple contained,\u201d\nas the most learned Professors of Leyden said rightly in _Synops. Pur.\nTheologiae_, disp. 48, thes. 47.\n\n25. Wherefore the point to be here considered, as that which is now aimed\nat, is this, that howsoever, even under the New Testament, the uncleanness\nof those to whom the word of God is preached be tolerated, yet all such,\nof what estate or condition soever in the church, as are defiled with\nmanifest and grievous scandals, and do thereby witness themselves to be\nwithout the inward and spiritual communion with Christ and the faithful,\nmay and are to be altogether discharged from the communion of the Lord\u2019s\nsupper until they repent and change their manners.\n\n26. Besides, even those to whom it was permitted to go into the holy\ncourts of Israel, and to ingratiate themselves into ecclesiastical\ncommunion, and who did stand between the court of Israel and the outer\nwall, were not therefore to be kept back from hearing the word; for in\nSolomon\u2019s porch, and so in the _intermurale_ or court of the Gentiles, the\ngospel was preached, both by Christ, John x. 23, and also by the apostles,\nActs iii. 11; v. 12, and that of purpose, because of the reason brought by\nPineda, _Of the things of Solomon_, book v. chap. 19, because a more\nfrequent multitude was there, and somewhat larger opportunity of sowing\nthe gospel: wherefore to any whomsoever, even heathen people meeting\nthere, the Lord would have the word to be preached, who, notwithstanding,\npurging the temple, did not only overthrow the tables of money-changers,\nand chairs of those that sold doves, but also cast forth the buyers and\nsellers themselves, Matt. xxi. 12; for he could not endure either such\nthings or such persons in the temple.\n\n27. Although, then, the gospel is to be preached to every creature, the\nLord in express words commanding the same, Mark xvi. 15, yet not to every\none is set open an access to the holy supper; it is granted that\nhypocrites do lurk in the church, who hardly can be convicted and\ndiscovered, much less repelled from the Lord\u2019s supper; such therefore are\nto be suffered, till by the fan of judgment the grain be separated from\nthe chaff; but those whose wicked deeds or words are known and made\nmanifest are altogether to be debarred from partaking those symbols of the\ncovenant of the gospel, lest that the name of God be greatly disgraced,\nwhilst sins are permitted to be spread abroad in the church unpunished; or\nlest the stewards of Christ, by imparting the signs of the grace of God to\nsuch as are continuing in the state of impurity and scandal, be partakers\nof their sins. Hitherto of suspension.\n\n28. Excommunication ought not to be proceeded unto except when extreme\nnecessity constraineth: but whensoever the soul of the sinner cannot\notherwise be healed, and that the safety of the church requireth the\ncutting off of this or that member, it behoveth to use this last remedy.\nIn the church of Rome, indeed, excommunication hath been turned into\ngreatest injustice and tyranny (as the Pharisees abused the casting out of\nthe synagogues, which was their excommunication) to the fulfilling of the\nlust of their own minds; yet the ordinance of Christ is not therefore by\nany of the reformed religion to be utterly thrust away and wholly\nrejected. What Protestant knows not that the vassals of Antichrist have\ndrawn the Lord\u2019s supper into the worst and most pernicious abuses, as also\nthe ordination of ministers, and other ordinances of the gospel? Yet who\nwill say that things necessary (whether the necessity be that of command,\nor that of the means or end) are to be taken away because of the abuse?\n\n29. They, therefore, who with an high hand do persevere in their\nwickedness, after foregoing admonitions stubbornly despised or carelessly\nneglected, are justly, by excommunication in the name of the Lord Jesus\nChrist, cut off and cast out from the society of the faithful, and are\npronounced to be cast out from the church, until being filled with shame\nand cast down, they shall return again to a more sound mind, and by\nconfession of their sin and amendment of their lives, shall show tokens of\nrepentance, Matt, xviii. 16-18; 1 Cor. v. 13, which places are also\nalleged in the Confession of Bohemia, art. 8, to prove that the\nexcommunication of the impenitent and stubborn, whose wickedness is known,\nis commanded of the Lord: but if stubborn heretics or unclean persons be\nnot removed or cast out from the church, therein do the governors of the\nchurch sin, and are found guilty, Rev. ii. 14, 20.\n\n30. But that all abuse and corruption in ecclesiastical government may be\neither prevented and avoided, or taken away, or lest the power of the\nchurch, either by the ignorance or unskilfulness of some ministers here\nand there, or also by too much heat and fervour of mind, should run out\nbeyond measure or bounds, or contrariwise, being shut up within straiter\nlimits than is fitting, should be made unprofitable, feeble, or of none\neffect,\u2014Christ, the most wise lawgiver of his church, hath foreseen and\nmade provision to prevent all such evils which he did foresee were to\narise, and hath prepared and prescribed for them intrinsical and\necclesiastical remedies, and those also in their kind (if lawfully and\nrightly applied) both sufficient and effectual: some whereof he hath most\nexpressly propounded in his word, and some he hath left to be drawn from\nthence by necessary consequence.\n\n31. Therefore, by reason of the danger of that which is called _clavis\nerrans_, or a wrong key; and that it may not be permitted to particular\nchurches to err or sin licentiously, and lest any man\u2019s cause be\noverthrown and perish, who in a particular church had perhaps the same men\nboth his adversaries and his judges; also that common business, which do\nbelong to many churches, together with the more weighty and difficult\ncontroversies (the deciding whereof in the consistories of praticular\nchurches is not safe to be adventured upon) may be handled and determined\nby a common council of presbyteries; finally, that the governors of\nparticular churches may impart help mutually one to another against the\ncunning and subtile enemies of the truth, and may join their strength\ntogether (such as it is) by an holy combination, and that the church may\nbe as a camp of an army well ordered, lest while every one striveth singly\nall of them be subdued and overcome, or lest by reason of the scarcity of\nprudent and godly counsellors (in the multitude of whom is safety) the\naffairs of the church be undone: for all these considerations particular\nchurches must be subordinate to classical presbyteries and synods.\n\n32. Wherefore it is not lawful to particular churches, or, as commonly\nthey are called, parochial, either to decline the authority of classes or\nsynods, where they are lawfully settled, or may be had (much less to\nwithdraw themselves from that authority, if they have once acknowledged\nit), or to refuse such lawful ordinances or decrees of the classes or\nsynods as, being agreeable to the word of God, are with authority imposed\nupon them. Acts xv. 2, 6, 22-24, 28, 29; xvi. 4.\n\n33. Although synods assemble more seldom, classes and consistories of\nparticular churches more frequently, yet that synods, both provincial and\nnational, assemble at set and ordinary times, as well as classes and\nparochial consistories, is very expedient, and for the due preservation of\nchurch policy and discipline, necessary. Sometimes, indeed, it is\nexpedient they be assembled occasionally, that the urgent necessity of the\nchurch may be the more speedily provided for, namely, when such a business\nhappeneth, which, without great danger, cannot be put off till the\nappointed time of the synod.\n\n34. But that, besides occasional synods, ordinary synods be kept at set\ntimes, is most profitable, not only that they may discuss and determine\nthe more difficult ecclesiastical causes coming before them, whether by\nthe appeal of some person aggrieved, or by the hesitation or doubting of\ninferior assemblies (for such businesses very often fall out), but also\nthat the state of the churches whereof they have the care, being more\ncertainly and frequently searched and known, if there be anything wanting\nor amiss in their doctrine, discipline or manners, or anything worthy of\npunishment, the slothful labourers in the vineyard of the Lord may be made\nto shake off the spirit of slumber and slothfulness, and be stirred up to\nthe attending and fulfilling more diligently their calling, and not\nsuffered any longer to sleep and snore in their office; the stragglers and\nwanderers may be reduced to the way; the untoward and stiff-necked, which\nscarce, or very hardly, suffer the yoke of discipline, as also unquiet\npersons, who devise new and hurtful things, may be reduced to order:\nfinally, whatsoever doth hinder the more quick and efficacious course of\nthe gospel may be discovered and removed.\n\n35. It is too, too manifest (alas for it!) that there are those who with\nunwearied diligence, do most carefully labour that they may oppress the\nliberties and rights of synods, and may take away from them all liberty of\nconsulting of things and matters ecclesiastical, at least of determining\nthereof (for they well know how much the union and harmony of churches may\nmake against their designs): but so much the more it concerneth the\northodox churches to know, defend and preserve, this excellent liberty\ngranted to them by divine right, and so to use it, that imminent dangers,\napproaching evils, urging grievances, scandals growing up, schisms rising,\nheresies creeping in, errors spreading, and strifes waxing hot, may be\ncorrected and taken away, to the glory of God, and the edification and\npeace of the church.\n\n36. Beside provincial and national synods, an \u0153cumenical (so called from\n\u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7, that is from the habitable world,) or more truly, a general,\nor, if you will, an universal synod, if so it lie free and rightly\nconstituted, and no other commissioners but orthodox churches be admitted\n(for what communion is there of light with darkness, of righteousness with\nunrighteousness, or of the temple of God with idols); such a synod is of\nspecial utility, peradventure also such a synod is to be hoped for, surely\nit is to be wished that, for defending the orthodox faith, both against\nPopery and other heresies, as also for propagating it to those who are\nwithout, especially the Jews, a more strait and more firm consociation may\nbe entered into. For the unanimity of all the churches, as in evil it is\nof all things most hurtful, so on the contrary side, in good it is most\npleasant, most profitable, and most effectual.\n\n37. Unto the universal synod also (when it may be had) is to be referred\nthe judgment of controversies, not of all, but of those which are\n_controversi\u00e6 juris_, controversies of right; neither yet of all these,\nbut of the chief and most weighty controversies of the orthodox faith, or\nof the most hard and unusual cases of conscience. Of the controversies of\nfact there is another and different consideration to be had; for besides\nthat it would be a great inconvenience that plaintives, persons accused,\nand witnesses, be drawn from the most remote churches to the general or\nuniversal council, the visible communion itself of all the churches (on\nwhich the universal council is built, and whereupon, as on a foundation,\nit leaneth) is not so much of company, fellowship, or conversation, as of\nreligion and doctrine. All true churches of the world do indeed profess\nthe same true religion and faith, but there is beside this a certain\ncommixture and conjunction of the churches of the same nation, as to a\nmore near fellowship, and some acquaintance, conversing and companying\ntogether, which cannot be said of all the churches throughout the\nhabitable world.\n\n38. And for this cause, as in doctrinal controversies, which are handled\nby theologists and casuists, and in those which belong to the common state\nof the orthodox churches, the national synod is subordinate and subjected\nto the universal lawfully-constituted synod, and from the national to the\noecumenical synod (when there is a just and weighty cause) an appeal is\nopen: so there is no need that the appeals of those who complain of injury\ndone to them through the exercise of discipline in this or that church,\nshould go beyond the bounds of the national synod; but it is most\nagreeable to reason that they should rest and acquiesce within those\nbounds and borders; and that the ultimate judgment of such mutters be in\nthe national synod, unless the thing itself be so hard and of so great\nmoment, that the knot be justly thought worthy of a greater decider; in\nwhich case the controversy which is carried to the universal synod is\nrather of an abstract general theological proposition than of the\nparticular or individual case.\n\n39. Furthermore, the administration of the ecclesiastic power in\nconsistories, classes and synods, doth not at all tend to weaken in\nanywise, hurt or diminish, the authority of the civil magistrate, much\nless to take it away or destroy it; yea, rather, by it a most profitable\nhelp cometh to the magistrate, forasmuch as by the bond of religion men\u2019s\nconsciences are more straitly tied unto him. There has been, indeed,\nfantastical men, who, under pretence and cloak of Christian liberty, would\nabolish and cast out laws and judgments, orders also, degrees and honours,\nout of the commonwealth, and have been bold to reckon the function of the\nmagistrate armed with the sword among evil things and unlawful: but the\nreformed churches do renounce and detest these dreams, and do most\nharmoniously and most willingly confess and acknowledge it to be God\u2019s\nwill that the world be governed by laws and policy, and that he himself\nhath appointed the civil magistrate, and hath delivered to him the sword\nto the protection and praise of good men, but for punishment and revenge\non the evil, that by this bridle, men\u2019s vices and faults may be\nrestrained, whether these are committed against the first or second table.\n\n40. The reformed churches believe also, and openly confess, the power and\nauthority of emperors over their empires, of kings over their kingdoms, of\nprinces and dukes over their dominions, and of other magistrates or states\nover their commonwealths and cities, to be the ordinances of God himself\nappointed as well to the manifestation of his own glory, as to the\nsingular profit of mankind: and withal, that by reason of the will of God\nhimself, revealed in his word, we must not only suffer and be content that\nthose do rule which are set over their own territories, whether by\nhereditary or by elective right, but also to love them, fear them, and\nwith all reverence and honour embrace them as the ambassadors and\nministers of the most high and good God, being in his stead, and preferred\nfor the good of their subjects, to pour out prayers for them, to pay\ntributes to them, and in all business of the commonwealth which is not\nagainst the word of God, to obey their laws and edicts.\n\n41. The orthodox churches believe also, and do willingly acknowledge, that\nevery lawful magistrate, being by God himself constituted the keeper and\ndefender of both tables of the law, may and ought first and chiefly to\ntake care of God\u2019s glory, and (according to his place, or in his manner\nand way) to preserve religion when pure, and to restore it when decayed\nand corrupted: and also to provide a learned and godly ministry, schools\nalso and synods, as likewise to restrain and punish as well atheists,\nblasphemers, heretics and schismatics, as the violaters of justice and\ncivil peace.\n\n42. Wherefore the opinion of those sectaries of this age is altogether to\nbe disallowed, who, though otherwise insinuating themselves craftily into\nthe magistrate\u2019s favour, do deny unto him the authority and right of\nrestraining heretics and schismatics, and do hold and maintain that such\npersons, how much soever hurtful and pernicious enemies to true religion\nand to the church, yet are to be tolerated by the magistrate, if so be he\nconceive them to be such as no way violate the laws of the commonwealth,\nand in nowise disturb the civil peace.\n\n43. Yet the civil power and the ecclesiastical ought not by any means to\nbe confounded or mixed together. Both powers are indeed from God, and\nordained for his glory, and both to be guided by his word, and both are\ncomprehended under that precept, \u201cHonour thy father and thy mother,\u201d so\nthat men ought to obey both civil magistrates and ecclesiastical governors\nin the Lord; to both powers their proper dignity and authority is to be\nmaintained and preserved in force: to both also is some way intrusted the\nkeeping of both tables of the law, also both the one and the other doth\nexercise some jurisdiction, and giveth sentence of judgment in an external\ncourt or judicatory: but these and other things of like sort, in which\nthey agree notwithstanding, yet by marvellous vast differences are they\ndistinguished the one from the other, and the rights of both remain\ndistinct, and that eight manner of ways, which it shall not be amiss here\nto add, that unto each of these administrations, its own set bounds may be\nthe better maintained.\n\n44. _First_, therefore, they are differenced the one from the other, in\nrespect of the very foundation and the institution: for the political or\ncivil power is grounded upon the law of nature itself, and for that cause\nit is common to infidels with Christians; the power ecclesiastical\ndependeth immediately upon the positive law of Christ alone: that\nbelongeth to the universal dominion of God the Creator over all nations;\nbut this unto the special and economical kingdom of Christ the Mediator,\nwhich he exerciseth in the church alone, and which is not of this world.\n\n45. The _second_ difference is in the object, or matter about which: the\npower politic or civil is occupied about the outward man, and civil or\nearthly things,\u2014about war, peace, conservation of justice, and good order\nin the commonwealth; also about the outward business or external things of\nthe church, which are indeed necessary to the church, or profitable, as\ntouching the outward man, yet not properly and purely spiritual, for they\ndo not reach unto the soul, but only to the external state and condition\nof the ministers and members of the church.\n\n46. For the better understanding whereof it is to be observed, that so far\nas the ministers and members of the church are citizens, subjects, or\nmembers of the commonwealth, it is in the power of the magistrate to\njudge, determine, and give sentence, concerning the disposing of their\nbodies or goods; as also concerning the maintenance of the poor, the sick,\nthe banished, and of others in the church who are afflicted; to regulate\n(so far as concerneth the civil order) marriages, burials, and other\ncircumstances which are common both to holy, and also to honest civil\nsocieties; to afford places fit for holy assemblies, and other external\nhelps by which the sacred matters of the Lord may be more safely,\ncommodiously, and more easily in the church performed, to remove the\nexternal impediments of divine worship or of ecclesiastical peace, and to\nrepress those who exalt themselves against the true church and her\nministers, and do raise up trouble against them.\n\n47. The matter may further be thus illustrated, there is almost the like\nrespect and consideration of the magistrate as he is occupied about the\noutward things of the church, and of the ecclesiastic ministry as it is\noccupied about the inward or spiritual part of civil government, that is,\nabout those things which in the government of the commonwealth belong to\nthe conscience. It is one thing to govern the commonwealth, and to make\npolitical and civil laws, another thing to interpret the word of God, and\nout of it to show the magistrate his duty, to wit, how he ought to govern\nthe commonwealth, and in what manner he ought to use the sword. The former\nis proper and peculiar to the magistrate (neither doth the ministry\nintermeddle or entangle itself into such businesses), but the latter is\ncontained within the office of the ministers.\n\n48. For to that end also in the holy Scripture profitable, to show which\nis the best manner of governing a commonwealth, and that the magistrate,\nas being God\u2019s minister, may by this guiding star be so directed, as that\nhe may execute the parts of his office according to the will of God, and\nmay perfectly be instructed to every good work; yet the minister is not\nsaid properly to treat of civil businesses, but of the scandals which\narise about them, or in the cases of conscience which occur in the\nadministration of the commonwealth, so also the magistrate is not properly\nsaid to be exercised about the spiritual things of the church, but rather\nabout those external things which adhere unto and accompany the spiritual\nthings.\n\n49. And in such external matters of the church, although all magistrates\nwill not, yet all, yea even heathen magistrates, may and ought to aid and\nhelp the church: whence it is that by the command of God prayers are to be\nmade also for an heathen magistrate, that the faithful under them may live\na quiet life, with all godliness and honesty, 1 Tim. ii. 1, 2.\n\n50. Unto the external things of the church belongeth, not only the\ncorrection of heretics and other troublers of the church, but also that\ncivil order and way of convocating and calling together synods which is\nproper to the magistrate; for the magistrate ought by his authority and\npower both to establish the rights and liberties of synods assembling\ntogether at times appointed by the known and received law, and to indict\nand gather together synods occasionally, as often as the necessity of the\nchurch shall require the same. Not that all or any power to consult or\ndetermine of ecclesiastic or spiritual matters doth flow or spring from\nthe magistrate as head of the church under Christ, but because in those\nthings pertaining to the outward man, the church needeth the magistrate\u2019s\naid and support.\n\n51. So that the magistrate calleth together synods, not as touching those\nthings which are proper to synods, but in respect of the things which are\ncommon to synods with other meetings and civil public assemblies, that is,\nnot as they are assemblies in the name of Christ, to treat of matters\nspiritual, but as they are public assemblies within his territories; for\nto the end that public conventions may be kept in any territory, the\nlicense of the lord of that place ought to be desired. In synods,\ntherefore, a respect of order, as well civil as ecclesiastical, is to be\nhad; and because of this civil order, outward defence, better\naccommodation, together with safe access and recess, the consent and\ncommandment of him who is appointed to take care of, and defend human\norder, doth intervene.\n\n52. Moreover, when the church is rent asunder by unhappy and lamentable\nschisms, while they who have raised the troubles, and given cause for the\nsolemn gathering of a synod (whether by their heresy, or schism, or\ntyranny, or any other fault of others), use to place the great strength\nand safeguard of their cause in declining and fleeing the trial and\nsentence of a free synod as being formidable to them, who seeth not that\nthey cannot be drawn to a public and judicial trial, nor other disobedient\npersons be compelled to obedience, without the magistrate\u2019s public mandate\nand help.\n\n53. The object of ecclesiastical power is not the same with the object of\nthe civil power, but much differing from it; for the ecclesiastical power\ndoth determine and appoint nothing concerning men\u2019s bodies, goods,\ndignities, civil rights, but is employed only about the inward man or the\nsoul; not that it can search the hearts or judge of the secrets of the\nconscience, which is in the power of God alone: yet notwithstanding it\nhath for its proper object those externals which are purely spiritual, and\ndo belong properly and most nearly to the spiritual good of the soul;\nwhich also are termed \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b5\u1f34\u03c3\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, _the inward things of the\nchurch_.\n\n54. Those things, then, wherein the ecclesiastical power is exercised, are\nthe preaching of the word, the administration of sacraments, public prayer\nand thanksgiving, the catechising and instructing of children and ignorant\npersons, the examination of those who are to come to the holy communion,\nthe ecclesiastical discipline, the ordination of ministers, and the\nabdication, deposing, and degrading of them (if they become like unsavoury\nsalt), the deciding and determining of controversies of faith and cases of\nconscience, canonical constitutions concerning the treasury of the church\nand collections of the faithful, as also concerning ecclesiastical rites\nor indifferent things which pertain to the keeping of decency and order in\nthe church, according to the general rules of Christian love and prudence\ncontained in the word of God.\n\n55. It is true that about the same things the civil power is occupied, as\ntouching the outward man, or the outward disposing of divine things in\nthis or that dominion, as was said, not as they are spiritual and\nevangelical ordinances piercing into the conscience itself, but the object\nof the power ecclesiastical is a thing merely and purely spiritual; and in\nso far as it is spiritual (for even that jurisdiction ecclesiastical which\nis exercised in an outward court or judicatory, and which inflicteth\npublic censures, forbiddeth from the use of the holy supper, and excludeth\nfrom the society of the church) doth properly concern the inward man, or\nthe repentance and salvation of the soul.\n\n56. Surely the faithful and godly ministers, although they could do it\nunchallenged and uncontrolled, and were therein allowed by the magistrate\n(as in the prelatical times it was) yet would not usurp the power of life\nand death, or judge and determine concerning men\u2019s honours, goods,\ninheritance, division of families, or other civil businesses, seeing they\nwell know these things to be heterogeneous to their office; but as they\nought not to entangle themselves with the judging of civil causes, so if\nthey should be negligent and slothful in their own office, they shall in\nthat be no less culpable.\n\n57. To the object also of ecclesiastical power belongeth the assembling of\nsynods, so far as they are spiritual assemblies proper to the church, and\nassembled in the Holy Ghost; for being so considered, the governors of\nchurches, after the example of the apostles and presbyters, Acts xv., in a\nmanifest danger of the church, ought to use their own right of meeting\ntogether and convening, that the churches endangered may be relieved and\nsupported.\n\n58. _Thirdly_, These powers are differenced in respect of their forms, and\nthat three ways: for, first, the civil power, although in respect of God\nit be ministerial, yet in respect of the subjects it is lordly and\nmagisterial. Ecclesiastical power is indeed furnished with authority, yet\nthat authority is liker the fatherly than the kingly authority; yea also\nit is purely ministerial, much less can it be lawful to ministers of the\nchurch to bear dominion over the flock.\n\n59. Emperors, kings, and other magistrates are indeed appointed fathers of\nthe country, but they are withal lords of their people and subjects: not\nas if it were permitted to them to bear rule and command at their own will\nand as they list (for they are the ministers of God for the good and\nprofit of the subjects), yet it belongs to their power truly and properly\nto exercise dominion, to hold principality, to proceed imperiously. It is\nindeed the duty of ministers and rulers of the church to oversee, to feed\nas shepherds, to correct and rectify, to bear the keys, to be stewards in\nthe house of Christ, but in nowise to be lords over the house, or to\ngovern as lords, or lord-like to rule; yea, in brief, this is the\ndifference between the civil magistrate and the ecclesiastical ministry,\nin respect of those who are committed to their trust, that the lot of the\nformer is to be served or ministered unto, the lot of the latter to\nminister or serve.\n\n60. Now we have one only Lord who governs our souls, neither is it\ncompetent to man, but to God alone, to have power and authority over\nconsciences. But the Lord hath appointed his own stewards over his own\nfamily, that according to his commandment they may give to every one their\nallowance or portion, and to dispense his mysteries faithfully; and to\nthem he hath delivered the keys, or power of letting into his house, or\nexcluding out of his house those whom he himself will have let in or shut\nout. Matt. xvi. 19; and xviii. 18; Luke xii. 42; 1 Cor. iv. 1; Tit. i. 7.\n\n61. Next, the civil power is endued with authority of compelling; but it\nbelongs not to the ministry to compel the disobedient. If any compulsion\nbe in or about ecclesiastical matters, it is adventitious from without, to\nwit, from the help and assistance of the magistrate, not from the nature\nof ecclesiastical power, from which it is very heterogeneous; and,\ntherefore, if any suspended or excommunicate person should be found who\nshall be so stiff-necked, and so impudent, that at once he cast off all\nshame, and make no account at all of those censures, but scorn and contemn\nthe same, or peradventure shall insolently or proudly obtrude himself upon\nthe sacrament, or being also filled with devilish malice do more and more\ncontradict and blaspheme, the ecclesiastical ministry in such cases hath\nnothing more to do by way of jurisdiction: but the magistrate hath in\nreadiness a compelling jurisdiction and external force, whereby such\nstubborn, rebellious, and undaunted pride may be externally repressed.\n\n62. Last of all, the power of the magistrate worketh only politically or\ncivilly, according to the nature of the sceptre or sword, maketh and\nguardeth civil laws, which sometimes also he changeth or repealeth, and\nother things of that kind he effecteth with a secular power: but the\necclesiastical power dealeth spiritually, and only in the name of our Lord\nJesus Christ, and by authority intrusted or received from him alone:\nneither is exercised without prayer or calling on the name of God; nor,\nlastly, doth it use any other than spiritual weapons.\n\n63. The same sin, therefore, in the same man may be punished one way by\nthe civil, another way by the ecclesiastical power; by the civil power\nunder the formality of a crime, with corporal or pecuniary punishment, by\nthe ecclesiastical power, under the notion and nature of scandal, with a\nspiritual censure, even as also the same civil question is one way\ndeliberate upon and handled by the magistrate in the senate or place of\njudgment, another way by the minister of the church, in the presbytery or\nsynod; by the magistrate, so far as it pertaineth to the government of the\ncommonwealth, by the minister, as far as it respects the conscience; for\nthe ecclesiastical ministry also is exercised about civil things\nspiritually, in so far as it teacheth and admonisheth the magistrate out\nof the word of God what is best and most acceptable unto God; or as it\nreproveth freely unjust judgments, unjust wars, and the like, and out of\nthe Scripture threateneth the wrath of God to be revealed against all\nunrighteousness of men: so also is the magistrate said to be occupied\ncivilly about spiritual things.\n\n64. Therefore all the actions of the civil magistrate, even when he is\nemployed about ecclesiastical matters, are of their own nature and\nessentially civil, he punisheth externally idolaters, blasphemers,\nsacrilegious persons, heretics, profaners of holy things, and according to\nthe nature and measure of the sin he condemneth to death or banishment,\nforfeiture of goods, or imprisonment; he guardeth and underproppeth\necclesiastical canons with civil authority, giveth a place of habitation\nto the church in his territory, restraineth or expelleth the insolent and\nuntamed disturbers of the church.\n\n65. He taketh care also for maintaining the ministers and schools, and\nsupplieth the temporal necessities of God\u2019s servants; by his command\nassembleth synods, when there is need of them; and summoneth, calleth out,\nand draws to trial the unwilling, which without the magistrate\u2019s strength\nand authority cannot be done, as hath been already said; he maketh synods\nalso safe and secure, and in a civil way presideth or moderateth in them\n(if it seem so good to him) either by himself or by a substitute\ncommissioner: in all which the power of the magistrate, though occupied\nabout spiritual things, is not for all that spiritual, but civil.\n\n66. _Fourthly_, They differ in the end. The immediate nearest end of civil\npower is, that the good of the commonwealth may be provided for and\nprocured, whether it be, in time of peace, according to the rules of law\nand counsel of judges, or in time of war, according to the rules of\nmilitary prudence, and so the temporal safety of the subjects may be\nprocured, and that external peace and civil liberty may be preserved, and,\nbeing lost, may be again restored.\n\n67. But the chiefest and last end of civil government is, the glory of God\nthe Creator, namely, that those who do evil, being by a superior power\nrestrained or punished, and those who do good getting praise of the same,\nthe subjects so much the more may shun impiety and injustice, and that\nvirtue, justice, and the moral law of God (as touching those eternal\nduties of both tables, unto which all the posterity of Adam are obliged)\nmay remain in strength and flourish.\n\n68. But whereas the Christian magistrate doth wholly devote himself to the\npromoting of the gospel and kingdom of Christ, and doth direct and bend\nall the might and strength of his authority to that end: this proceedeth\nnot from the nature of his office or function, which is common to him with\nan infidel magistrate, but from the influence of his common Christian\ncalling into his particular vocation.\n\n69. For every member of the church (and so also the faithful and godly\nmagistrate) ought to refer and order his particular vocation, faculty,\nability, power and honour, to this end, that the kingdom of Christ may be\npropagated and promoted, and the true religion be cherished and defended:\nso that the advancement of the gospel, and of all the ordinances of the\ngospel, is indeed the end of the godly magistrate, not of a magistrate\nsimply: or (if ye will rather) it is not the end of the office itself, but\nof him who doth execute the same piously.\n\n70. But the end of ecclesiastical power, yea, the end as well of the\nministry itself as of the godly minister, is, that the kingdom of Christ\nmay be set forward; that the paths of the Lord be made straight; that his\nholy mysteries may be kept pure; that stumblingblocks may be removed out\nof the church, lest a little leaven leaven the whole lump, or lest one\nsick or scabbed sheep infect the whole flock; that the faithful may so\nwalk as it becometh the gospel of Christ, and that the wandering sheep of\nChrist may be converted and brought back to the sheepfold.\n\n71. And seeing this power is given of the Lord not to destruction but to\nedification, therefore this same scope is propounded in excommunication\n(which is the greatest and last of ecclesiastical censures), namely, that\nthe soul of an offending brother may be gained to Christ, and that, being\nstricken with fear, and the stubborn sinner filled with shame, may by the\ngrace of God be humbled, and may (as a brand plucked out of the fire) be\nsnatched out of the snare of the devil, and may repent unto salvation; at\nleast the rest may turn away from those which are branded with such a\ncensure, lest the soul-infection do creep and spread further.\n\n72. _Fifthly_, They are distinguished by the effect. The effect of civil\npower is either proper, or by way of redundance. The proper effect is the\nsafety temporal of the commonwealth, external tranquillity, the fruition\nof civil liberty, and of all things which are necessary to the civil\nsociety of men: the effect by way of redundance is the good of the church,\nto wit, in so far as, by execution of justice and good laws, some\nimpediments that usually hinder and disturb the course of the gospel, are\navoided or taken away.\n\n73. For by how much the more faithfully the magistrate executeth his\noffice in punishing the wicked, and cherishing and encouraging good men,\ntaking away those things which withstand the gospel, and punishing or\ndriving away the troublers and subverters of the church,\u2014so much the more\nthe orthodox faith and godliness are reverenced and had in\nestimation,\u2014sins are hated and feared. Finally, All the subjects contained\n(as much as concerneth the outward man) within the lists of God\u2019s law,\nwhence, also, by consequence, it happeneth, by God\u2019s blessing, that the\nchurch is defiled with fewer scandals, and doth obtain the more freedom\nand peace.\n\n74. But the proper effect of the ecclesiastical power, or keys of the\nkingdom of heaven is wholly spiritual; for the act of binding and loosing,\nof retaining and remitting sins, doth reach to the soul and conscience\nitself (which cannot be said of the act of the civil power): and as unjust\nexcommunication is void, so ecclesiastical censure, being inflicted by the\nministers of Christ and his stewards according to his will, is ratified in\nheaven (Matt, xviii. 18), and therefore ought to be esteemed and\nacknowledged in like manner as inflicted by Christ himself.\n\n75. _Sixthly_, They are also differenced in respect of the subjects. The\npolitic power is committed sometimes to one, sometimes to more, sometime\nby right of election, sometime by right of succession; but the\necclesiastical power is competent to none under the New Testament by the\nright of succession, but he who hath it must be called by God and the\nchurch to it; neither was it given by Christ to one, either pastor or\nelder, much less to a prelate, but _to the church_, that is, to the\nconsistory of presbyters. It is confessed, indeed, and who can be ignorant\nof it, that the power, as they call it, of order, doth belong to\nparticular ministers, and is by each of them apart lawfully exercised. But\nthat power which is commonly called of jurisdiction is committed not to\none, but to the unity, that is, to a consistory; therefore ecclesiastical\ncensure ought not to be inflicted but \u201cby many,\u201d 2 Cor. ii. 6.\n\n76. _Seventhly_, They differ as touching the correlative. God hath\ncommanded, that unto the civil power every soul, or all members of the\ncommonwealth, of what condition and estate soever, be subject; for what\nhave we to do with the Papists, who will have them whom they call the\nclergy or ecclesiastical persons, to be free from the yoke of the civil\nmagistrate? The ecclesiastical power extends itself to none other subjects\nthan unto those which are called brethren, or members of the church.\n\n77. _Eighthly_, There remaineth another difference in respect of the\ndistinct and divided exercise of authority, for either power ceasing from\nits duty, or remitting punishment, that doth not (surely it ought not)\nprejudice the exercise of the other power, namely, if the magistrate cease\nto do his duty, or do neglect to punish, with secular punishment, those\nmalefactors who, by profession, are church members nevertheless, it is in\nthe power of the governors of the church, by the bridle of ecclesiastical\ndiscipline, to curb such men; yea also, by virtue of their office, they\nare bound to do it, and on the other part, the magistrate may and ought to\npunish in life and limb, honours or goods, notwithstanding of the\noffender\u2019s repentance or reconciliation with the church.\n\n78. Therefore, the one sword being put up in the scabbard, it is free, and\noften necessary, to draw the other. Neither power is bound to cast out or\nreceive him whom the other doth cast forth or receive the reason whereof\nis, because the ecclesiastical ministry doth chiefly respect the\nrepentance to salvation, and gaining of the sinner\u2019s soul, wherefore it\nalso embraceth all kinds of wicked men repenting, and receiveth them into\nthe bosom of the church; the magistrate proposeth to himself another and\nmuch differing scope, for even repenting offenders are by him punished,\nboth that justice and the laws may be satisfied, as also to terrify\nothers,\u2014hence it is that absolution from ecclesiastic censure freeth not\nat all the delinquent from civil judgment and the external sword.\n\n79. Seeing, then, there are so many and so great differences of both\noffices, and seeing also that the function of ministers and elders of the\nchurch is not at all contained in the office of the magistrate, neither,\non the other part, is this comprehended within that, magistrates shall no\nless sin in usurping ecclesiastical power, ministering holy things,\nordaining ministers, or exercising discipline ecclesiastical, than\nministers should sin in rushing into the borders of the magistrate, and in\nthrusting themselves into his calling.\n\n80. Neither are those powers more mingled one with another, or less\ndistinguished, where the magistrate is a Christian than where he is an\ninfidel, for as in a believing father, and in an infidel father, the\nrights of a father are the same, so in a Christian magistrate, and in an\ninfidel magistrate, the rights of magistrates are the same; so that to the\nmagistrate converted to the Christian faith there is no accession of new\nright, or increase of civil power, although being endued with true faith\nand piety, he is made more fit and willing to the undergoing of his office\nand the doing of his duty.\n\n81. So, then, the word of God and the law of Christ, which by so evident\ndifference separateth and distinguisheth ecclesiastical government from\nthe civil, forbiddeth the Christian magistrate to enter upon or usurp the\nministry of the word and sacraments, or the judicial dispensing of the\nkeys of the kingdom of heaven, to invade the church government, or to\nchallenge to himself the right of both swords, spiritual and corporal; but\nif any magistrate (which God forbid) should dare to arrogate to himself so\nmuch, and to enlarge his skirts so far, the church shall then straightway\nbe constrained to complain justly, and cry out, that though the Pope is\nchanged, yet popedom remaineth still.\n\n82. It is unlawful, moreover, to a Christian magistrate to withstand the\npractice and execution of ecclesiastical discipline (whether it be that\nwhich belongs to a particular church, or the matter be carried to a class\nor synod). Now the magistrate withstandeth the ecclesiastic discipline,\neither by prohibitions and unjust laws, or, by his evil example, stirring\nup and inciting others to the contempt thereof, or to the trampling it\nunder foot.\n\n83. Surely the Christian magistrate (if at any time he give any grievous\nscandal to the church), seeing he also is a member of the church, ought\nnowise disdain to submit himself to the power of the keys; neither is this\nto be marvelled at, for even as the office of the minister of the church\nis nowise subordinate and subjected to the civil power, but the person of\nthe minister, as he is a member of the commonwealth, is subject thereto,\nso the civil power itself, or the magistrate, as a magistrate, is not\nsubjected to ecclesiastical power; yet that man, who is a magistrate,\nought (as he is a member of the church) to be under the church\u2019s censure\nof his manners, after the example of the emperor Theodosius, unless he\nwill despise and set at nought ecclesiastical discipline, and indulge the\nswelling pride of the flesh.\n\n84. If any man should again object that the magistrate is not indeed to\nresist ecclesiastical government, yet that the abuses thereof are to be\ncorrected and taken away by him, the answer is ready. In the worst and\nmost troublesome times, or in the decayed and troubled estate of things,\nwhen the ordinance of God in the church is violently turned into tyranny,\nto the treading down of true religion, and to the oppressing of the\nprofessors thereof, and when nothing almost is sound or whole, divers\nthings are yielded to be lawful to godly magistrates, which are not\nordinarily lawful for them, that so to extraordinary diseases\nextraordinary remedies may be applied. So also the magistrate abusing his\npower unto tyranny, and making havoc of all, it is lawful to resist him by\nsome extraordinary ways and means, which are not ordinarily to be allowed.\n\n85. Yet ordinarily, and by common or known law and right in settled\nchurches, if any man have recourse to the magistrate to complain, that,\nthrough abuse of ecclesiastical discipline, injury is done to him, or if\nany sentence of the pastors and elders of the church, whether concerning\nfaith or discipline, do displease or seem unjust unto the magistrate\nhimself, it is not for that cause lawful to draw those ecclesiastical\ncauses to a civil tribunal, or to bring in a kind of political or civil\npopedom.\n\n86. What then? Shall it be lawful ordinarily for ministers and elders to\ndo what they list? Or shall the governors in the churches, glorying in the\nlaw, by their transgression dishonour God? God forbid. For first, if they\nshall trespass in anything against the magistrate or municipal laws,\nwhether by intermeddling in judging of civil causes, or otherwise\ndisturbing the peace and order of the commonwealth, they are liable to\ncivil trial and judgments, and it is in the power of the magistrate to\nrestrain and punish them.\n\n87. Again, it hath been before showed, that to ecclesiastical evils\necclesiastical remedies are appointed and fitted, for the church is, no\nless than the commonwealth, through the grace of God, sufficient to itself\nin reference unto her own end, and as in the commonwealth, so in the\nchurch, the error of inferior judgments and assemblies, or their evil\ngovernment, is to be corrected by superior judgments and assemblies, and\nso still by them of the same order, lest one order be confounded with\nanother, or one government be intermingled with another government. What\nshall now the adversaries of ecclesiastical power object here, which those\nwho admit not the yoke of the magistrate may not be ready, in like manner,\nto transfer against the civil judicatories and government of the\ncommonwealth, seeing it happeneth sometimes that the commonwealth is no\nless ill governed than the church?\n\n88. If any man shall prosecute the argument, and say that yet no remedy is\nhere showed which may be applied to the injustice or error of a national\nsynod, surely he stumbleth against the same stone, seeing he weigheth not\nthe matter with an equal balance, for the same may, in like sort, fall\nback and be cast upon parliaments, or any supreme senate of a\ncommonwealth, for who seeth not the judgment of the supreme civil senate\nto be nothing more infallible, yea, also, in matters of faith and\necclesiastical discipline, more apt and prone to error (as being less\naccustomed to sacred studies) than the judgment of the national synod?\nWhat medicines then, or what sovereign plasters shall be had, which may be\nfit for the curing and healing of the errors and miscarriages of the\nsupreme magistrates and senate? The very like, and beside all this, other\nand more effectual medicines by which the errors of national synods may be\nhealed, are possible to be had.\n\n89. There wanteth not a divine medicine and sovereign balm in Gilead, for\nalthough the popish opinion of the infallibility of counsels be worthily\nrejected and exploded, yet it is not in vain that Christ hath promised he\nshall be present with an assembly which indeed and in truth meeteth in his\nname with such an assembly verily he useth to be present, by a spiritual\naid and assistance of his own Spirit, to uphold the falling, or to raise\nup the fallen. Whence it is that divers times the errors of former synods\nare discovered and amended by the latter; sometimes, also, the second or\nafterthoughts of one and the same synod are the wiser and the better.\n\n90. Furthermore, the line of ecclesiastical subordination is longer and\nfurther stretched than the line of civil subordination; for a national\nsynod must be subordinate and subject to an universal synod in the manner\naforesaid, whereas yet there is no oecumenical parliament or general civil\ncourt acknowledged, unto which the supreme civil senate in this or that\nnation should be subject. Finally, neither is the church altogether\ndestitute of nearer remedies whether an universal council may be had or\nnot.\n\n91. For the national synod ought to declare, and that with greatest\nreverence, to the magistrate, the grounds of their sentence, and the\nreasons of their proceedings, when he demandeth or inquireth into the\nsame, and desireth to be satisfied; but if the magistrate nevertheless do\ndissent, or cannot, by contrary reasons (which may be brought, if he\nplease), move the synod to alter their judgment, yet may he require and\nprocure that the matter be again debated and canvassed in another national\nsynod, and so the reasons of both sides being thoroughly weighed, may be\nlawfully determined in an ecclesiastical way.\n\n92. But as there is much indeed to be given to the demand of the\nmagistrate, so is there here a twofold caution to be used, for, first,\nnotwithstanding of a future revision, it is necessary that the former\nsentence of the synod, whether concerning the administration of\necclesiastical discipline, or against any heresy, be forthwith put in\nexecution, lest by lingering, and making of delays, the evil of the church\ntake deeper root, and the gangrene spread and creep further; and lest\nviolence be done to the consciences of ministers, if they be constrained\nto impart the signs and seals of the covenant of grace to dogs and swine,\nthat is, to unclean persons, wallowing in the mire of ungodliness; and\nlest subtile men abuse such interims or intervals, so as that\necclesiastical discipline altogether decay, and the very decrees of synods\nbe accounted as cobwebs, which none feareth to break down.\n\n93. Next it may be granted that the matter may be put under a further\nexamination, yet upon condition, that when it is come to the revision of\nthe former sentence, regard may be had of the weaker which are found\nwilling to be taught, though they doubt; but that unto the wicked and\ncontentious tempters, which do mainly strive to oppress our liberty which\nwe have in Christ, and to bring us into bondage, we do not for a moment\ngive place by subjecting ourselves; for what else seek they or wait for,\nthan that, under the pretence of a revising and of new debate, they cast\nin lets and impediments ever and anon, and that by cunning lyings in wait\nthey may betray the liberty of the church, and in process of time may, by\nopen violence, more forcibly break in upon it, or at least constrain the\nministers of the church to weave Penelope\u2019s web, which they can never\nbring to an end.\n\n94. Moreover, the Christian magistrate hath then only discharged his\noffice in reference to ecclesiastical discipline, when not only he\nwithdraweth nothing from it, and maketh no impediment to it, but also\naffordeth special furtherance and help to it, according to the prophecy,\nIsa. xlix. 23, \u201cAnd kings shall be thy nursing-fathers, and their queens\nthy nursing-mothers.\u201d\n\n95. For Christian magistrates and princes, embracing Christ, and sincerely\ngiving their names to him, do not only serve him as men, but also use\ntheir office to his glory and the good of the church; they defend, stand\nfor, and take care to propagate the true faith and godliness,\u2014they afford\nplaces of habitation to the church, and furnish necessary helps and\nsupports,\u2014turn away injuries done to it,\u2014restrain false religion,\u2014and\ncherish, underprop, and defend the rights and liberties of the church: so\nfar they are from diminishing, changing or restraining those rights; for\nso the condition of the church were in that respect worse, and the liberty\nthereof more cut short, under the Christian magistrate, than under the\ninfidel or heathen.\n\n96. Wherefore seeing these nursing-fathers, favourers, and defenders, can\ndo nothing against the truth, but for the truth, nor have any right\nagainst the gospel, but for the gospel; and their power, in respect of the\nchurch whereof they bear the care, being not privative or destructive, but\ncumulative and auxiliary, thereby it is sufficiently clear that they ought\nto cherish, and by their authority ought to establish the ecclesiastical\ndiscipline; but yet not with implicit faith, or blind obedience; for the\nreformed churches do not deny to any of the faithful, much less to the\nmagistrate, the judgment of Christian prudence and discretion concerning\nthose things which are decreed or determined by the church.\n\n97. Therefore, as to each member of the church respectively, so unto the\nmagistrate belongeth the judgment of such things, both to apprehend and to\njudge of them; for although the magistrate is not ordained and preferred\nof God, that he should be a judge of matters and causes spiritual, of\nwhich there is controversy in the church, yet is he questionless judge of\nhis own civil act about spiritual things; namely, of defending them in his\nown dominions, and of approving or tolerating the same; and if, in this\nbusiness, he judge and determine according to the wisdom of the flesh, and\nnot according to the wisdom which is from above, he is to render an\naccount thereof before the supreme tribunal.\n\n98. However, the ecclesiastical discipline, according as it is ordained by\nChrist, whether it be established and ratified by civil authority or not,\nought to be retained and exercised in the society of the faithful (as long\nas it is free and safe for them to come together in holy assemblies), for\nthe want of civil authority is unto the church like a ceasing gain, but\nnot like damage or loss ensuing; as it superaddeth nothing more, so it\ntakes nothing away.\n\n99. If it further happen (which God forbid) that the magistrate do so far\nabuse his authority, that he doth straitly forbid what Christ hath\nordained, yet the constant and faithful servants of Christ will resolve\nand determine with themselves, that any extremities are rather to be\nundergone than that they should obey such things, and that we ought to\nobey God rather than men; yea, they will not leave off to perform all the\nparts of their office, being ready in the meantime to render a reason of\ntheir practice to every one that demandeth it, but specially unto the\nmagistrate (as was said before).\n\n100. These things are not to that end and purpose proposed, that these\nfunctions should be opposed one against another, in a hostile posture, or\nin terms of enmity, than which nothing is more hurtful to the church and\ncommonwealth, nothing more execrable to them who are truly and sincerely\nzealous for the house of God (for they have not so learned Christ); but\nthe aim is, first, and above all, that unto the King of kings and Lord of\nlords, Jesus Christ, the only monarch of the church, his own prerogative\nroyal (of which also himself in the world was accused, and for his\nwitnessing a good confession thereof before Pontius Pilate, was unjustly\ncondemned to death) may be fully maintained and defended.\n\n101. Next, this debate tendeth also to this end, that the power, as well\nof ecclesiastical censure as of the civil sword, being in force, the\nlicentiousness of carnal men, who desire that there be too slack\necclesiastical discipline, or none at all, may be bridled, and so men may\nsin less, and may live more agreeably to the gospel. Another thing here\nintended is, that errors on both sides being overthrown (as well the error\nof those who, under a fair pretence of maintaining and defending the\nrights of magistracy, do leave to the church either no power, or that\nwhich is too weak, as the error of others, who, under the veil of a\ncertain suppositious and imaginary Christian liberty, do turn off the yoke\nof the magistrate) both powers may enjoy their own privileges; add hereto,\nthat both powers being circumscribed with their distinct borders and\nbounds, and also the one underpropped and strengthened by the help of the\nother, a holy concord between them may be nourished, and they may mutually\nand friendly embrace one another.\n\n102. Last of all, seeing there are not wanting some unhappy men, who cease\nnot to pervert the right ways of the Lord, and with all diligence go about\nto shake off the yoke of the ecclesiastical discipline where now it is\nabout to be introduced, yea, also where it hath been long ago established,\nand as yet happily remaineth in force, it was necessary to obviate their\nmost wicked purposes; which things being so, let all which hath been said\npass, with the good leave and liking of those orthodox churches in which\nthe discipline of excommunication is not as yet in use; neither can any\noffence easily arise to them from hence, yea (if the best conjecture do\nnot deceive), they cannot but rejoice and congratulate at the defence and\nvindication of this discipline.\n\n103. For those churches do not deny, but acknowledge and teach, that the\ndiscipline of excommunication is most agreeable to the word of God, as\nalso that it ought to be restored and exercised; which also, heretofore,\nthe most learned Zachary Ursine, in the declaration of his judgment\nconcerning excommunication, exhibited to Prince Frederick, the third count\nelector palatine, the title whereof is, _Judicium de Disciplina\nEcclesiastica et Excommunicatione, &c._\n\n104. For thus he: \u201cIn other churches where either no excommunication is in\nuse, or it is not lawfully administered, and nevertheless, without all\ncontroversy, it is confessed and openly taught, that it ought justly to be\nreceived and be of force in the church.\u201d And a little after: \u201cLest also\nyour Highness, by this new opinion, do sever yourself and your churches\nfrom all other churches, as well those which have not excommunication as\nthose which have it; forasmuch as all of them do unanimously confess, and\nalways confessed, that there is reason why it ought to be in use.\u201d\n\n105. To the same purpose it tendeth which the highly esteemed Philip\nMelancthon, in his _Common Places_, chap. _Of civil magistrates_, doth\naffirm: \u201cBefore (saith he) I warned that civil places and powers are to be\ndistinguished from the adhering confusions which arise from other causes,\npartly from the malice of the devil, partly from the malice of men, partly\nfrom the common infirmity of men, as it cometh to pass in other kinds of\nlife and government ordained of God. No man doubteth that ecclesiastical\ngovernment is ordained of God, and yet how many and great disorders grow\nin it from other causes.\u201d Where he mentioneth a church government distinct\nfrom the civil, and that _jure divino_, as a thing uncontroverted.\n\n106. Neither were the wishes of the chief divines of Zurich and Berne\nwanting for the recalling and restoring of the discipline of\nexcommunication. So Bullinger, upon 1 Cor. v.: \u201cAnd hitherto (saith he) of\nthe ecclesiastical chastising of wickedness; but here I would have the\nbrethren diligently warned, that they watch, and with all diligence take\ncare that this wholesome medicine, thrown out of the true church, by\noccasion of the Pope\u2019s avarice, may be reduced; that is, that scandalous\nsins be punished; for this is the very end of excommunication, that men\u2019s\nmanners may be well ordered, and the saints flourish, the profane being\nrestrained, lest wicked men, by their impudence and impiety, increase and\nundo all. It is our part, O brethren, with greatest diligence, to take\ncare of those things; for we see that Paul, in this place, doth stir up\nthose that were negligent in this business.\u201d\n\n107. Aretius agreeth hereunto. _Problem. Theolog._, loc. 33: \u201cMagistrates\ndo not admit the yoke; they are afraid for their honours; they love\nlicentiousness,\u201d &c. \u201cThe common people are too dissolute; the greatest\npart is most corrupt,\u201d &c. \u201cIn the meanwhile, I willingly confess that we\nare not to despair, but the age following will peradventure yield more\ntractable spirits, more mild hearts than our times have.\u201d See also Lavater\nagreeing in this, homil. 52, on Nehemiah: \u201cBecause the popes of Rome have\nabused excommunication, for the establishing of their own tyranny, it\ncometh to pass that almost no just discipline can be any more settled in\nthe church; but unless the wicked be restrained, all things must of\nnecessity run into the worst condition.\u201d See, besides, the opinion of\nFabritius upon Psal. cxlix. 6-9, of spiritual corrections, which he\ngroundeth upon that text compared with Matt. xvi. 19; xviii. 18; John xx.\n23.\n\n108. It can hardly be doubted or called in question, but besides these,\nother learned and godly divines of those churches were and are of the same\nmind herein with those now cited; and, indeed, the very Confession of\nFaith of the churches of Helvetia, chap. 18, may be an evidence hereof:\n\u201cBut there ought to be, in the meantime, a just discipline amongst\nministers, for the doctrine and life of ministers is diligently to be\ninquired of in synods: those that sin are to be rebuked of the elders, and\nto be brought again into the way, if they be curable; or to be deposed,\nand, like wolves, driven away from the flock of the Lord, if they be\nincurable.\u201d That this manner of synodical censure, namely, of deposing\nministers from their office for some great scandal, is used in the\nrepublic of Zurich, Lavater is witness, in his book of the rites and\nordinances of the church of Zurich, chap. 23. Surely they could not be of\nthat mind, that ecclesiastical discipline ought to be exercised upon\ndelinquent ministers only, and not also upon other rotten members of the\nchurch.\n\n109. Yea, the Helvetian Confession, in the place now cited, doth so tax\nthe inordinate zeal of the Donatists and Anabaptists (which are so bent\nupon the rooting out of the tares out of the Lord\u2019s field, that they take\nnot heed of the danger of plucking up the wheat) that withal it doth not\nobscurely commend the ecclesiastical forensical discipline as distinct\nfrom the civil power; \u201cAnd seeing (say they) it is altogether necessary\nthat there be in the church a discipline; and among the ancients, in times\npast, excommunication hath been usual, and ecclesiastical courts have been\namong the people of God, among whom this discipline was exercised by\nprudent and godly men. It belongeth also to ministers, according to the\ncase of the times, the public estate and necessity to moderate this\ndiscipline,\u2014where this rule is ever to be held, that all ought to be done\nto edification, decently, honestly, without tyranny and sedition. The\nApostle also witnesseth (2 Cor. xiii.), that to himself was given of God a\npower unto edification, and not unto destruction.\u201d\n\n110. And, now, what resteth but that God be entreated with continual and\nardent prayers, both that he would put into the hearts of all magistrates,\nzeal and care to cherish, defend, and guard the ecclesiastical discipline,\ntogether with the rest of Christ\u2019s ordinances, and to stop their ears\nagainst the importunate suits of whatsoever claw-backs who would stir them\nup against the church; and that, also, all governors and rulers of\nchurches, being everywhere furnished and helped with the strength of the\nHoly Spirit, may diligently and faithfully execute this part also of their\nfunction, as it becometh the trusty servants of Christ, who study to\nplease their own Lord and Master more than men.\n\n111. Finally, All those who are more averse from ecclesiastical\ndiscipline, or ill-affected against it, are to be admonished and\nentreated, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that they be no longer entangled\nand inveigled with carnal prejudice, to give place in this thing to human\naffections, and to measure by their own corrupt reason spiritual\ndiscipline, but that they do seriously think with themselves, and consider\nin their minds, how much better it were that the lusts of the flesh were,\nas with a bridle, tamed; and that the repentance, amendment, and gaining\nof vicious men unto salvation may be sought, than that sinners be left to\ntheir own disposition, and be permitted to follow their own lusts without\ncontrolment, and by their evil example to draw others headlong into ruin\nwith themselves; and seeing either the keys of discipline must take no\nrust, or the manners of Christians will certainly contract much rust: what\nis here to be chosen, and what is to be shunned, let the wise and godly,\nwho alone take to heart the safety of the church, judge.\n\nTHE END.\n\n\n\n\n\nA SERMON PREACHED BEFORE THE HONOURABLE HOUSE OF COMMONS AT THEIR LATE\nSOLEMN FAST\n\n\n                                    A\n\n                                  SERMON\n\n                             PREACHED BEFORE\n\n                     THE HONOURABLE HOUSE OF COMMONS\n\n                        AT THEIR LATE SOLEMN FAST,\n\n                        WEDNESDAY, MARCH 27, 1644.\n\n                           BY GEORGE GILLESPIE,\n\n                       MINISTER AT EDINBURGH, 1642.\n\n \u201cWhen the Lord shall build up Zion, he shall appear in his glory\u201d\u2014Psal.\n                                 cii. 16.\n\n                                EDINBURGH:\n\n                     ROBERT OGLE AND OLIVER AND BOYD.\n\nM. OGLE & SON AND WILLIAM COLLINS, GLASGOW. J. DEWAR, PERTH. W. MIDDLETON,\n                                  DUNDEE\n\n               G. & R. KING, ABERDEEN. W. M\u2019COMB, BELFAST.\n\n         HAMILTON, ADAMS, & CO., AND JAMES NISBET & CO., LONDON.\n\n           REPRINTED BY A. W. MURRAY, MILNE SQUARE, EDINBURGH.\n\n                                  1844.\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE TO THE READER.\n\n\nDivine providence hath made it my lot, and a calling hath induced me (who\nam less than the least of all the servants of Christ) to appear among\nothers in this cloud of public witnesses. The scope of the sermon is to\nendeavour the removal of the obstructions, both of _humiliation_ and\n_reformation_; two things which ought to lie very much in our thoughts at\nthis time. Concerning both I shall preface but little. _Reformation_ hath\nmany unfriends, some upon _the right hand_, and some upon _the left_;\nwhile others cry up that _detestable indifferency_ or _neutrality_,\nabjured in our solemn covenant, insomuch that Gamaliel (Acts v. 38, 39)\nand Gallio (Acts xviii. 14-17), men who regarded alike the Jewish and the\nChristian religion, are highly commended, as \u201cexamples for all\nChristians,\u201d(1361) and as men walking by the rules not only of policy, but\nof \u201creason and religion.\u201d Now, let all those that are either against us or\nnot with us do what they can, the right hand of the most High shall\nperfect the glorious begun reformation. Can all the world keep down \u201cthe\nSun of Righteousness\u201d from rising? or, being risen, can they spread a vail\nover it? And though they dig deep to hide their counsels, is not this a\ntime of God\u2019s overreaching and befooling all plotting wits? They have\nconceived iniquity, and they shall bring forth vanity: \u201cThey have sown the\nwind, and they shall reap the whirlwind\u201d (Hos. viii. 7). Wherefore we\n\u201cwill wait upon the Lord, that hideth his face from the house of Jacob,\nand will look for him\u201d (Isa. viii. 17); and \u201cthough he slay us, yet will\nwe trust in him\u201d (Job xiii. 15). The Lord hath commanded to proclaim, and\nto say \u201cto the daughter of Zion, Behold, thy salvation cometh\u201d (Isa. lxii.\n11); \u201cRejoice ye with Jerusalem, all ye that mourn for her\u201d (Isa. lxvi.\n10); for \u201cbehold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of\nsalvation\u201d (2 Cor. vi. 2). But I have more to say: Mourn, O mourn with\nJerusalem, all ye that rejoice for her; \u201cThis day is a day of trouble, and\nof rebuke, and of blasphemy: for the children are come to the birth, and\nthere is not strength to bring forth\u201d (Isa. xxxvii. 3): it is an\ninterwoven time, _warped_ with mercies, and _woofted_ with judgments. Say\nnot thou in thine heart, The days of my mourning are at an end: Oh! we are\nto this day an unhumbled and an unprepared people; and there are among us\nboth many cursed Achans, and many sleeping Jonahs, but few wrestling\nJacobs; even the wise virgins are slumbering with the foolish (Matt. xxv.\n5): surely, unless we be timely awakened, and more deeply humbled, God\nwill punish us yet \u201cseven times\u201d (Lev. xxvi. 18, 21, 24, 28) more for our\nsins; and if he hath chastised us with \u201cwhips,\u201d he will \u201cchastise us with\nscorpions;\u201d and he will yet give a further charge to the sword to \u201cavenge\nthe quarrel of his covenant\u201d (Lev, xxvi. 25). In such a case, I cannot\nsay, according to the now Oxford divinity, that _preces et\nlachrymae_,\u2014prayers and tears,\u2014must be our only one shelter and fortress,\nand that we must cast away defensive arms, as unlawful, in any case\nwhatsoever, against the supreme magistrate (that is, by interpretation,\nthey would have us do no more than _pray_, to the end themselves may do no\nless than _prey)_; wherein they are contradicted not only by Pareus, and\nby others that are \u201ceager for a presbytery\u201d (as a prelate(1362) of chief\nnote hath lately taken, I should say _mistaken_, his mark), but even by\nthose that are \u201ceager royalists\u201d(1363) (pardon me that I give them not\ntheir right name: I am sure, when all is well reckoned, we are better\nfriends to royal authority than themselves). Yet herein I do agree with\nthem, that \u201cprayers and tears\u201d will prove our strongest weapons, and the\nonly _tela divina_, the weapons that fight for us from above: O then \u201cfear\nthe Lord, ye his saints\u201d (Psal. xxxiv. 9); O stir up yourselves to lay\nhold on him (Isa. lxiv. 7); \u201cKeep not silence; and give him no rest, till\nhe establish, and till he make Jerusalem a praise in the earth\u201d (Isa.\nlxii. 6, 7). O that we could all make wells in our dry and desert-like\nhearts (Psal. lxxxiv. 6), that we may draw out water (1 Sam. vii. 6), even\nbuckets-full, to quench the wrath of a sin-revenging God, the fire which\nstill burneth against the Lord\u2019s inheritance. God grant that this sermon\nbe not \u201cas water spilt on the ground\u201d but may \u201cdrop as the rain\u201d and\n\u201cdistil as the dew\u201d (Deut. xxxii. 2) of heaven upon thy soul.\n\n\n\n\nSERMON.\n\n\nEZEK. xliii. 11.\n\n\n    \u201cAnd if they be ashamed of all that they have done, show them the\n    form of the house, and the fashion thereof, and the goings-out\n    thereof, and the comings-in thereof, and all the forms thereof,\n    and all the ordinances thereof, and all the forms thereof, and all\n    the laws thereof: and write it in their sight, that they may keep\n    the whole form thereof, and all the ordinance thereof, and do\n    them.\u201d\n\n\nIt is not long since I did, upon another day of humiliation, lay open\nEngland\u2019s disease from that text, 2 Chron. xx. 33, \u201cHowbeit the high\nplaces were not taken away; for as yet the people had not prepared their\nhearts unto the God of their fathers.\u201d Though the Sun of Righteousness be\nrisen, Mal. iv. 2, \u201cwith healing in his wings,\u201d yet the land is not\nhealed, no, not of its worst disease, which is corruption in religion, and\nthe iniquity of your holy things. I did then show the symptoms, and the\ncause of this evil disease. The symptoms are your high places not yet\ntaken away, many of your old superstitious ceremonies to this day\nremaining, which, though not so evil as the high places of idolatry in\nwhich idols were worshipped, yet are parallel to the high places of\nwill-worship, of which we read that the people, thinking it too hard to be\ntied to go up to Jerusalem with every sacrifice, \u201cdid sacrifice still in\nthe high places, yet unto the Lord their God only,\u201d 2 Chron. xxxiii, 17;\npleading for their so doing, antiquity, custom, and other defences of that\nkind, which have been alleged for your ceremonies. But albeit these be\nfoul spots in the church\u2019s face, which offend the eyes of her glorious\nBridegroom, Jesus Christ, yet that which doth less appear is more\ndangerous, and that is the cause of all this evil in the very bowels and\nheart of the church; the people of the land, great and small, have not as\nyet prepared their hearts unto the Lord their God; mercy is prepared for\nthe land, but the land is not prepared for mercy. I shall say no more of\nthe disease at this instant.\n\nBut I have now chosen a text which holds forth a remedy for this malady\u2014a\ncure for this case; that is, that if we will humble our uncircumcised\nhearts, and accept of the punishment of our iniquity, Lev. xxvi. 41; if we\nbe \u201cashamed and confounded\u201d (Ezek. xxxvi. 32), before the Lord this day\nfor our evil ways; if we judge ourselves as guilty, and put our mouth in\nthe dust, and clothe ourselves with shame as with a garment; if we repent\nand abhor ourselves in dust and ashes, then the Lord will not abhor us,\nbut take pleasure in us, to dwell among us, to reveal himself unto us, to\nset before us the right pattern of his own house, that the tabernacle of\nGod may be with men, Rev. xxi. 3; and pure ordinances, where before they\nwere defiled and mixed; Zech. xiii. 2, He \u201cwill cut off the names of the\nidols out of the land,\u201d and cause the false prophet, \u201cand the unclean\nspirit to pass out of the land,\u201d and the glory of the Lord shall dwell in\nthe land, Psal. lxxxv. 9. But, withal, we must take heed that we \u201cturn not\nagain to folly,\u201d Psal. lxxxv. 8; that our hearts start not aside, \u201clike a\ndeceitful bow,\u201d Psal. lxxviii. 57; that we \u201ckeep the ways of the Lord,\u201d\nPsal. xviii. 21, and do not wickedly depart from our God. Thus you have\nbriefly the occasion and the sum of what I am to deliver from this text;\nthe particulars whereof I shall not touch till I have, in the first place,\nresolved a difficult, yet profitable question.\n\nYou may ask, What house or what temple doth the Prophet here speak of, and\nhow can it be made to appear that this scripture is applicable to this\ntime?\n\nI answer, Some(1364) have taken great pains to demonstrate that this\ntemple, which the Prophet saw in this vision, was no other than the temple\nof Solomon; and that the accomplishment of this vision of the temple,\ncity, and division of the land, was the building of the temple and city\nagain after the captivity, and the restoring of the Levitical worship and\nJewish republic, which came to pass in the days of Nehemiah and Zorobabel.\nThis sense is also most obvious to every one that readeth this prophecy;\nbut there are very strong reasons against it, which make other learned\nexpositors not to embrace it.\n\nFor, 1. The temple of Solomon was one hundred and twenty cubits high, the\ntemple built by Zorobabel was but sixty cubits high, Ezra vi. 3.\n\n2. The temple of Zorobabel (Ezra iii. 1, 8, vi. 3, 5, 7) was built in the\nsame place where the temple of Solomon was, that is, in Jerusalem, upon\nmount Moriah, but this temple of Ezekiel was without the city, and a great\nway distant from it,(1365) chap. xlviii. 10 compared with ver. 15. The\nwhole portion of the Levites, and a part of the portion of the priests,\nwas betwixt the temple and the city.\n\n3. Moses\u2019 greatest altar,\u2014the altar of burnt-offerings, was not half so\nbig as Ezekiel\u2019s altar, compare Ezek. xliii. 16 with Exod. xxvii. 1,(1366)\nso is Moses\u2019 altar of incense much less than Ezekiel\u2019s altar of incense,\nExod. xxx. 2 compared with Ezek. xli. 22.\n\n4. There are many new ceremonial laws, different from the Mosaical,\ndelivered in the following part of this vision, chap. xlv. and xlvi., as\ninterpreters have particularly observed upon these places.(1367)\n\n5. The temple and city were not of that greatness which is described in\nthis vision; for the measuring reed, containing six cubits of the\nsanctuary, not common cubits (chap. xl. 5), which amount to more than ten\nfeet, the outer wall of the temple being two thousand reeds in compass\n(chap. xlii. 20), was by estimation four miles, and the city (chap.\nxlviii. 16, 35) thirty-six miles in compass.\n\n6. The vision of the holy waters (chap. xlvii.) issuing from the temple,\nand after the space of four thousand reeds growing to a river which could\nnot be passed over, and healing the waters and the fishes, cannot be\nliterally understood of the temple at Jerusalem.\n\n7. The land is divided among the twelve tribes (chap. xlviii.), and that\nin a way and order different from the division made by Joshua, which\ncannot be understood of the restitution after the captivity, because the\ntwelve tribes did not return.\n\n8. This new temple hath with it a new covenant, and that an everlasting\none, Ezek. xxxvii. 26, 27. But at the return of the people from Babylon\nthere was no new covenant, saith Iren\u00e6us,(1368) only the same that was\nbefore continued till Christ\u2019s coming.\n\nWherefore we must needs hold with Jerome,(1369) Gregory,(1370) and other\nlater interpreters, that this vision is to be expounded of the spiritual\ntemple and church of Christ, made up of Jews and Gentiles; and that not by\nway of allegories only, which is the sense of those whose opinion I have\nnow confuted, but according to the proper and direct intendment of the\nvision, which, in many material points, cannot agree to Zorobabel\u2019s\ntemple.\n\nI am herein very much strengthened while I observe many parallel\npassages(1371) betwixt the vision of Ezekiel and the revelation of John;\nand while I remember withal, that the prophets do in many places foretell\nthe institution of the ordinances, government and worship of the New\nTestament, under the terms of temple, priests, sacrifices, &c., and do set\nforth the deliverance and stability of the church of Christ, under the\nnotions of Canaan, of bringing back the captivity, &c., God speaking to\nhis people at that time, so as they might best understand him.\n\nNow if you ask how the several particulars in the vision may be\nparticularly expounded and applied to the church of Christ, I answer The\nword of God, the \u201criver that makes glad the city of God,\u201d though it have\nmany easy and known fords where any of Christ\u2019s lambs may pass through,\nyet in this vision, and other places of this kind, it is \u201ca great deep\u201d\nwhere the greatest elephant, as he said, may swim. I shall not say with\nthe Jews, that one should not read the last nine chapters of Ezekiel\nbefore he be thirty years old. Surely a man may be twice thirty years old,\nand a good divine too, and yet not able to understand this vision. Some\ntell us, that no man can understand it without skill in geometry, which\ncannot be denied, but there is greater need of ecclesiometry, if I may so\nspeak, to measure the church in her length, or continuance through many\ngenerations, in her breadth, or spreading through many nations, her depth\nof humiliation, sorrows and sufferings, her height of faith, hope, joy,\nand comfort, and to measure each part according to this pattern here set\nbefore us.\n\nWherein, for my part, I must profess (as Socrates in another case), _Scio\nquod nescio_. I know that there is a great mystery here which I cannot\nreach. Only I shall set forth unto you that little light which the Father\nof lights hath given me.\n\nI conceive that the Holy Ghost in this vision hath pointed at four several\ntimes and conditions of the church,\u2014that we may take with us the full\nmeaning, without addition or diminution.\n\nObserving this rule, That what agreeth not to the type must be meant of\nthe thing typified, and what is not fulfilled at one time must be\nfulfilled of the church at another time.\n\nFirst of all, It cannot be denied that he points in some sort at the\nrestitution of the temple, worship of God, and city of Jerusalem, after\nthe captivity, as a type of the church of Christ, for though many things\nin the vision do not agree to that time, as hath been proved, yet some\nthings do agree this, as it is least intended in the vision, so it is not\nfit for me at this time to insist upon it. But he that would understand\nthe form of the temple of Jerusalem, the several parts, and excellent\nstructure thereof, will find enough written of that subject.(1372)\n\nSecondly, This and other prophecies of building again the temple, may well\nbe applied to the building of the Christian church by the master-builders,\nthe apostles, and by other ministers of the gospel since their days. Let\nus hear but two witnesses of the apostles themselves applying those\nprophecies to the calling of the Gentiles: the one is Paul, 2 Cor. vi. 16,\n\u201cFor ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell\nin them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my\npeople;\u201d the other is James, who applieth to the converted Gentiles that\nprophecy of Amos, \u201cAfter this I will return, and will build again the\ntabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the\nruins thereof, and I will set it up,\u201d Acts xv. 16.\n\nThirdly, But there is a third thing aimed at in this prophecy, and that\nmore principally than any of the other two, which is the repairing of the\nbreaches and ruins of the Christian church, and the building up of Zion in\nher glory, about the time of the destruction of Antichrist and the\nconversion of the Jews; and this happiness hath the Lord reserved to the\nlast times, to build a more excellent and glorious temple than former\ngenerations have seen. I mean not of the building of the material temple\nat Jerusalem, which the Jews do fancy and look for,\u2014but I speak of the\nchurch and people of God; and that I may not seem to expound an obscure\nprophecy too conjecturally, which many in these days do, I have these\nevidences following for what I say:\u2014\n\n1. If Paul and James, in those places which I last cited, do apply the\nprophecies of building a new temple to the first-fruits of the Gentiles,\nand to their first conversion, then they are much more to be applied to\nthe fulness of the Gentiles, and, most of all, to the fulness both of Jews\nand Gentiles, which we wait for. \u201cNow, if the fall of them (saith the\nApostle, speaking of the Jews) be the riches of the world, and the\ndiminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their\nfulness?\u201d Rom. xi. 12. And again, \u201cIf the casting away of them be the\nreconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life\nfrom the dead?\u201d ver. 15. Plainly insinuating a greater increase of the\nchurch, and a larger spread of the gospel at the conversion of the Jews,\nand so a fairer temple, yea, another world, in a manner, to be looked for.\n\n2. The Lord himself, in this same chapter, ver. 7, speaking of the temple\nhere prophesied of, saith, \u201cThe place of my throne, and the place of the\nsoles of my feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the children of\nIsrael for ever, and my holy name shall the house of Israel no more\ndefile, neither they nor their kings,\u201d &c.; which, as it cannot be\nunderstood of the Jews after the captivity, who did again forsake the\nLord, and were forsaken of him, as Jerome noteth upon the place, so it can\nas ill be said to be already fulfilled upon the Christian church, but\nrather that such a church is yet to be expected in which the Lord shall\ntake up his dwelling for ever, and shall not be provoked by their\ndefilements and whoredoms again to take away his kingdom and to remove the\ncandlestick.\n\n3. This last temple is also prophesied of by Isaiah, chap. ii. 2, \u201cAnd it\nshall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord\u2019s house\nshall be established in the top of the mountains (even as here Ezekiel did\nsee this temple upon a very high mountain, chap. lx. 2), and shall be\nexalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it,\u201d &c.; ver. 4,\n\u201cAnd they shall beat their swords into plow-shares, and their spears into\npruning-hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither\nshall they learn war any more.\u201d Here is the building of such a temple as\nshall bring peaceable and quiet times to the church, of which that\nevangelical prophet speaketh in other places also, Isa. xi. 9; lx. 17, 18.\nAnd if we shall read that which followeth, Isa. ii. 5, as the Chaldee\nparaphrase doth, \u201cAnd the men of the house of Jacob shall say, Come ye,\u201d\n&c., then the building of the temple there spoken of shall appear to be\njoined with the Jews\u2019 conversion; but, howsoever, it is joined with a\ngreat peace and calm, such as yet the church hath not seen.\n\n4. We find in this vision, that when Ezekiel\u2019s temple shall be built,\nprinces shall no more oppress the people of God, nor defile the name of\nGod, Ezek. xlv. 8; xliii. 7;(1373) which are in like manner joined, Psal.\ncii. 15, 16, 22, \u201cThe heathen shall fear the name of the Lord, and all the\nkings of the earth thy glory. When the Lord shall build up Zion, he shall\nappear in his glory; when the people are gathered together, and the\nkingdoms (understand here also kings, as the Septuagint do), to serve the\nLord;\u201d which psalm is acknowledged to be a prophecy of the kingdom of\nChrist, though under the type of bringing back the captivity of the Jews,\nand of the building again of Zion at that time. The like prophecy of\nChrist we have Psal. lxxii. 11, \u201cAll kings shall fall down before him; all\nnations shall serve him.\u201d But I ask, Have not the kings of the earth\nhitherto, for the most part, set themselves \u201cagainst the Lord, and against\nhis Anointed\u201d? Psal. ii. 2. And how then shall all those prophecies hold\ntrue, except they be coincident with Rev. xvii. 16, 17, and that time is\nyet to come, when God shall put it in the hearts of kings to \u201chate the\nwhore (of Rome), and they shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat\nher flesh, and burn her with fire\u201d? It is foretold that God shall do this\ngreat and good work even by those kings who have before subjected\nthemselves to Antichrist.\n\n5. That which I now draw from Ezekiel\u2019s vision is no other but the same\nwhich was showed to John, Rev. xi. 1, 2,\u2014a place so like to this of\nEzekiel, that we must take special notice of it, and make that serve for a\ncommentary to this,\u2014\u201cAnd there was given me (saith John) a reed like unto\na rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God,\nand the altar, and them that worship therein. But the court which is\nwithout the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the\nGentiles; and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two\nmonths.\u201d This time of forty and two months must be expounded by Rev. xiii.\n5, where it is said of the beast, \u201cPower was given unto him, to continue\nforty and two months;\u201d which, according to the computation of Egyptian\nyears (reckoning thirty days to each month), make three years and a half,\nor twelve hundred and sixty days, and that is the time of the witnesses\u2019\nprophesying in sackcloth, and of the woman\u2019s abode in the wilderness, Rev,\nxi. 3; xii. 6. Now lest it should be thought that the treading down of the\nholy city by the Gentiles (that is, the treading under foot of the true\nchurch, the city of God, by the tyranny of Antichrist and the power of his\naccomplices) should never have an end in this world, the angel gives John\nto understand that the church, the house of the living God, shall not lie\ndesolate for ever, but shall be built again (for the measuring is in\nreference to building), that the kingdom of Antichrist shall come to an\nend, and that after twelve hundred and sixty years, counting days for\nyears as the prophets do. It is not to my purpose now to search when this\ntime of the power of the beast and of the church\u2019s desolation did begin,\nand when it ends, and so to find out the time of building this new\ntemple,\u2014only this much I trust, I may say, that if we reckon from the time\nthat the power of the beast did begin, and, withal, consider the great\nrevolution and turning of things upside down in these our days, certainly\nthe work is upon the wheel; the Lord hath plucked his hand out of his\nbosom, he hath whet his sword, he hath bent his bow, he hath also prepared\nthe instruments of death against Antichrist: so saith the Psalmist of all\npersecutors, Psal. vii. 12, 13; but it will fall most upon that capital\nenemy. Whereof there will be occasion to say more afterward.\n\nLet me here only add a word concerning a fourth thing which the Holy Ghost\nmay seem to intend in this prophecy, and that is, the church triumphant,\nthe new \u201cJerusalem which is above,\u201d unto which respect is to be had, as\ninterpreters judge, in some parts of the vision, which happily cannot be\nso well applied to the church in this world. Even as the new Jerusalem is\nso described in the Revelation (Rev. xxi.), that it may appear to be the\nchurch of Christ, reformed, beautified, and enlarged in this world, and\nfully perfected and glorified in the world to come; and as many things\nwhich are said of it can very hardly be made to agree to the church in\nthis world; so other things which are said of it can as hardly be applied\nto the church glorified in heaven, as where it is said, \u201cBehold, the\ntabernacle of God is with men, [having come down from God out of heaven]\nand he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself\nshall be with them, and be their God,\u201d ver. 3. Again, \u201cAnd the nations of\nthem which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the\nearth do bring their glory and honour into it,\u201d ver. 24.\n\nBut now I make haste to the several particulars contained in my text: \u201cI\npray God (saith the Apostle) your whole spirit, and soul, and body, be\npreserved blameless,\u201d 1 Thess. v. 23; Phil. i. 9, 11. And what he there\nprays for, this text, rightly understood and applied, may work in us, that\nis, gracious affections, gracious minds, gracious actions. In the first\nplace, a change upon our corrupt and wicked affections,\u2014\u201cIf they be\nashamed of all that they have done,\u201d saith the Lord; Secondly, A change\nupon our blind minds,\u2014\u201cShow them the form of the house, and the fashion\nthereof,\u201d &c.; Thirdly, A change also upon our actions,\u2014\u201cThat they may\nkeep the whole form thereof, and all the ordinances thereof, and do them.\u201d\n\nFor the first, the words here used is not that which signifieth blushing\nthrough modesty, but it signifieth shame for that which is indeed\nshameful, filthy, and abominable,(1374) so that it were impenitency and an\naggravation of the fault not to be ashamed for it.\n\nI shall here build only one doctrine, which will be of exceeding great use\nfor such a day as this: \u201cIf either we would have mercy to ourselves, or\nwould do acceptable service in the public reformation, we must not only\ncease to do evil and learn to do well, but also be ashamed, confounded and\nhumbled, for our former evil ways.\u201d Here is a twofold necessity, which\npresseth upon us this duty,\u2014to loathe and abhor ourselves for all our\nabominations, to be greatly abashed and confounded before our God: First,\nWithout this we shall not find grace and favour to our own souls;\nSecondly, We shall else miscarry in the work of reformation.\n\nFirst, I say, let us do all the good we can, God is not pleased with us\nunless we be ashamed and humbled for former guiltiness. Be zealous and\nrepent (Rev. iii. 19), saith Christ to the Laodiceans; be zealous in time\ncoming, and repent of your former lukewarmness: \u201cWhat fruit had ye then in\nthose things whereof ye are now ashamed?\u201d (Rom. vi. 21,) saith the Apostle\nto the saints at Rome, of whom he saith plainly, that they were \u201cservants\nto righteousness,\u201d (ver. 19;) and had their \u201cfruit unto holiness.\u201d But\nthat is not all; they were also ashamed while they looked back upon their\nold faults, which is the rather to be observed, because it maketh against\nthe Antinomian error now afoot.(1375) It hath a clear reason for it, for\nwithout this God is still dishonoured, and not restored to his glory: \u201cO\nLord (saith Daniel), righteousness belongeth unto thee, but unto us\nconfusion of faces,\u201d Dan. ix. 7. These two go together. We must be\nconfounded, that God may be glorified; we must be judged, that God may be\njustified; our mouths must be stopped, and laid in the dust, that the Lord\nmay be just when he speaketh, and clear when he judgeth (Psal. li. 4). And\nas the Apostle teacheth us, 1 Cor. xi. 31, that if we judge ourselves, we\nshall not be judged of God; and, by the rule of contraries, if we judge\nnot ourselves, we shall be judged of God; so say I now, if we give glory\nto God, and take shame and confusion of faces to ourselves, God shall not\nconfound us, nor put us to shame: but if we will not be confounded and\nashamed in ourselves, God shall confound us, and pour shame upon us; if we\nloathe not ourselves, God shall loathe us.\n\nNay let me argue from the manner of men, as the Prophet doth, Mal. i. 8,\n\u201cOffer it now unto thy governor; will he be pleased with thee, or accept\nthy person?\u201d Will thy governor, nay, thy neighbour, who is as thou art,\nalter an injury done to him, be pleased with thee, if thou do but leave\noff to do him any more such injuries? Will he not expect an acknowledgment\nof the wrong done? Is it not Christ\u2019s rule (Luke xvii. 4) that he who\nseven times trespasseth against his brother, seven times turn again,\nsaying, I repent? David would hardly trust Ittai to go up and down with\nhim, who was but a stranger (2 Sam. xv. 19), how much more if he had done\nhim some great wrong, and then refused to confess it? And how shall we\nthink that it can stand with the honour of the most high God, that we seem\nto draw near unto him, and to walk in his ways, while, in the meantime, we\ndo not acknowledge our iniquity, and even accuse, shame, judge, and\ncondemn ourselves? Nay, \u201cBe not deceived, God is not mocked,\u201d Gal. vi. 7.\n\nThis is the first necessity of the duty which this text holdeth forth. The\nLord requireth of us not only to do his will for the future, but to be\nashamed for what we have done amiss before.\n\nThe other necessity of it, which is also in the text, is this: That except\nwe be thus ashamed and humbled, God hath not promised to show us the\npattern of his house, nor to reveal his will unto us; which agreeth well\nwith that, Psal. xxv. 9, \u201cThe meek will he teach his way;\u201d and ver. 12,\n\u201cWhat man is he that feareth the Lord? him shall he teach in the way that\nhe shall choose;\u201d and ver. 14, \u201cThe secret of the Lord is with them that\nfear him, and he will show them his covenant.\u201d There is sanctification in\nthe affections, and here is humiliation in the affections, spoken of as\nnecessary means of attaining the knowledge of the will of God. Let the\naffections be ordered aright, then light which is offered shall be seen\nand received; but let light be offered when disordered affections do\novercloud the eye of the mind, then all is in vain.\n\nIn this case a man shall be like \u201cthe deaf adder\u201d (Psal. lviii. 4, 5,)\nwhich will not be taken by the voice of the charmers, \u201ccharming never so\nwisely.\u201d Let the helm of reason be stirred as well as you can imagine, if\nthere be a contrary wind in the sails of the affections, the ship will not\nanswer to the helm. It is a good argument: He is a wicked man, a covetous\nman, a proud man, a carnal man, an unhumbled man; therefore he will\nreadily miscarry in his judgment. So divines have argued against the\nPope\u2019s infallibility! The Pope hath been, and may be a profane man;\ntherefore he may err in his judgment and decrees. And what wonder that\nthey who receive not the love of the truth be given over to \u201cstrong\ndelusion, that they should believe a lie?\u201d 2 Thess. ii. 9, 10. It is as\ngood an argument: He is a humbled man, and a man that feareth God;\ntherefore, in so far as he acteth and exerciseth those graces, the Lord\nshall teach him in the way that he shall choose. I say, in so far as he\nacteth those graces,\u2014because when he grieves the Spirit, and cherisheth\nthe flesh, when the child of God is more swayed by his corruptions than by\nhis graces, then he is in great danger to be given up to the counsel of\nhis own heart, and to be deserted by the Holy Ghost, which should lead him\n\u201cinto all truth,\u201d John xvi. 13.\n\nBut we must take notice of a seeming contradiction here in the text. God\nsaith to the Prophet in the former verse, \u201cShow the house to the house of\nIsrael, that they may be ashamed of their iniquities;\u201d and, Jer. xxxi. 19,\nEphraim is first instructed, then ashamed. And here it is quite turned\nover in my text; if they be ashamed show them the house.\n\nI shall not here make any digression unto the debates and distinctions of\nschoolmen, what influence and power the affections have upon the\nunderstanding and the will; I will content myself with this plain answer:\nThose two might very well stand together,\u2014light is a help to humiliation,\nand humiliation a help to light. As there must be some work of faith, and\nsome apprehension of the love of God, in order before true evangelical\nrepentance, yet this repentance helpeth us to believe more firmly that our\nsins are forgiven. The soul, in the pains of the new birth, is like Tamar\ntravailing of her twins, Pharez and Zarah (Gen. xxxviii. 28-30): faith,\nlike Zarah, first putting out his hand, but hath no strength to come\nforth, therefore draweth back the hand again, till repentance, like\nPharez, have broken forth,\u2014then can faith come forth more easily. Which\nappeareth in that woman, Luke vii. 47, 48: she wept much, because she\nloved much; she loved much, because she believed; and by faith had her\nheart enlarged with apprehending the rich grace and free love of Christ to\npoor sinners: this faith moves her bowels, melts her heart, stirs her\nsorrow, kindles her affection. Then, and not till then, she gets a prop to\nher faith, and a sure ground to build upon. It is not till she have wept\nmuch that Christ intimates mercy, and saith, \u201cThy sins are forgiven thee.\u201d\nJust so is the case in this text: Show them the house, saith the Lord,\nthat they may be ashamed; give them a view of it, that they may think the\nworse of themselves, that they want it, that they may be ashamed for all\ntheir iniquities, whereby they have separate betwixt their God and\nthemselves, so that they cannot \u201cbehold the beauty of the Lord,\u201d nor\n\u201cinquire in his temple,\u201d Psal. xxvii. 4; and if, when they begin to see\nit, they have such thoughts as these, and humble themselves, and\nacknowledge their iniquities, then go to and show them the whole fabric,\nand structure, and all the gates thereof, and all the parts thereof, and\nall things pertaining thereto.\n\nI suppose I have said enough for confirmation and clearing of the doctrine\nconcerning the necessity of our being ashamed and confounded before the\nLord. I have now a fourfold application to draw from it.\n\nThe first application shall be to the malignant enemies of the cause and\npeople of God at this time, who deserve Jeremiah\u2019s black mark to be put\nupon them: \u201cWere they ashamed when they had committed abomination? nay,\nthey wore not at all ashamed, neither could they blush,\u201d Jer. vi. 15;\nviii. 12. When he would say the worst of them, this is it: \u201cThou hadst a\nwhore\u2019s forehead, thou refusedst to be ashamed,\u201d Jer. iii. 3. There are\nsome sons of Belial risen up against us, who have done some things\nwhereof, I dare say, many heathens would have been ashamed; yet they are\nas far from being ashamed of their outrages as Caligula was, who said of\nhimself, that he loved nothing better in his own nature than that he could\nnot be ashamed: nay, their glory is their shame, Phil. iii. 19; and if the\nLord do not open their eyes to see their shame, their end will be\ndestruction. Is it a light matter to swear and blaspheme, to coin and\nspread lies, to devise calumnies, to break treaties, to contrive\ntreacherous plots, to exercise so many barbarous cruelties, to shed so\nmuch blood, and, as if that were too little, to bury men quick? Is all\nthis no matter of shame? And when they have so often professed to be for\nthe true Protestant religion, shall they not be ashamed to thirst so much\nafter Protestant blood, and in that cause desire to associate themselves\nwith all the Papists at home and abroad whose assistance they can have,\nand particularly with those matchless monsters (they call them subjects)\nof Ireland, who, if the computation fail not, have shed the blood of some\nhundred thousands in that kingdom? For our part, it seems they are\nresolved to give the worst name to the best thing which we can do, and\ntherefore they have not been ashamed to call a religious and loyal\ncovenant a traitorous and damnable covenant. I have no pleasure to take up\nthese and other dunghills, the text hath put this in my mouth which I have\nsaid. O that they could recover themselves out of the gall of bitterness,\nand bond of iniquity, Acts viii. 23; O that we could hear that they begin\nto be ashamed of their abominations, \u201cLord, when thy hand is lifted up,\nthey will not see: but they shall see, and be ashamed for their envy at\nthe people,\u201d Isa. xxvi. 11; the Lord \u201cshall appear to your joy, and they\nshall be ashamed,\u201d lxvi. 5.\n\nBut now, in the second place, let me speak to the kingdom, and to you whom\nit concerneth this day to be humbled, both for your own sins and for the\nsins of the kingdom which you represent. Although yourselves, whom God\nhath placed in this honourable station, and the kingdom which God hath\nblessed with many choice blessings, be much and worthily honoured among\nthe children of men, yet when you have to do with God, and with that\nwherein his great name and his glory is concerned, you must not think of\nhonouring, but rather abashing yourselves, and creeping low in the dust.\nLivy tells us,(1376) that when M. Claudius Marcellus would have dedicate a\ntemple to Honour and Virtue, the priests hindered it, _quod utri deo res\ndivina fieret, sciri non posset_, because so it could not be known to\nwhich of the two gods he should offer sacrifice. Far be it from any of you\nto suffer the will of God and your own credit to come in competition\ntogether, or to put back any point of truth, because it may seem,\nperadventure, some way to wound your reputation, though, when all is well\nexamined, it shall be found your glory.\n\nYou are now about the casting out of many corruptions in the government of\nthe church and worship of God. Remember, therefore, it is not enough to\ncleanse the house of the Lord, but you must be humbled for your former\ndefilements wherewith it was polluted. It is not enough that England say\nwith Ephraim in one place, \u201cWhat have I to do any more with idols?\u201d Hos.\nxiv. 8. England must say also with Ephraim in another place, \u201cSurely after\nthat I was turned, I repented; and after that I was instructed, I smote\nupon my thigh: I was ashamed, yea, even confounded, because I did bear the\nreproach of my youth,\u201d Jer. xxxi. 19. Let England sit down in the dust,\nand wallow itself in ashes, and cry out as the lepers did (Lev. xiii. 45),\n\u201cUnclean, unclean,\u201d and then rise up and cast away the least superstitious\nceremony \u201cas a menstruous cloth; thou shalt say unto it, Get thee hence,\u201d\nIsa. xxx. 22. I know that those who are not convinced of the intrinsical\nevil and unlawfulness of former corruptions may, upon other\nconsiderations, go along and join in this reformation; for according to\nAugustine\u2019s rule,(1377) men are to let go those ecclesiastical customs\nwhich neither Scriptures nor councils bind upon us, nor yet are\nuniversally received by all churches. And according to Ambrose\u2019s rule to\nValentinian, epist. 31, _Nullus pudor est ad meliora transive_,\u2014it is no\nshame to change that which is not so good for that which is better. So\ndoth Arnobius(1378) answer the pagans, who objected the novelty of the\nChristian religion: You should not look so much (saith he) _quid\nreliquerimus_ as _quid secuti simus_; be rather satisfied with the good\nwhich we follow, than to quarrel why we have changed our former practise.\nHe giveth instance, that when men found the art of weaving clothes, they\ndid no longer clothe themselves in skins; and when they learned to build\nhouses, they left off to dwell in rocks and caves. All this carrieth\nreason with it, for _optimum est eligendum_. If all this satisfy not, it\nmay be Nazianzen\u2019s rule(1379) will move some man: When there was a great\nstir about his archbishopric of Constantinople, he yielded for peace;\nbecause this storm was raised for his sake, he wished to be cast into the\nsea. He often professeth that he did not affect riches, nor dignities, but\nrather to be freed of his bishopric. We are like to listen long before we\nhear such expressions either from archbishop or bishop in England, who\nseem not to care much who sink, so that themselves swim above. Yet I shall\nname one rule more, which I shall take from the confessions of two English\nprelates. One(1380) of them hath this contemplation upon Hezekiah\u2019s taking\naway the brazen serpent, when he perceived it to be superstitiously\nabused: \u201cSuperstitious use (saith he) can mar the very institutions of\nGod, how much more the most wise and well-grounded devices of men?\u201d\nAnother(1381) of them acknowledged that whatsoever is taken up at the\ninjunction of men, and is not of God\u2019s own prescribing, when it is drawn\nto superstition, cometh under the case of the brazen serpent. You may\neasily make the assumption, and then the conclusion, concerning those\nceremonies which are not God\u2019s institutions but men\u2019s devices, and have\nbeen grossly and notoriously abused by many to superstition.\n\nNow to return to the point in hand, if upon all or any of these, or the\nlike principles, any of this kingdom shall join in the removal of\ncorruptions out of the church, which yet they do not conceive to be in\nthemselves, and intrinsically corruptions in religion, in this case I say\nwith the Apostle, \u201cI therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice,\u201d Phil. i.\n18, because every way reformation is set forward. But let such an one look\nto himself, how the doctrine drawn from this text falleth upon him, that\nhe who only ceaseth to do evil, but repenteth not of the evil,\u2014he who\napplieth himself to reformation, but is not ashamed of former defilements,\nis in danger both of God\u2019s displeasure, and of miscarrying in his judgment\nabout reformation. It is far from my meaning to discourage any who are,\nwith humble and upright hearts, seeking after more light than yet they\nhave; I say it only for their sake, who, through the presumption and\nunhumbledness of their spirits, will acknowledge no fault in anything they\nhave formerly done in church matters.\n\nI cannot leave this application to the kingdom till I enlarge it a little\nfarther. There are four considerations which may make England ashamed and\nconfounded before the Lord.\n\n1. Because of the great blessings which it hath so long wanted. Your\nflourishing estate in the world could not have countervailed the want of\nthe purity and liberty of the ordinances of Christ. That was a heavy word\nof the Prophet, \u201cNow for a long season Israel hath been without the true\nGod, and without a teaching priest, and without law,\u201d 2 Chron. xv. 3. It\nhath not been altogether so with this land, where the Lord hath had not\nonly a true church, but many burning and shining lights, many gracious\npreachers and professors, many notable defenders of the Protestant cause\nagainst Papists, many who have preached and written worthily of practical\ndivinity, and of those things which most concern a man\u2019s salvation. Nay, I\nam persuaded, that all this time past, there have been in this kingdom\nmany thousands of his secret and sealed ones, who have been groaning under\nthat burden and bondage which they could not help, and have been \u201cwaiting\nfor the consolation of Israel,\u201d Luke ii. 25. Nevertheless, the reformation\nof the church of England hath been exceedingly deficient, in government,\ndiscipline and worship; yea, and many places of the kingdom have been\n\u201cwithout a teaching priest,\u201d and other places poisoned with false\nteachers. It is said (1 Sam. vii. 2), that all the house of Israel\nlamented after the Lord, when they wanted the ark twenty years. O let\nEngland lament after the Lord, until the ark be brought into the own place\nof it!\n\n2. There is another cause of this great humiliation, and that is, the\npoint in the text, to be ashamed \u201cof all that you have done.\u201d Sin, sin is\nthat which blacketh our faces, and covereth us with confusion as with a\nmantle, and then most of all when we may read our sin in some judgment of\nGod which lieth upon us; therefore the Septuagint here, instead of being\n\u201cashamed of all that they have done,\u201d read\u2014\u201caccept their punishment for\nall that they have done,\u201d which agreeth to that word in the law:(1382) \u201cIf\nthen their uncircumcised hearts be humbled (the Greek readeth there\n_ashamed_) and they then accept of the punishment of their iniquity,\u201d Lev.\nxxvi. 41. This is now England\u2019s case, whose sin is written in the present\njudgment, and graven in your calamity as \u201cwith a pen of iron, and with a\npoint of a diamond\u201d (Jer. xvii. 1), to make you say, \u201cThe Lord our God is\nrighteous in all his works which he doeth: for we obeyed not his voice,\u201d\nDan. ix. 14. Did not the land make idol gods of the court, and of the\nprelatical clergy, and feared them, and followed them more than God, and\nobeyed them rather than God, so that their threshold was set by God\u2019s\nthreshold, and their posts by God\u2019s posts? as it is said, ver. 7. I speak\nnot now of lawful obedience to authority. Is it not a righteous thing with\nthe Lord to make these, your idols, his rods to correct you? Hath not\nEngland harboured and entertained Papists, priests, and Jesuits in its\nbosom? Is it not just that now you feel the sting and poison of these\nvipers? Hath there not been a great compliance with the prelates, for\npeace\u2019s sake, even to the prejudice of truth? Doth not the Lord now justly\npunish that Episcopal peace with an Episcopal war? Was not that prelatical\ngovernment first devised, and since continued, to preserve peace and to\nprevent schisms in the church? And was it not God\u2019s just judgment that\nsuch a remedy of man\u2019s invention should rather increase than cure the\nevil? So that sects have most multiplied under that government, which now\nyou know by sad experience. Hath not this nation, for a long time, taken\nthe name of the Lord in vain, by a formal worship and empty profession? Is\nit not a just requital upon God\u2019s part, that your enemies have all this\nwhile taken God\u2019s name in vain, and taken the Almighty to witness of the\nintegrity of their intentions for religion, law and liberty, thus\npersuading the world to believe a lie? What shall I say of the book of\nsports, and other profanations of the Lord\u2019s day? This licentiousness was\nmost acceptable to the greatest part, and they \u201cloved to have it so,\u201d Jer.\nv. 31. Doth not the great famine of the word almost everywhere in the\nkingdom, except in this city, make the land mourn on the Sabbath, and say,\n\u201cI do remember my faults this day?\u201d Gen. xli. 9. Yea, doth not the land\nnow enjoy her Sabbaths, while men are constrained not only to cease from\nsports on that day, but from labouring the ground, and from other works of\ntheir calling upon other days? What should I speak of the lusts and\nuncleanness, gluttony and drunkenness, chambering and wantonness,\nprodigality and lavishness, excess of riot, masking, and balling, and\nsporting, when Germany and the Palatinate, and other places, were\nwallowing in blood, yea, when there was so much sin and wrath upon this\nsame kingdom? Will not you say now, that for this the Lord God hath caused\nyour \u201csun to go down at noon,\u201d and hath turned your feasts into mourning,\nand all your songs into lamentations? (Amos viii. 9, 10.) Or what should I\nsay of the oppressions, injustice, cozenage in trading and in merchandise,\nwhich yourselves know better than I can do how much they have abounded in\nthe kingdom? Doth not God now punish the secret injustice of his people by\nthe open injustice of their enemies? Do ye not remember that mischief was\nframed by a law? And now, when your enemies execute mischief against law,\nwill you not say, Righteous art thou, O Lord, and just are thy judgments.\nOne thing I may not forget, and that is, that the Lord is punishing blood\nwith blood, the blood of the oppressed, the blood of the persecuted, the\nblood of those who have died in prisons, or in strange countries,\nsuffering for righteousness\u2019 sake. He that departed from evil did even\nmake himself a prey, Isa. lix. 15. There was not so much as one drop of\nblood spilt upon the pillory for the testimony of the truth but it crieth\nto heaven, for precious is the blood of the saints, (Psal. lxxii. 14.)\nDoth not all the blood shed in Queen Mary\u2019s days cry? And doth not the\nblood of the Palatinate and of Rochel cry? And doth not the blood of souls\ncry? which is the loudest cry of all. God said to Cain, \u201cThe voice of thy\nbrother\u2019s blood crieth unto me from the ground,\u201d Gen. iv. 10. The Hebrew\nhath it, \u201cThy brother\u2019s blood,\u201d which is well expounded both by the\nChaldee Paraphrase and the Jerusalem Targum, the voice of the blood of all\nthe generations and the righteous people which thy brother should have\nbegotten crieth unto me. I may apply it to the thing in hand: The\nsilencing, deposing, persecuting, imprisoning, and banishing of so many of\nthe Lord\u2019s witnesses, of the most painful and powerful preachers, and the\npreferring of so many either dumb dogs or false teachers, maketh the voice\nof bloods to cry to heaven, even the blood of many thousands, yea,\nthousands of thousands of souls, which have been lost by the one, or might\nhave been saved by the other. God will require the blood of the children\nwhich those righteous Abels might have begotten unto him. There is, beside\nall this, more blood-guiltiness, which is secret, but shall sometime be\nbrought to light. O blood! blood! O let the land tremble, while the\nrighteous Judge makes \u201cinquisition for blood,\u201d Psal. ix. 12; O let England\ncry, \u201cDeliver me from blood-guiltiness, O God\u201d! Psal. li. 14.\n\nBut you will say, peradventure, many of these things whereof I have spoken\nought not to be charged upon the kingdom, they were only the acts of a\nprevalent faction for the time.\n\nI answer, First, God will impute them to the kingdom, unless the kingdom\nmourn for them. God gives not a charge to the destroying angel (Ezek. ix.\n4) to spare those who have not been actors in the public sins and\nabominations, but to spare those only who cry and sigh for those\nabominations.\n\nSecondly, When the ministers of state, or others having authority in\nchurch or commonwealth, take the boldness to do such acts, the kingdom is\nnot blameless; for they durst not have done as they did, had the Lord but\ndisclaimed, discountenanced, and cried out against them. It is marked both\nof John Baptist (Matt. xiv. 5), and of Christ (Matt. xxi. 46), and of the\napostles (Acts iv. 21), that so long as the people did magnify them, and\nesteem them highly, their enemies durst not do unto them what else they\nwould have done.\n\n3. A third consideration concerning the kingdom is this. Notwithstanding\nof all the happiness and gospel-blessings which it hath wanted in so great\na measure, and notwithstanding of all the sins which have so much abounded\nin it, yet the servants of God have charged it with great\npresumption,(1383) that the church of England hath said with the church of\nLaodicea, \u201cI am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing,\u201d\nRev. iii. 17. It hath been proud of its clergy, learning, great revenues,\npeace, plenty, wealth, and abundance of all things, and as the Apostle\nchargeth the Corinthians, \u201cYe are puffed up, and have not rather mourned,\u201d\nthat the wicked ones \u201cmight be taken away from among you,\u201d 1 Cor. v. 2.\nAnd would God this presumption had taken an end when God did begin to\nafflict the land. It did even make an idol of this Parliament, and trusted\nto its own strength and armies, which hath provoked God so much, that he\nhath sometimes almost blasted your hopes that way, and hath made you to\nfeel your weakness even where you thought yourselves strongest. God would\nnot have England say, \u201cMine own hand hath saved me,\u201d Judg. vii. 2; neither\nwill he have Scotland to say, \u201cMy hand hath done it:\u201d but he will have\nboth to say, His hand hath done it, when we were lost in our own eyes. God\ngrant that your leaning so much upon the arm of flesh be not the cause of\nmore blows. God must be seen in the work, and he will have us to give him\nall the glory, and to say, \u201cThou also hast wrought all our works in us,\u201d\nIsa. xxvi. 12. O that all our presumption may be repented of, and that the\nland may be yet more deeply humbled! Assuredly God will arise and subdue\nour enemies, and command deliverances for Jacob; but it is as certain God\nwill not do this till we be more humbled and (as the text saith) ashamed\nof all that we have done.\n\n4. There is another motive more evangelical: Let England be humbled even\nfor the mercy, the most admirable mercy which God hath showed upon so\nundeserving and evil-deserving a kingdom. See it in this same prophecy, \u201cI\nwill establish my covenant with thee; and thou shalt know that I am the\nLord: that thou mayest remember, and be confounded, and never open thy\nmouth any more because of thy shame, when I am pacified toward thee for\nall that thou hast done, saith the Lord God,\u201d Ezek. xvi. 62, 63. And\nagain: \u201cNot for your sakes do I this, saith the Lord God, be it known unto\nyou: be ashamed and confounded for your own ways, O house of Israel,\u201d\nEzek. xxxvi. 32; \u201cO my God (saith Ezra), I am ashamed and blush to lift up\nmy face to thee,\u201d Ezra. ix. 6. And what was it that did so confound him?\nYou may find it in that which followeth: God had showed them mercy, and\nhad left them a remnant to escape, and had given them a nail in his holy\nplace, and had lightened their eyes: \u201cAnd now (saith he), O our God, what\nshall we say after this? for we have forsaken thy commandments,\u201d Ezra. ix.\n10. Let us this day compare, as he did, God\u2019s goodness and our own\nguiltiness. England deserved nothing but to get a bill of divorce, and\nthat God should have said in his wrath, Away from me, I have no pleasure\nin you; but now he hath received you into the bond of his covenant, he\nrejoiceth over you to do you good, and to dwell among you; his banner over\nyou is love. O let our hard hearts be overcome and be confounded with so\nmuch mercy, and let us be ashamed of ourselves, that after so much mercy\nwe should be yet in our sins and trespasses.\n\nThere is a third application, which I intend for the ministry, who ought\nto go before the people of God in the example of repentance and\nhumiliation. You know the old observation, _Raro vidi clericum\npoenitentem_,\u2014I have seldom seen a clergyman penitent. As Christ saith of\nrich men (Mark x. 24, 25), I may say of learned men, It is easier for a\ncamel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a man that trusts in his\nlearning to enter into the kingdom of heaven. He will needs maintain the\nlawfulness of all which he hath done, and will not be, as this text would\nhave him, ashamed of all that he hath done. Yet it is not impossible with\nGod to make such an one deny himself, and that whatsoever in him exalts\nitself against Christ should be brought into captivity to the obedience of\nChrist (2 Cor. x. 5). Among all that were converted by the ministry of the\napostles, I wonder most at the conversion of a great company of priests,\nActs vi. 7. I do not suspect, as two learned men have done,(1384) that the\ntext is corrupted in that place, and that it should be otherwise read. I\nam the rather satisfied, because there is nothing there mentioned of the\nconversion of the high priest, or of the chief priests, the heads of the\ntwenty-four orders which were upon the council, and had condemned Christ:\nthe place cannot be understood but of a multitude of common or inferior\npriests, even as, by proportion, in Hezekiah\u2019s reformation, the Levites\nwere more upright in heart than the priests, 2 Chron. xxix. 34.\n\nAnd now many of the inferior clergy (as they were abusively called) are\nmore upright in heart unto this present reformation than any of those who\nhad assumed to themselves high degrees in the church. The hardest point of\nall is, so to embrace and follow reformation as to be ashamed of former\nprevarications and pollutions. But in this also the Holy Ghost hath set\nexamples before the ministers of the gospel. I read, 2 Chron. xxx. 15,\n\u201cThe priests and the Levites were ashamed, and sanctified themselves, and\nbrought in the burnt-offerings into the house of the Lord.\u201d They thought\nit not enough to be sanctified, but they were ashamed that they had been\nbefore defiled. A great prophet is not content to have his judgment\nrectified which had been in error, but he is ashamed of the error he had\nbeen in; \u201cSo foolish was I (saith he) and ignorant: I was as a beast\nbefore thee,\u201d Psal. lxxiii. 22. A great apostle must glorify God, and\nhumbly acknowledge his own shame; \u201cFor I am the least of the apostles\n(saith he), that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted\nthe church of God,\u201d 1 Cor. xv. 9. And shall I add the example of a great\nfather? Augustine confesseth(1385) honestly, that for the space of nine\nyears he both was deceived, and did deceive others. Nature will whisper to\na man to look to his credit: but the text here calleth for another\nthing,\u2014to look to the honour of God, and to thine own shame; and yet in so\ndoing thou shalt be more highly esteemed both by God and by his children.\nNow without this let a man seem to turn and reform never so well, all is\nunsure work, and built upon a sandy foundation. And whosoever will not\nacknowledge their iniquity, and be ashamed for it, God shall make them\nbear their shame; according to that which is pronounced in the next\nchapter, ver. 10-15, against the Levites, who had gone astray when Israel\nwent astray after their idols; and according to that, Mal. ii. 8, 9, \u201cYe\nhave corrupted the covenant of Levi, saith the Lord of hosts: therefore\nhave I also made you contemptible and base before all the people.\u201d\n\nThe fourth and last application of this doctrine is for every Christian.\nThe text teacheth us a difference betwixt a presumptuous and a truly\nhumbled sinner; the one is ashamed of his sins, the other not. By this\nmark let every one of us try himself this day. It is a saving grace to be\ntruly and really ashamed of sin. It is one of the promises of the covenant\nof grace, \u201cThen shall ye remember your own evil ways, and your doings that\nwere not good, and shall loathe yourselves in your own sight, for your\niniquities, and for your abominations,\u201d Ezek. xxxvi. 31. Try, then, if\nthou hast but thus much of the work of grace in thy soul; and if thou\nhast, be assured of thy interest in Christ and in the new covenant. A\nreprobate may have somewhat which is very like this grace: but I shall lay\nopen the difference betwixt the one and the other in these particulars:\u2014\n\n1. To be truly ashamed of sin, is to be ashamed of it as an act of\nfilthiness and uncleanness. The child of God, when he comes to the throne\nof grace, is ashamed of an unclean heart, though the world cannot see it.\nA natural man, at his best, looketh upon sin as it damneth and destroyeth\nthe soul, but he cannot look upon it as it defiles the soul. Shame ariseth\nproperly from a filthy act, though no other evil be to follow upon it.\n\n2. As we are ashamed of acts of filthiness, so of acts of folly. A natural\nman may judge himself a fool in regard of the circumstances or consequents\nof his sin, but he is not convinced that sin in itself is an act of\nmadness and folly. When the child of God is humbled he becomes a fool in\nhis own eyes,\u2014he perceives he had done like a mad fool, 1 Cor. iii. 18;\ntherefore he is said then to come to himself, Luke xv. 17.\n\n3. The child of God is ashamed of sin as an act of unkindness and\nunthankfulness to a sweet merciful Lord, Psal. cxxx. 4; Rom. ii. 4. Though\nthere were no other evil in sin, the conscience of so much mercy and love\nso far abused, and so unkindly recompensed, is that which confoundeth a\npenitent sinner. As the wife of a kind husband, if she play the whore\n(though the world know it not), and if her husband, when he might divorce\nher, shall still love her and receive her into his bosom; such a one, if\nshe have at all any sense, or any bowels of sorrow, must needs be\nswallowed up of shame and confusion for her undutifulness and treachery to\nsuch a husband. But now the hypocrite is not at all troubled or afflicted\nin spirit for sin as it is an act of unkindness to God.\n\n4. Shame, as philosophers have defined it,(1386) is \u201cthe fear of a just\nreproof:\u201d not simply the fear of a reproof, but the fear of a just\nreproof. That is servile; this filial. The child of God is ashamed of the\nvery guiltiness, and of that which may be justly laid to his charge; the\nhypocrite not so. Saul was not ashamed of his sin, but he was ashamed that\nSamuel should reprove him before the elders of the people, 1 Sam. xv. 15,\n30. Christ\u2019s adversaries were ashamed (Luke xiii. 17), not of their error,\nbut because their mouths were stopped before the people, and they could\nnot answer him. A hypocrite is ashamed, \u201cas a thief is ashamed when he is\nfound,\u201d Jer. ii. 26; mark that, \u201cwhen he is found;\u201d a thief is not ashamed\nof his sin, but because he is found in it, and so brought to a shameful\nend.\n\n5. When the cause of God is in hand, a true penitent is so ashamed of\nhimself that he fears the people of God shall be put to shame for his\nsake, and that it shall go the worse with them because of his vileness and\nguiltiness. This made David pray, \u201cO God, thou knowest my foolishness; and\nmy sins are not hid from thee. Let not them that wait on thee, O Lord God\nof hosts, be ashamed for my sake; let not those that seek thee be\nconfounded for my sake, O God of Israel,\u201d Psal. lxix. 5, 6. The sorrow and\nshame of a hypocrite (as all his other seeming graces) are rooted in\nself-love, not in the love of God: he hath not this in all his thoughts,\nthat he is a spot or blemish in the body or church of Christ, and\ntherefore to be humbled, lest for his sake God be displeased with his\npeople; lest such a vile and abominable sinner as he is bring wrath and\nconfusion upon others, and make Israel turn their back before the enemy. O\nhappy soul that hath such thoughts as these!\n\nI have now done with the first part of the text, wherein I have been the\nlarger, because it most fitteth the work of the day.\n\nThe second follows: \u201cShow them the form of the house,\u201d &c.\n\nBefore I come to the doctrines which do here arise, I shall first explain\nthe particulars mentioned in this part of the text, so as they may agree\nto the spiritual temple or church of Christ, which in the beginning I\nproved to be here intended.\n\nFirst, We find here the form and fashion of a house; in which the parts\nare very much diversified one from another. There are, in a formed and\nfashioned house, doors, windows, posts, lintels, &c.; there is also a\nmultitude of common stones in the walls of the house. Such a house is the\nvisible ministerial church of Christ, the parts whereof are _partes\ndissimilares_,\u2014some ministers and rulers; some eminent lights; others of\nthe ordinary rank of Christians,\u2014that make up the walls. If God hath made\none but a small pinning in the wall, he hath reason to be content, and\nmust not say, Why am not I a post, or a corner-stone, or a beam? Neither\nyet may any corner-stone despise the stones in the wall, and say, I have\nno need of you.\n\nSecondly, The Prophet was here to show them \u201cthe goings out of the house,\nand the comings in thereof.\u201d These are not the same but different gates,\nit is plain: \u201cWhen the people of the land shall come before the Lord in\nthe solemn feasts, he that entereth in by the way of the north gate to\nworship, shall go out by the way of the south gate, &c., he shall not\nreturn by the way of the gate whereby he came in,\u201d Ezek. xlvi. 9. And that\nnot only to teach us order, and the avoiding of confusion, occasioned by\nthe contrary tides of a multitude, but to tell us farther, \u201cNo man, having\nput his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of\nGod,\u201d Luke ix. 62. We must not go out of the church the way that we came\nin (that were a door of defection), but hold our faces forward till we go\nout by the door of death.\n\nThirdly, The text hath twice \u201call the forms thereof,\u201d which I understand\nof the outward forms and of the inward forms, which two I find very much\ndistinguished by those who have written of the form and structure of the\ntemple. The church is exceedingly beautified, even outwardly, with the\nordinances of Christ, but the inward forms are the most glorious: \u201cFor,\nbehold, the kingdom of God is within you,\u201d Luke xvii. 21; and it \u201ccometh\nnot with observation,\u201d ver. 20; \u201cThe king\u2019s daughter is all glorious\nwithin;\u201d yet even \u201cher clothing is of wrought gold,\u201d Psal. xlv. 13. When\nthe angel had made an end of measuring the inner house (Ezek. xlii. 15),\nthen he brought forth Ezekiel by the east gate, which was the chief gate\nby which the people commonly entered, and measured the outer wall in the\nlast place. God\u2019s method is first to try the heart and reins, then to give\nto a man according to his works, Jer. xvii. 10. So should we measure, by\nthe reed of the sanctuary, first the inner house of our hearts and minds,\nand then to measure our outer walls, and to judge of our profession and\nexternal performances.\n\nLastly, The Prophet is commanded to write in their sight \u201call the\nordinances thereof, and all the laws thereof;\u201d for the church is a house\nnot only in an architectonic, but in an economic sense. It is Christ\u2019s\nfamily governed by his own laws; and a temple which hath in it \u201cthem that\nworship,\u201d Rev. xi. 1, it hath its own proper laws by which it is ordered.\n_Alioe sunt leges Coesarum, alioe Christi_ (saith Jerome(1387)),\u2014Caesar\u2019s\nlaws and Christ\u2019s laws are not the same, but divers one from another.\nSchoolmen say,(1388) that a law, properly so called, is both illuminative\nand impulsive: illuminative, to inform and direct the judgment; impulsive,\nto move and apply the will to action. And accordingly there are two names\nin this text given to Christ\u2019s laws and institutions: one(1389) which\nimporteth the instruction and information of our minds; another,(1390)\nwhich signifieth a deep imprinting or engraving (and that is made upon our\nhearts and affections), such as a pen of iron and other instruments could\nmake upon a stone. It is not well when either of the two is wanting; for\nthe light of truth, without the engraving of truth, may be extinguished;\nand the engraving of truth, without the light of truth, may be obliterate.\n\nAll these I shall pass, and only pitch upon two doctrines which I shall\ndraw from this second part of the text: one concerning the will of God\u2019s\ncommandment, what God requireth of Israel to do; another concerning the\nwill of God\u2019s decree, what he hath purposed himself to do.\n\nThe first is this: \u201cGod will have Israel to build and order his temple,\nnot as shall seem good in their eyes, but according to his own pattern\nonly which he sets before them,\u201d which doth so evidently appear from this\nvery text, that it needeth no other proof; for what else meaneth the\nshowing of such a pattern to be kept and followed by his people? Other\npassages of this kind there are which do more abundantly confirm it.\n\nThe Lord did prescribe to Noah both the matter, and fashion, and measures\nof the ark (Gen. vi. 14-16). To Moses he gave a pattern of the tabernacle,\nof the ark, of the mercy-seat, of the vail, of the curtains, of the two\naltars, of the table and all the furniture thereof, of the candlestick and\nall the instruments thereof, &c. And though Moses was the greatest prophet\nthat ever arose in Israel, yet God would not leave any part of the work to\nMoses\u2019 arbitrement, but straitly commandeth him, \u201cLook that thou make them\nafter their pattern, which was showed thee in the mount,\u201d Exod. xxv. 40.\nWhen it came to the building of the first temple, Solomon was not in that\nleft to his own wisdom, as great as it was, but David, the man of God,\ngave him a perfect \u201cpattern of all that he had by the Spirit,\u201d 1 Chron.\nxxviii. 11-13. The second temple was also built \u201caccording to the\ncommandment of the God of Israel\u201d (Ezra vi. 14), by Haggai and Zechariah.\nAnd for the New Testament, Christ our great Prophet, and only King and\nLawgiver of the church, hath revealed his will to the apostles, and they\nto us, concerning all his holy things; and we must hold us at these\nunleavened and unmixed ordinances which the apostles, from the Lord,\ndelivered to the churches: \u201cI will put upon you (saith he himself) none\nother burden: but that which ye have already hold fast till I come,\u201d Rev.\nii. 24, 25.\n\nI know the church must observe rules of order and conveniency in the\ncommon circumstances of times, places, and persons; but these\ncircumstances are none of our holy things,\u2014they are only prudential\naccommodations, which are alike common to all human societies, both civil\nand ecclesiastical, wherein both are directed by the same light of nature,\nthe common rule to both in all things of that kind, providing always that\nthe general rules of the word be observed: \u201cDo all to the glory of God,\u201d 1\nCor. x. 31; \u201cLet all things be done to edifying,\u201d 1 Cor. xiv. 26; \u201cIt is\ngood neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor anything whereby thy\nbrother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak,\u201d Rom. xiv. 21; \u201cLet\nevery man be fully persuaded in his own mind. To him that esteemeth\nanything to be unclean, to him it is unclean,\u201d Rom. xiv. 5, 14.\n\nThe text giveth some clearing to this point: There is here showed to the\nhouse of Israel a pattern of the whole structure, and of the least part\nthereof, and all the measures thereof; yet no pattern is given of the\nkind, or quantity, or magnificence of the several stones, or of the\ninstruments of building. The reason is, because the former is essential to\na house, the latter accidental,(1391) the former, if altered, make another\nbuilding; the latter, though altered, the building is the same: therefore\nwhere we have in the text \u201cthe forms thereof,\u201d the Septuagint read\n\u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6,\u2014_the substance thereof_.\n\nBut to clear it a little farther, I put two characters upon those\ncircumstances which are not determined by the word of God, but left to be\nordered by the church as shall be found most convenient. First, They are\nnot things sacred, nor proper to the church, as hath been said. They are\nof the same nature, they serve for the same end and use, both in sacred\nand civil things; for order and decency, the avoiding of confusion and the\nlike, are alike common to church and commonwealth. Secondly, I shall\ndescribe them as one of the prelates hath done, who tells us,(1392) that\nthe things which the Scripture hath left to the discretion of the church\nare those things \u201cwhich neither needed nor could be particularly\nexpressed. They needed not, because they are so obvious; and they could\nnot, both because they are so numerous, and because so changeable.\u201d\n\nI will not insist upon questions of this kind, but will make a short\napplication of the doctrine unto you, honourable and beloved. You may\nplainly see from what hath been said, that neither kings, nor parliaments,\nnor synods, nor any power on earth, may impose or continue the least\nceremony upon the consciences of God\u2019s people, which Christ hath not\nimposed; therefore let neither antiquity, nor custom, nor conveniency, nor\nprudential considerations, nor show of holiness, nor any pretext\nwhatsoever, plead for the reservation of any of your old ceremonies, which\nhave no warrant from the word of God. Much might have been said for the\nhigh places among the Jews, as I hinted in the beginning; and much might\nhave been said by the Pharisees for their frequent washings (Mark vii. 2,\n3, 4, 7), which, as they were ancient, and received by the traditions of\nthe elders, so they were used to teach men purity, and to put them in mind\nof holiness; neither was their washing contrary to any commandment of God,\nexcept you understand that commandment of not adding to the word (Deut.\niv. 2; xii. 32; Prov. xxx. 6), which doth equally strike against all\nceremonies devised by man.\n\n\u201cA little leaven leaveneth the whole lump,\u201d Gal. v. 9; and a little leak\nwill endanger the ship. Thieves will readily dig through a house, how much\nmore will they enter if any postern be left open to them. The wild beasts\nand boars of the forest will attempt to break down the hedges of the\nLord\u2019s vineyard (Psal. lxxx. 13), how much more if any breach be left in\nthe hedges. If, therefore, you would make a sure reformation, make a\nperfect reformation, lest Christ have this controversy with England,\n\u201cNevertheless I have somewhat against thee,\u201d Rev. ii. 4. And so much of\nour duty.\n\nThe second doctrine concerneth God\u2019s decree, and it is this: \u201cIt is\nconcluded in the council of heaven, and God hath it in the thoughts of his\nheart, to repair the breaches of his house, and to build such a temple to\nhimself, as is shadowed forth in this vision of Ezekiel.\u201d For the\ncomparing of this verse with ver. 7 in this same chapter, and with chap.\nxxxvii. 26, 27, will easily make it appear, that this showing of the\npattern, and all this measuring, was not only in reference to Israel\u2019s\nduty, but to God\u2019s gracious purpose towards Israel. According to that,\nZech. i. 16, \u201cTherefore thus saith the Lord, I am returned to Jerusalem\nwith mercies: my house shall be built in it, saith the Lord of hosts, and\na line shall be stretched forth upon Jerusalem.\u201d Now this vision cannot be\nsaid to be fulfilled in Zorobabel\u2019s temple, as I proved before, only here\ntake notice that the second destruction of the temple by the Romans was\nworse than the first by the Babylonians,\u2014that desolation was repaired, but\nthis could never be repaired, though the Jews did attempt the building\nagain of the temple,(1393) first under Adrian the emperor, and afterward\nunder Julian the apostate. The hand of God was seen against them most\nterribly by fire from heaven, and other signs of that kind; and about the\nsame time (to observe that by the way) the famous Delphic temple was\nwithout man\u2019s hand, by fire and earthquake, utterly destroyed and never\nbuilt again,\u2014to tell the world that neither Judaism nor paganism should\nprevail, but the kingdom of Jesus Christ.\n\nWhere then must we seek for the accomplishment of Ezekiel\u2019s vision, I mean\nfor the new temple in which the Lord will dwell for ever, and where his\nholy name shall be no more polluted? Surely we must seek for it in the\ndays of the gospel, as hath been before abundantly proved; but that the\nthing may be the better understood, let us take with us, at least, some\nfew general observations concerning this temple of Ezekiel, as it\nrepresenteth what should come to pass in the church of Christ.\n\nFirst of all, there is but one temple, not many, showed to him,\u2014which is\nin part, and shall be yet more fulfilled in the church of the New\nTestament, according to that, Zech. xiv. 8, \u201cAnd it shall be in that day,\nthat living waters shall go out from Jerusalem;\u201d which is the same that we\nhave, Ezek. xlvii. 1. Then follows, \u201cAnd the Lord shall be King over all\nthe earth: in that day shall there be one Lord, and his name one.\u201d The\nlike promise we find elsewhere: \u201cI will give them one heart, and one way,\u201d\nJer. xxxii. 39; Ezek. xi. 19. It is observed, that for this very end of\nuniformity, the heathens also did erect temples, that they might all\nworship the same idol-god in the same manner. The plague of the Christian\nchurch hitherto hath been temple against temple, and altar against altar,\n\u201cBut thou, O Lord, how long?\u201d Psal. vi. 3.\n\nSecondly, Ezekiel\u2019s temple and city are very large and capacious, as I\nshowed in the beginning; and the city had three gates looking toward each\nof the four quarters of the world, Ezek. xlviii. 31-34: all this to\nsignify the spreading of the gospel into all the earth; which is also\nsignified by the holy waters issuing from the threshold of the temple, and\nrising so high that they were waters to swim in, Ezek. xlvii. 1, 5. God\nhath said to his church, \u201cEnlarge the place of thy tent, and let them\nstretch forth the curtains of thine habitations: spare not, lengthen thy\ncords, and strengthen thy stakes: for thou shalt break forth on the right\nhand and on the left,\u201d Isa. liv. 2, 3. A great increase of the church\nthere was in the apostles\u2019 times, Col. i. 6; but a far greater may be yet\nlooked for, Rom. xi. 12. Though the enemy did come in like a flood, the\nSpirit of the Lord lifted up a standard against him, Isa. lix. 19; \u201cThe\nsea saw it, and fled; Jordan was driven back,\u201d Psal. cxiv. 3. But when the\ngospel cometh, \u201clike a noise of many waters\u201d (as the Prophet calls it,\nver. 2, signifying an irresistible increase), it is in vain to build\nbulwarks against it: God will even break open \u201cthe fountains of the great\ndeep,\u201d and open \u201cthe windows of heaven\u201d (Gen. vii. 11); and the gospel\nwill prove a second flood, which will overflow the whole earth, though not\nto destroy it (as Noah\u2019s did), but to make it glad; \u201cFor the earth shall\nbe filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord, as the waters cover\nthe sea,\u201d Hab. ii. 14; Isa. xi. 9.\n\nThirdly, In this temple, beside the holy of holies, were three\ncourts:(1394) the court of the priests; the court of the people, commonly\ncalled _Atrium Israelis_; and, without both these, _Atrium Gentium_, the\ncourt of the heathen, so called, because the heathen, as also many of\nthose who were legally unclean, might not only come unto the mountain of\nthe house of the Lord, but also enter within the outer wall (mentioned\nEzek. xlii. 20), and so worship in that outer court, or _intermurale_;\nunto which did belong (as we learn from Josephus(1395)) the great east\nporch, which kept the name of _Solomon\u2019s porch_,\u2014in which both Christ\nhimself did preach (John x. 23), and the apostles after him (Acts v. 12);\nby which means the free grace of the gospel was held forth even to\nheathens, and publicans, and unclean persons, who were not admitted into\nthe court of Israel,\u2014there to communicate in all the holy things: \u201cFor the\nSon of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost,\u201d Luke xix. 10.\nThis outer court of the temple is meant when it is said that the Pharisees\nbrought a woman taken in adultery into the temple, and set her before\nChrist, John viii. 2, 3. Now all this will hold true answerably of the\nspiritual temple; for, _first_, As the uncircumcised and the unclean were\nnot admitted into the temple among the children of Israel (Ezek. xliv. 9),\nso all that live in the church of Christ are not to be admitted\npromiscuously to every ordinance of God, especially to the Lord\u2019s table,\nbut only those whose profession, knowledge and conversation, after trial,\nshall be found such as may make them capable thereof: yet as heathens and\nunclean persons did enter into the outer court, and there hear Christ and\nhis apostles, so there shall ever be in the church a door of grace and\nhope open to the greatest and vilest sinners who shall seek after Christ,\nand \u201cask the way to Zion, with their faces thitherward,\u201d Jer. i. 5.\n_Secondly_, There shall be also somewhat answerable to the court of the\nchildren of Israel: God can raise up even of the stones children to\nAbraham (Matt. iii. 9); he will not want a people to tread in the courts\nof his house, and to inquire in his temple. _Thirdly_, And as in the\ntypical temple there was a court for the priests, so hath the Lord\npromised to the church: \u201cYet shall not thy teachers be removed into a\ncorner any more, but thine eyes shall see thy teachers,\u201d Isa. xxx. 20; and\nagain, \u201cI will give you pastors according to mine heart, which shall feed\nyou with knowledge and understanding,\u201d Jer. iii. 15. _Fourthly_, And as\nthere was a secret and most holy place, where the ark was, and the\nmercy-seat, and where the glory of God dwelt, so Christ hath his own\n\u201chidden ones\u201d (Psal. lxxxiii. 3), \u201cthe children of the bride-chamber\u201d\n(Matt. ix. 15), who, \u201cwith open face beholding as in a glass the glory of\nthe Lord, are changed into the same image, from glory to glory, even as by\nthe Spirit of the Lord,\u201d 2 Cor. iii. 18. There is also a time coming when\nGod will open the secrets of his temple, and make the ark of his testament\nto be seen otherwise than yet it hath been; which shall be at the sounding\nof the seventh trumpet, Rev. xi. 15, 19.\n\nFourthly, The fourth thing wherein Ezekiel\u2019s temple represented the church\nof Christ is in regard of the great strength thereof: it stood \u201cupon a\nvery high mountain,\u201d chap. xl. 2. The material temple also in Jerusalem,\nas it is described by Josephus, was a very strong and impregnable place.\nInterpreters think that Cyrus was jealous of the strength of the temple,\nand for that cause gave order that it should not be built above threescore\ncubits high, whereas Solomon had built it sixscore cubits high, Ezra vi.\n3. The Romans afterwards, when they had subdued Judea, had a watchful eye\nupon the temple, and placed a strong garrison in the castle Antonia (which\nwas beside the temple), the commander whereof was called \u201cthe captain of\nthe temple\u201d (Acts iv. 1); and all this for fear of sedition and rebellion\namong the Jews when they came to the temple. Now the invisible strength of\nthe spiritual temple is clearly held forth unto us by him who cannot\ndeceive us: \u201cUpon this rock,\u201d saith he (meaning himself), \u201cI will build my\nchurch, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it,\u201d Matt. xvi.\n18. The princes and powers of the world are more jealous than they need of\nthe church\u2019s strength; and yet (which is a secret judgment of God) they\nhave not been afraid to suffer Babylon to be built in her full strength:\n\u201cThere were they in great fear where no fear was\u201d (Psal. liii. 5); for\nwhen all shall come to all, it shall be found that the gospel and true\nreligion is the strongest bulwark, and chief strength for the safety and\nstability of kings and states.\n\nLastly, The glory of this temple was very great, insomuch that some have\nundertaken to demonstrate(1396) that it was a more glorious piece than any\nof the seven miracles of the world, which were so much spoken of among the\nancients. But the greatest glory of this temple was, that \u201cthe glory of\nthe God of Israel\u201d came into it, and \u201cthe earth shined with his glory,\u201d\nver. 2; Christ, the brightness of his Father\u2019s glory (Heb. i. 3), walking\nin the midst of the seven golden candlesticks (Rev. i. 13), is and shall\nbe more and more the church\u2019s glory; therefore it is said to her, \u201cArise,\nshine, for thy light is come, and the glory of the Lord is risen upon\nthee,\u201d Isa. lx. 1. Surely as it was said of the new material temple, in\nreference to Christ, so it may be said of the new spiritual temple, which\nyet we look for, \u201cThe glory of this latter house shall be greater than of\nthe former, saith the Lord of hosts; and in this place will I give peace,\nsaith the Lord of hosts,\u201d Hag. ii. 9. Christ will keep the best wine till\nthe end of the feast (John ii. 10); and he will bless our latter end more\nthan our beginning, Ezek. xxxvi. 11.\n\nThat which I have said, from grounds of Scripture, concerning a more\nglorious, yea, more peaceable condition of the church to be yet looked\nfor, is acknowledged by some of our sound and learned writers(1397) who\nhave had occasion to express their judgment about it: and it hath no\naffinity with the opinion of an earthly or temporal kingdom of Christ, or\nof the Jews\u2019 building again of Jerusalem and the material temple, and\ntheir obtaining a dominion above all other nations, or the like.\n\nI shall now bring home the point. There are very good grounds of hope to\nmake us think that this new temple is not far off; and (for your part)\nthat Christ is to make a new face of a church in this kingdom,\u2014a fair and\nbeautiful temple for his glory to dwell in: and he is even now about the\nwork.\n\nFor, first, \u201cThe set time\u201d to build Zion is come, when the people of God\n\u201ctake pleasure in her stones, and favour the dust thereof,\u201d Psal. cii. 13,\n14, 16. The stones which the builders of Babel refused are now chosen for\ncorner stones, and the stones which they chose do the builders of Zion now\nrefuse: \u201cThey shall not take of thee a stone for a corner, nor a stone for\nfoundations,\u201d Jer. li. 26. Those that have anything of Christ and of the\nimage of God in them begin to creep out of the dust of contempt, and to\nappear like stars of the morning. Nay, to go farther than that, the old\nstones, the Jews, who have been for so many ages lying forgotten in the\ndust, those poor \u201coutcasts of Israel\u201d (Psal. cxlvii. 2), have of late come\nmore into remembrance, and have been more thought of, and more prayed for,\nthan they were in former generations.\n\nSecondly, Are there not great preparations and instruments fitted for the\nwork? Hath not God called together, for such a time as this, the present\nParliament, and the Assembly of Divines, his Zorobabels, and Jehoshuas,\nand Haggais, and Zechariahs? Are there not also hewers of stones, and\nbearers of burdens? much wholesome preaching, much praying and fasting,\nmany petitions put up both to God and man? the covenant also going through\nthe kingdom as the chief preparation of materials for the work? Is not the\nold rubbish of ceremonies daily more and more shovelled away, that there\nmay be a clean ground? and is not the Lord by all this affliction humbling\nyou, that there may be a deep and a sure foundation laid?\n\nThirdly, The work is begun, and shall it not be finished? God hath laid\nthe foundation, and shall he not \u201cbring forth the head-stone?\u201d Zech. iv.\n7, 9. Christ hath put Antichrist from his outerworks in Scotland, and he\nis now come to put him from his innerworks in England: \u201cHis work is\nperfect\u201d (Deut. xxxii. 4), saith Moses; \u201cI am Alpha and Omega (saith\nChrist), the beginning and the ending,\u201d Rev. i. 8; \u201cShall I bring to the\nbirth, and not cause to bring forth, saith the Lord? shall I cause to\nbring forth, and shut the womb, saith thy God?\u201d Isa. lxvi. 9.\n\nI may add three other signs whereby to discern the time, from Rev. xi. 1,\nthe place before cited: _First_, Is there not now a measuring of the\ntemple, ordinances and worshippers, by \u201ca reed like unto a rod?\u201d The reed\nof the sanctuary in the Assembly\u2019s hand, and the rod of power and law in\nyour hand, are well met together. _Secondly_, There is a court, which\nbefore seemed to belong to the temple, left out and not measured: \u201cFrom\nhim that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath,\u201d Matt. xxv.\n29. The Samaritans of this time, who serve the Lord, and serve their own\ngods too (2 Kings xvii. 33, 34), and do after the manners of idolaters,\nhave professed (as they of old to the Jews, Ezra iv. 2), that they would\nbuild with you; that they will be for the true Protestant religion as you\nare; that they will also consent to the reformation of abuses, for the\nease of tender consciences. But God doth so alienate and separate betwixt\nyou and them, by his overruling providence, discovering their designs\nagainst you, and their deep engagements to the popish party, as if he\nwould say unto them, \u201cYe have no portion, nor right, nor memorial in\nJerusalem,\u201d Neh. ii. 20; or as it is in the parable concerning those who\nhad refused to come when they were invited, yea, had taken the servants of\nChrist and entreated them spitefully, and killed them,\u2014the great king hath\nsaid in his wrath, that they shall not taste of his supper, and he sends\nforth his armies to destroy those murderers, and to burn up their city,\nMatt. xxii. 6, 7; Luke xiv. 24. Surely what they have professed(1398)\nconcerning reformation is scarce so much as the Pope did acknowledge when\nreformation did begin in Germany. However, as it is our heart\u2019s desire and\nprayer to God for them that they may be saved, so we are not out of hopes\nthat God hath many of his own among them, unto whom he will give\n\u201crepentance to the acknowledging of the truth.\u201d\n\nLastly, The time seemeth to answer fitly: The new temple is built when the\nforty-two months of the beast\u2019s reign, and of the treading down the holy\ncity (that is, by the best interpretation, twelve hundred and sixty years)\ncome to an end. This computation, I conceive, should begin rather before\nthe four hundredth year of Christ than after it; both because the Roman\nEmperor (whose falling was the Pope\u2019s rising) was brought very low before\nthat time by the wars of the Goths and other barbarous nations, and\notherwise, which will appear from history; and further, because pope\nInnocentius(1399) (who succeeded about the year 401) was raised so high\nthat he drew all appeals from other bishops to the apostolical see,\naccording to former statutes and customs, as he saith. I cannot pitch upon\na likelier time than the year 383, at which time (according to the common\ncalculation) a general Council at Constantinople (though Baronius and some\nothers reckon that Council in the year 381) did acknowledge the primacy of\nthe bishop of Rome,(1400) only reserving to the bishop of Constantinople\nthe second place among the bishops. Did not then the beast receive much\npower when this much was acknowledged by a council of one hundred and\nfifty bishops, though sitting in the East, and moderated by Nectarius,\narchbishop of Constantinople. Immediately after this council, it is\nacknowledged by one of our great antiquaries,(1401) that the bishop of\nRome did labour mightily to draw all causes to his own consistory, and\nthat he doth scarce read of any heretic or schismatic condemned in the\nprovince where he lived, but straight he had recourse to the bishop of\nRome. Another of our antiquaries(1402) noteth not long before that\nCouncil, that Antichrist did then begin to appear at Rome, and to exalt\nhimself over all other bishops.\n\nNow if we should reckon the beginning of the beast\u2019s reign about the time\nof that Council, the end of it will fall in at this very time of ours. But\nI dare not determine so high a point. God\u2019s work will, ere it be long,\nmake a clearer commentary upon his word. Only let this be remembered, We\nmust not think it strange if, after the end of the twelve hundred and\nsixty years, Antichrist be not immediately and utterly abolished; for when\nthat time is ended he makes war against the witnesses, yea, overcometh and\nkilleth them. But that victory of his lasteth only three days and a half,\nand then God makes, as it were, a resurrection from the dead, and a tenth\npart of the great city falls before the whole fall; see Rev. xi. 3, 7, 11,\n13. Whether this killing of the witnesses (which seemeth to be the last\nact of Antichrist\u2019s power) be past, or to come, I cannot say: God knows.\nBut assuredly, the acceptable year of Israel\u2019s jubilee, and the day of\nvengeance upon Antichrist, is coming, and is not far off.\n\nBut now, is there no other application to be made of this point? Is all\nthis said to satisfy curious wits, or, at the best, to comfort the people\nof God? Nay, there is more than so: it must be brought home to a practical\nuse. As the assurance of salvation doth not make the child of God the more\npresumptuous, but the more humble (Ezek. xvi. 63); neither doth it make\nhim negligent, but diligent in the way of holiness, and in all the acts of\nhis spiritual warfare, Phil. iii. 13, 14; 2 Pet. i. 10; so that \u201cevery man\nthat hath this hope in him purifieth himself,\u201d 1 John iii. 3: so\nanswerably, the assurance of the new temple, and of the sweet days to\ncome, serveth for a twofold practical use; even as David also applieth\nGod\u2019s promise of Solomon\u2019s building the temple, 1 Chron. xxii. 9; for thus\nhe speaketh to the princes of Israel, ver. 19, \u201cNow set your heart and\nyour soul to seek the Lord your God; arise, therefore, and build ye the\nsanctuary of the Lord God;\u201d and this is, beside, the charge which he\ngiveth to Solomon.\n\nFirst, then, ye must set your heart and your soul to seek God, forasmuch\nas you know it is not in vain to seek him for this thing, Dan. ix. 2, 3.\nWhen Daniel understood by books that the seventy years of Jerusalem\u2019s\ndesolation were at an end, and that the time of building the temple again\nwas at hand, then he saith, \u201cI set my face unto the Lord God, to seek by\nprayer and supplications, with fasting, and sackcloth, and ashes.\u201d O let\nus do as he did! O let us \u201ccry mightily unto God,\u201d Jonah iii. 8; and let\nus, with all our soul, and all our might, give ourselves to fasting and\nprayer. Now, if ever, \u201cthe effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man\navaileth much,\u201d James v. 16.\n\nSecondly, And the more actively you must go about the business. \u201cBe ye\nstedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch\nas ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord,\u201d 1 Cor. xv. 58.\nWhat greater motive to action than to know that you shall prosper in it?\n\u201cArise therefore, and be doing.\u201d\n\nAnd so I am led upon the third and last part of the text, of which I shall\nspeak but very little.\n\nThe doctrine is this: Reformation ends not in contemplation, but in\naction. The pattern of the house of God is set before us to the end it may\nbe followed; and the ordinances thereof to the end they may be obeyed:\n\u201cGive me understanding (saith David), and I shall keep thy law; yea, I\nshall observe it with my whole heart,\u201d Psal. cxix. 34; \u201cIf ye know these\nthings (saith Christ), happy are ye if ye do them,\u201d John xiii. 17. The\npoint is plain, and needeth no proof but application.\n\nLet me therefore, honourable worthies, leave in your bosoms this one point\nmore: Many of the servants of God who have stood in this place, and could\ndo it better than I can, have been calling upon you to go on in the work\nof reformation: O \u201cbe not slothful in business,\u201d Rom. xii. 11; and forget\nnot to do as you have been taught. Had you begun at this work, and gone\nabout the building of the house of God as your first and chief business, I\ndare say you should have prospered better. It was one cause, among others,\nwhy the children of Israel (though the greater number, and having the\nbetter cause too) did twice fall before Benjamin, because, while they made\nso great a business for the villainy committed upon the Levites\u2019\nconcubine, they had taken no course with the graven image of the children\nof Dan (Jud. xviii. 30, 31), a thing which did more immediately touch God\nin his honour.\n\nBut I am confident errors of this kind will be now amended, and that you\nwill, by double diligence, redeem the time. I know your trouble is great,\nand your cares many, in managing the war, and looking to the safety of the\nkingdom, yet mark what David did in such a case: \u201cBehold, in my trouble\n(saith he) I have prepared for the house of the Lord an hundred thousand\ntalents of gold, and a thousand thousand talents of silver; and of brass\nand iron without weight,\u201d 1 Chron. xxii. 14. David did manage great wars\nwith mighty enemies, (2 Sam. v., viii., x., xi.,) the Philistines,\nMoabites, Ammonites, and Syrians; beside the intestine war made first by\nAbner (2 Sam. ii. 8), and afterward by Absalom (2 Sam. xv. 10), and after\nthat by Sheba (2 Sam. xx. 1.) Notwithstanding of all this, in his trouble\nand poverty (the word signifieth both), he made this great preparation for\nthe house of God; and if God had given him leave, he had, in his trouble,\nbuilt it too, for you well know he was not hindered from building the\ntemple by the wars or any other business, but only because God would not\npermit him.\n\nSet before you also the example of the Jews, when the prophets of God did\nstir them up to the building of the temple, Ezra v. 1, 2. They say not, We\nmust first build the walls of Jerusalem to hold out the enemy, but the\ntext saith, \u201cThey began to build the house of God.\u201d They were not full\nfour years in building the temple, and finished it in the sixth year of\nDarius, Ezra. iv. 24 with vi. 15. Now all the rest of his reign did pass,\nand all Xerxes\u2019 reign, and much of Artaxerxes Longimanus\u2019s reign, before\nthe walls of Jerusalem were built, for about that work was Nehemiah from\nthe twentieth year of Artaxerxes to the two and thirtieth year (Neh. v.\n14); and if great chronologers be not very far mistaken, the temple was\nfinished fourscore and three years before the walls of Jerusalem were\nfinished.(1403)\n\nIt is far from my meaning to cool your affection to the laws, liberties,\npeace, and safety of the kingdom. I desire only to warm your hearts with\nthe zeal of reformation, as that which, all along, you must carry on in\nthe first place.\n\nOne thing I cannot but mention: The reverend Assembly of Divines may\nlament (as Augustine in another case), _Heu, heu, quam tarde\nfestino!_\u2014_alas, alas, how slowly do I make speed!_\n\nBut since now, by the blessing of God, they are thus far advanced, that\nthey have found, in the word of God, a pattern for presbyterial government\nover many particular congregations; and have found also, from the word,\nthat ordination is an act belonging to such a presbytery, I beseech you\nimprove that \u201cwhereto we have already attained\u201d (Phil. iii. 16), till\nother acts of a presbytery be agreed on afterward. Yourselves know better\nthan I do, that much people is perishing (Prov. xxix. 18), because there\nis no vision: \u201cThe harvest truly is great, but the labourers are few,\u201d\nLuke x. 2, Give me leave, therefore, to quicken you to this part of the\nwork, that, with all diligence and without delay, some presbyteries be\nassociated and erected (in such places as yourselves in your wisdom shall\njudge fittest), with power to ordain ministers with the consent of the\ncongregations, and after trial of the gifts, soundness and conversation of\nthe men. In so doing you shall both please God and bring upon yourselves\nthe blessing of many poor souls that are ready to perish (Job xxix. 13);\nand you shall likewise greatly strengthen the hearts and hands of your\nbrethren in Scotland, joined in covenant and in arms with you. I say\ntherefore again, \u201cArise therefore, and be doing, and the Lord be with\nthee,\u201d 1 Chron. xxii. 16; yea, the Lord is with you (Hag. ii. 4, 5)\naccording to the word that he hath covenanted with you, so his Spirit\nremaineth among you: Fear ye not, but \u201cbe strong in the Lord, and in the\npower of his might.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n\nA SERMON PREACHED BEFORE THE RIGHT HONOURABLE THE HOUSE OF LORDS, IN THE\nABBEY CHURCH AT WESTMINSTER.\n\n\n                                    A\n\n                                  SERMON\n\n                           PREACHED BEFORE THE\n\n                   RIGHT HONOURABLE THE HOUSE OF LORDS,\n\n                   IN THE ABBEY CHURCH AT WESTMINSTER,\n\n                             AUGUST 27, 1645;\n\n        BEING THE DAY APPOINTED FOR SOLEMN AND PUBLIC HUMILIATION.\n\n                           BY GEORGE GILLESPIE,\n\n                       MINISTER AT EDINBURGH, 1642.\n\n\u201cAliae sunt leges Caesarum, aliae Christi: aliud Papinianus, aliud Paulus\n            noster praecipit.\u201d\u2014_Hieron. in Epitaphio Fabioloe_\n\n                                EDINBURGH:\n\n                     ROBERT OGLE AND OLIVER AND BOYD\n\nM. OGLE & SON AND WILLIAM COLLINS, GLASGOW. J. DEWAR, PERTH. W. MIDDLETON,\n                                 DUNDEE.\n\n                G. & R. KING, ABERDEEN. W. M\u2019COMB, BELFAST\n\n        HAMILTON, ADAMS, & CO., AND JAMES NISBET AND CO., LONDON.\n\n                                  1645.\n\n            REPRINTED BY A. W. MURRAY, MILNE SQUARE, EDINBURGH\n\n                                  1844.\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE TO THE READER.\n\n\nI have in this sermon applied my thoughts toward these three things: 1.\nThe soul-ensnaring error of the greatest part of men, who choose to\nthemselves such a way to the kingdom of heaven as is broad, and smooth,\nand easy, and but little or nothing at all displeasing to flesh and blood,\nlike him that tumbled down upon the grass and said, _Utinam hoc esset\nlaborare_. 2. The grumbling and unwillingness which appeareth in very\nmany, when they should submit to that reformation of the church which is\naccording to the mind of Jesus Christ, like them that said to the seers,\n\u201cSee not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak\nunto us smooth things,\u201d Isa. xxx, 10; and again, \u201cLet us break their bands\nasunder, and cast away their cords from us,\u201d Psal. ii. 3. 3. The sad and\ndesolate condition of the kingdom of Scotland, then calling for our\nprayers and tears, and saying, \u201cCall me not Naomi (pleasant), call me Mara\n(bitter): for the Almighty hath dealt very bitterly with me,\u201d Ruth i. 20.\nWe were \u201cpressed out of measure, above strength,\u201d and \u201chad the sentence of\ndeath in ourselves, that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God\nwhich raiseth the dead; who delivered us from so great a death, and doth\ndeliver; in whom we trust that he will yet deliver us,\u201d 2 Cor. i. 8-10.\nOur brethren also \u201chelping together by prayer for us,\u201d that for the mercy\nbestowed on us by means of the prayers of many, thanks may be given by\nmany on our behalf. \u201cThe Lord liveth, and blessed be my Rock: and let the\nGod of my salvation be exalted,\u201d Psal. xviii, 46; He is our God; and we\nwill prepare for him an habitation; our father\u2019s God, and we will exalt\nhim, Exod. xv. 2; \u201cBlessed be the Lord God, the God of Israel, who only\ndoeth wondrous things. And blessed be his glorious name for ever: and let\nthe whole earth be filled with his glory,\u201d Psal. lxxii. 18, 19. Scotland\nshall yet be \u201ca crown of glory in the hand of the Lord, and a royal diadem\nin the hand of thy God,\u201d Isa. lxii. 3; and shall be called Hephzi-bah and\nBeulah. Only let us remember our evil ways, and be confounded, and never\nopen our mouth any more because of our shame, when the Lord our God is\npacified towards us. Now are both kingdoms put to a trial, whether their\nhumiliations be filial, and whether then can mourn for sin more than for\njudgment. And let us now hear what the Spirit speaketh to the churches,\nand not turn again to folly New provocations, or the old unrepented, will\ncreate new ones; therefore \u201csin no more, lest a worse thing come unto us.\u201d\n\n\n\n\nSERMON.\n\n\nMALACHI iii. 2.\n\n\n    \u201cBut who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when\n    he appeareth? for he is like a refiner\u2019s fire, and like fuller\u2019s\n    soap.\u201d\n\n\nIf you ask, \u201cOf whom speaketh the Prophet this, of himself or of some\nother man?\u201d (Acts viii. 34)\u2014it is answered, both by Christian and Jewish\ninterpreters: The Prophet speaketh this of Christ, the Messenger of the\ncovenant, then much longed and looked for by the people of God, as is\nmanifest by the preceding verse. And as it was fit that Malachi, the last\nof the prophets, should shut up the Old Testament with clear promises of\nthe coming of Christ (which you find in this and in the following\nchapter), so he takes the rather occasion from the corrupt and degenerate\nestate of the priests at that time (which he had mentioned in the former\nchapter) to hold forth unto the church the promised Messiah, who was to\ncome unto them to purify the sons of Levi.\n\nBut if you ask again, Of what coming or appearing of Christ doth the\nProphet speak this? whether of the first, or of the last, or of any\nother?\u2014the answer of expositors is not so unanimous. Some understand the\nlast coming of Christ, in the glory of his Father, and holy angels, to\njudge the quick and the dead. This cannot stand with ver. 34, \u201cHe shall\npurify the sons of Levi, and purge them,\u201d &c.; but at the last judgment it\nwill be too late for the sons of Levi to be purified and purged, or for\nJudah and Jerusalem to bring offerings unto the Lord, as in the days of\nold.\n\nOthers understand the first coming of Christ. And of these some understand\nhis incarnation, or appearing in the flesh; others take the meaning to be\nof his coming into the temple of Jerusalem, to drive out the buyers and\nsellers (Matt. xxi. 10-12), at which time all the city was moved at his\ncoming. This exposition hath better grounds than the other, because the\ncoming of Christ (here spoken of) did not precede, but soon follow after\nthe ministry of John Baptist, and therefore cannot be meant of our\nSaviour\u2019s incarnation, but rather of his appearing with power and\nauthority in the temple. But this also falleth short, and neither\nexpresseth the whole nor the principal part of what is meant in this text;\nfor how can it be said that the prophecy which followeth, ver. 3, 4 (which\nis all of a piece with ver. 2), was fulfilled during Christ\u2019s appearing\nand sitting in the temple of Jerusalem? or how can it be conceived that\nthe offerings of Judah and Jerusalem were pleasant to the Lord at that\ntime, when the Gentiles were not, and the Jews would not be brought in, to\noffer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness? So that whether we\nunderstand by Judah and Jerusalem the Jewish church or the Christian, this\nthing could not be said to be accomplished while Christ was yet upon\nearth. And in like manner, whether we understand by the sons of Levi the\npriests and Levites of the Jews, or the ministers of the gospel, it cannot\nbe said that Christ did, in the days of his flesh, purify the sons of Levi\nas gold and silver.\n\nI deny not but the Lord Jesus did then begin to set about this work. But\nthat which is more principally here intended, is Christ\u2019s coming and\nappearing in a spiritual, but yet most powerful and glorious manner, to\nerect his kingdom, and to gather and govern his churches, by the ministry\nof his apostles and other ministers, whom he sent forth after his\nascension.\n\nOf this coming he himself speaketh, Matt. xvi. 28, \u201cVerily I say unto you,\nThere be some standing here which shall not taste of death till they see\nthe Son of man coming in his kingdom;\u201d Mark addeth, \u201cwith power\u201d (Mark ix.\n1). Neither was that all. He did not so come at that time as to put forth\nall his power, or to do his whole work. He hath at divers times come and\nmanifested himself to his churches; and this present time is a time of the\nrevelation of the Son of God, and a day of his coming. We look also for a\nmore glorious coming of Jesus Christ before the end be: for \u201cthe Redeemer\nshall come to Sion\u201d (Isa. lix. 20), \u201cand shall turn away ungodliness from\nJacob\u201d (Rom. xi. 26); and he shall destroy Antichrist \u201cwith the brightness\nof his coming,\u201d 2 Thess. ii. 8; in which place the Apostle hath respect to\nIsa. xi. 4, where it is said of Christ, the rod of Jesse, \u201cwith the breath\nof his lips shall he slay the wicked.\u201d There, withal, you have the\nchurch\u2019s tranquillity, the filling of the earth with the knowledge of the\nLord, and the restoring of the dispersed Jews, as you may read in that\nchapter. Some have observed(1404) (which ought not to pass without\nobservation) that the Chaldee Paraphrase had there added the word\n_Romilus_: \u201cHe shall slay the wicked Romilus;\u201d whereupon they challenge\nArias Montanus for leaving out that word to wipe off the reproach from the\nPope. However, the Scriptures teach us, that the Lord Jesus will be\nrevealed mightily, and will make bare his holy arm, as well in the\nconfusion of Antichrist, as in the conversion of the Jews, before the last\njudgment and the end of all things.\n\nBy this time you may understand what is meant in the text by the day of\nChrist\u2019s coming, or \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5,\u2014_coming in_, as the Septuagint read, meaning\nhis coming, or entering into his temple, mentioned in the first verse; by\nwhich temple Jerome upon the place rightly understandeth the church, or\nspiritual temple.\n\nWhen this temple is built, Christ cometh into it, to fill the house with\nthe cloud of his glory, and to walk in the midst of the seven golden\ncandlesticks. The same thing is meant by his appearing: \u201cWhen he\nappeareth,\u201d saith our translation; \u201cWhen he shall be revealed,\u201d; others\nread, \u201cWhen he shall be seen,\u201d or \u201cin seeing of him.\u201d The original word I\nfind used to express more remarkable, divine, and glorious sights, as Gen.\nxvi. 13, \u201cHave I also here looked after him that seeth me?\u201d xxii. 14, \u201cIn\nthe mount of the Lord it shall be seen.\u201d From this word had the prophets\nthe name of seers, 1 Sam. ix. 9; and from the same word came the name of\nvisions, 2 Chron. xxvi. 5, \u201cZechariah, who had understanding in the\nvisions of God.\u201d\n\nNow, but what of all this? might some think. If Christ come, it is\nwell,\u2014he is the desire of all nations. O but when Christ thus cometh into\nhis kingdom among men with power, and is seen appearing with some beams of\nhis glory, \u201cWho may abide, and who shall stand?\u201d saith the text. How shall\nsinners stand before the Holy One? How shall dust and ashes have any\nfellowship with the God of glory? How shall our weak eyes behold the Sun\nof righteousness coming forth like a bridegroom out of his chamber? Did\nnot Ezekiel fall upon his face at \u201cthe appearance of the likeness of the\nglory of the Lord\u201d? Ezek. i. 28. Did not Isaiah cry out, \u201cWoe is me, for I\nam undone,\u201d \u201cfor mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts\u201d? Isa.\nvi. 5.\n\nBut why is it so hard a thing to abide the day of Christ\u2019s coming, or to\nstand before him when he appeareth in his temple? If you ask of him, as\nJoshua did, \u201cArt thou for us, or for our adversaries?\u201d (Josh. v. 13,) he\nwill answer you, \u201cNay; but as a captain of the host of the Lord am I now\ncome,\u201d (ver. 14.) If you ask of him, as the elders of Bethlehem asked of\nSamuel (while they were trembling at his coming), \u201cComest thou peaceably?\u201d\nHe will answer you as Samuel did, \u201cPeaceably.\u201d What is there here, then,\nto trouble us? Doth he not come to save, and not to destroy? Yes, to save\nthe spirit, but to destroy the flesh; he will have the heart-blood of sin,\nthat the soul may live for ever. This is set forth by a double metaphor:\none taken from the refiner\u2019s fire, which purifieth metals from the dross;\nthe other, from the fuller\u2019s soap; others read the fuller\u2019s grass, or the\nfuller\u2019s herb. Some have thought it so hard to determine, that they have\nkept into the translation the very Hebrew word _borith_. Jerome tells\nus,(1405) that the fuller\u2019s herb which grew in the marsh places of\nPalestina, had the same virtue for washing and making white which nitre\nhath. Yet I suppose the fuller\u2019s soap hath more of that virtue in it than\nthe herb could have. However it is certain that \u05d1\u05e8\u05e8,\u2014_borith_, cometh from\na word which signifieth to make clean, according to that, Mark ix. 3, \u201cHis\nraiment became shining, exceeding white as snow; so as no fuller on earth\ncan white them.\u201d\n\nBut to whom will Christ thus reveal himself? And who are they whom he will\nrefine from their dross, and wash from their filthiness? That we may know\nfrom the two following verses: He is not a refiner\u2019s fire to those that\nare \u201creprobate silver,\u201d (Jer. vi. 30,) and can never be refined; neither\nis he as fuller\u2019s soap to those whose spot \u201cis not the spot of his\nchildren\u201d (Deut. xxxii. 5): nay, Christ doth not thus lose his labour, but\nhe refineth and maketh clean the sons of Levi, also Judah and Jerusalem.\nThis, I doubt not to aver, doth principally belong to the Jews, for to\nthem pertain the promises (Rom. ix. 4), saith the Apostle, and the natural\nbranches shall be graffed into their own olive-tree (xi. 24); but it\nbelongeth also to us Gentiles, who are cut out of the wild olive-tree, and\nare graffed into the good olive-tree. God hath persuaded Japhet to dwell\nin the tents of Shem; and so we are now the Judah and Jerusalem, and our\nministers the sons of Levi. God\u2019s own church and people, even the best of\nthem, have need of this refiner\u2019s fire and of this fuller\u2019s soap.\n\nAnd so much for the scope, sense, and coherence of the text. The general\ndoctrine which offereth itself to us from the words, is this:\u2014\n\n\u201cThe way of Christ, and fellowship with him, is very difficult and\ndispleasing to our sinful nature, and is not so easy a matter as most men\nimagine.\u201d\n\nFirst of all, this doth clearly arise out of the text. As when the people\nsaid to Joshua, \u201cGod forbid that we should forsake the Lord, to serve\nother gods,\u201d (Josh. xxiv. 16,) Joshua answered, \u201cYe cannot serve the Lord,\nfor he is an holy God; he is a jealous God,\u201d (ver. 19.) Just so doth the\nProphet here answer the Jews, when they were very much desiring and\nlonging for the Messiah, promising to themselves comfort, and peace, and\nprosperity, and the restoring of all things according to their heart\u2019s\ndesire, if Christ were once come. Nay, saith the Prophet, not so: \u201cWho may\nabide the day of his coming, and who shall stand when he appeareth?\u201d\n\nSecondly, Other scriptures do abundantly confirm it: The doctrine of Jesus\nChrist was such as made many of his disciples say, \u201cThis is an hard\nsaying; who can hear it?\u201d John vi. 60. And from that time many of them\n\u201cwent back, and walked no more with him.\u201d A young man, a ruler, who came\nto him with great affection, was so cooled and discouraged at hearing of\nthe cross, and selling of all he had, that he went away sad and sorrowful,\nMark x. 21, 22. The apostles themselves having heard him say, that \u201cit is\neasier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man\nto enter into the kingdom of God,\u201d \u201cthey were exceedingly amazed [at this\ndoctrine], saying, Who then can be saved?\u201d Matt. xix. 24, 25. As for his\nlife and actions, they were such that not only did the Gadarenes beseech\nhim to depart out of their coasts (Matt. viii. 34), but his own friends\nand kinsfolks were about \u201cto lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside\nhimself,\u201d Mark iii. 21. His sufferings were such, that all his disciples\ndid forsake him, and went away every man to his own home again. And what\nshall be the condition of those that will follow him? If we will indeed be\nhis disciples, he hath forewarned us to sit down first, and count our\ncost, Luke xiv. 28. He hath told us, It will cost us no less than the\nbearing of the cross, the forsaking of all, yea, which is hardest of all,\nthe denying of ourselves, John v. 26; ii. 33. We must even cease to be\nourselves, and cannot be his, except we leave off to be our own, Matt.\nxvi. 24. And what shall the world think of us all this while? \u201cKnow ye not\n(saith James) that the friendship of the world is enmity with God?\nwhosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God,\u201d\nJames iv. 4; \u201cLet no man deceive himself (saith Paul). If any man among\nyou seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may\nbe wise,\u201d 1 Cor. iii. 18. What do ye think now? Are not all these hard\nsayings for flesh and blood to hear? I might add much more of this kind.\n\nThirdly, Thus it must be, to set the higher value upon Christ, and upon\nthe lot of God\u2019s children: \u201cWill I offer burnt-offerings to the Lord my\nGod (saith David) of that which doth cost me nothing\u201d? 2 Sam. xxiv. 24.\nAnd shall our lines fall to us in pleasant places? or shall we have a\ngoodly heritage which doth cost us nothing? How should the preciousness of\nthe saint\u2019s portion be known, if we lose nothing that is dear to us to\ncome by it? Phil. iii. 7, \u201cWhat things were gain to me, those I counted\nloss for Christ;\u201d Matt. xiii. 44-46, \u201cThe kingdom of heaven is like unto\ntreasure hid in a field; the which when a man hath found, he hideth, and\nfor joy thereof goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field.\nAgain, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a merchant-man seeking goodly\npearls; who, when he had found one pearl of great price, went and sold all\nthat he had, and bought it.\u201d Jacob\u2019s family must give away all the strange\ngods, and all their ear-rings also (Gen. xxxv. 4), before they get leave\nto build an altar unto the Lord at Bethel; Abraham must get him out of his\ncountry, and from his kindred, if he will come unto the land which the\nLord will show him; Moses must forsake the court of Egypt, if he will take\nhim to the heritage of Jacob his father; the disciples must leave ships,\nnets, fathers, and all, if they will follow Christ. And as they who come\nin sight of the south pole lose sight of the north pole, so, when we\nfollow Christ, we must resolve to forsake somewhat else, yea, even that\nwhich is dearest to us.\n\nFourthly, If it were not so, there should be no sure evidence of our\nclosing in covenant with Christ; for then, and never till then, doth the\nsoul give itself up to Christ to be his, and closeth with him in a\ncovenant, when it renounceth all other lovers, that it may be his only.\nShall a woman be married to a husband with the reservation of another\nlover, or upon condition that she shall ever stay in her father\u2019s house?\nSo the soul cannot be married to Christ, except it not only renounce its\nbosom sins, lusts, and idols, but be content also to part with the most\nlawful creature-comforts for his sake: \u201cForget also thine own people, and\nthy father\u2019s house,\u201d Psal. xlv. 10. The repudiating of creature-comforts,\nand a covenant with Christ, go hand in hand together, Isa. lv. 2, 3.\nNahash would not make a covenant with the men of Jabesh-Gilead, unless\nthey would pluck out their right eyes, intending (as Josephus gives the\nreason) to disable them from fighting or making war; for the buckler or\nshield did cover their left eye when they fought, so that they had been\nhard put to it, to fight without the right eye. This was a cruel mercy in\nhim; but it is a merciful severity in Christ, that he will make no\ncovenant with us, except the right eye of the old man of sin in us be put\nout.\n\nO then, let us learn from all this how miserably many a poor soul is\ndeluded, imagining, as the Jews did, that Christ shall even satisfy their\ncarnal and earthly desires, and that the way of salvation is broad and\neasy enough. If the way of Christ be such as you have now heard, then\nsurely they are far from it, who give loose reins to the flesh, as David\ndid to Adonijah (1 Kings i. 6; Eccl. ii. 10); who have not displeased\ntheir flesh at any time, nor said, \u201cWhy hast thou done so?\u201d who do not\nwithhold their heart from any joy, and whatsoever their eyes desire, they\nkeep it not from them; who are like the \u201cwild ass used to the wilderness,\nthat snuffeth up the wind at her pleasure\u201d (Jer. ii. 24), and like \u201cthe\nswift dromedary, traversing her ways\u201d (ver. 23); who cannot endure to be\nenclosed into so narrow a lane as ministers describe the way to heaven to\nbe. These are like fed oxen, which have room enough in the meadows, but\nthey are appointed for slaughter, when the labouring oxen, which are kept\nunder the yoke, shall be brought home to the stall and fed there. Was it\nnot so with the rich man and Lazarus? Luke xvi. 25. Nay, and many of the\nchildren of God fall into this same error, of making the way of Christ\nbroader and easier than ever Christ made it, and taking more liberty than\never he allowed; therefore mark ye well our Saviour\u2019s words: \u201cEnter ye in\nat the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that\nleadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: because\nstrait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and\nfew there be that find it,\u201d Matt. vii. 13, 14. There be but few that seek\nit, and yet fewer that find it, but fewest of all that enter in at it.\n\nBut how doth all this agree with Matt. xi. 30, \u201cFor my yoke is easy, and\nmy burden is light;\u201d and 1 John v. 3, \u201cHis commandments are not grievous.\u201d\n\nI answer, 1. That is spoken to poor souls that are labouring and heavy\nladen; a metaphor taken from beasts drawing a full cart,\u2014which both labour\nin drawing, and are weary in bearing. But my text speaketh to those that\nare like undaunted heifers, and like bullocks unaccustomed to the yoke.\nThe same Christ is a sweet and meek Christ to some, but a sour and severe\nChrist to others.\n\n2. Christ\u2019s yoke is easy in comparison of the yoke of the law, which\nneither we nor our fathers were able to bear.\n\n3. As wisdom is easy to him that understandeth, so is Christ\u2019s yoke easy,\nand his burden light, to those that are well acquainted with it, and have\ngood experience of it: \u201cWhen thou goest, thy steps shall not be\nstraitened; and when thou runnest, thou shall not stumble,\u201d Prov. iv. 12:\nthis is spoken of the way of wisdom. But he saith, \u201cWhen thou goest,\u201d not\n\u201cwhen thou beginnest,\u201d or \u201cwhen thou enterest.\u201d If thou art but once upon\nthy progress, going and running, thou shalt find the way still the easier,\nand still the sweeter.\n\n4. Mark Christ\u2019s own words: It is a yoke, though an easy one, and a\nburden, though a light one: a yoke to the flesh, but easy to the spirit; a\nburden to the old man, but light to the new man. He poureth in wine and\noil into our wounds: oil to cherish them, and wine to cleanse them. He can\nboth plant us as trees of righteousness, and at the same time lay the axe\nto the root of the old tree: he will have mercy upon the sinner, but no\nmercy upon the sin; he will save the soul, but yet so as by fire.\n\nAnd thus much, in general, of the difficulty and hardship of the way of\nChrist,\u2014the great point held forth in this text; which I have the rather\ninsisted upon, as a necessary foundation for those particulars which I am\nto speak of. Were this principle but rightly apprehended, it were easy to\npersuade you when we come to particulars.\n\nSome Papists have alleged this text for their purgatory. Here is indeed a\npurgatory, and a fire of purgatory, and such a purgatory that we must\nneeds go through it before we can come to heaven. But this purgatory is in\nthis world, not in the world to come. The flesh must go through it, and\nnot the soul separated: and it must purge us from mortal, not from venial\nsins; and by a spiritual, not a material fire.\n\nI will now come to the particulars: Christ is to us as a refiner\u2019s fire,\nand as fuller\u2019s soap, three ways: in respect of, 1. Reformation; 2.\nTribulation; 3. Mortification;\u2014which make not three different senses, but\nthree harmonious parts of one and the same sense.\n\nI begin with _reformation_; concerning which I draw this doctrine from the\ntext:\u2014\n\n\u201cThe right reformation of the church, which is according to the mind of\nJesus Christ, is not without much molestation and displeasure to men\u2019s\ncorrupt nature. It is a very purgatory upon earth: it is like the fire to\ndrossy silver, and like fuller\u2019s soap to slovenly persons, who would\nrather keep the spots in their garments than take pains to wash them\nout.\u201d(1406)\n\nLook but upon one piece of the accomplishment of this prophecy, and by it\njudge of the rest. When Christ cometh to Jerusalem, \u201cmeek, and sitting\nupon an ass\u201d (as the Prophet said), all the city is troubled at his\ncoming, Matt. xxi. 5,10; when he had but cast out the buyers and sellers\nout of the temple, the priests and scribes begin to plot his death, Luke\nxix. 45, 47; nay, where Christ and the gospel cometh, there is a shaking\nof heaven and earth, Hag. ii. 6. The less wonder if I call reformation\nlike a refiner\u2019s fire. The dross of a church is not purged away without\nthis violence of fire.\n\nThis is the manner of reformation held forth in Scripture, and that in\nreference, 1. To magistrates and statesmen; 2. To ministers; 3. To a\npeople reformed; 4. To a people not reformed.\n\nIn reference to magistrates and statesmen, reformation is a fire that\npurgeth away the dross: Isa. i. 25, \u201cAnd I will turn my hand upon thee,\nand purely purge away thy dross, and take away all thy tin.\u201d Here is the\nrefiner\u2019s fire; and the Chaldee Paraphrase addeth the fuller\u2019s _borith_.\nThen followeth, ver. 26, \u201cAnd I will restore thy judges as at the first,\nand thy counsellors as at the beginning: afterward thou shalt be called,\nThe city of righteousness, The faithful city.\u201d Interpreters note upon that\nplace, that no effectual reformation can be looked for till rulers and\nmagistrates be reformed; and that therefore the Lord promiseth to purge\naway the dross and tin of corrupt rulers and judges, and to give his\npeople such judges and rulers as they had of old, Moses, Joshua, the\njudges, David, Solomon, and the like.\n\nIn reference to ministers the doctrine is most clear. The next words after\nmy text tell you, that this refining fire is specially intended for\npurifying the sons of Levi. The same thing we have more largely, though\nmore obscurely, in 1 Cor. iii. 12-15. I do not say that the Apostle there\nmeaneth only of times of reformation, but this I say, that it holdeth\ntrue, and most manifestly, too, of times of reformation; and that this is\nnot to be excluded, but to be taken in as a principal part of the Holy\nGhost\u2019s intendment in that scripture.(1407) He is speaking of the\nministers of the gospel and their ministry, supposing always that they\nbuild upon Christ, and hold to that true foundation. Upon this foundation\nsome build gold, silver, precious stones; that is, such preaching of the\nword, such administration of the sacraments, such a church discipline, and\nsuch a life as is according to the word, and savoureth of Christ: others\nbuild wood, hay, stubble; whereby is meant whatsoever in their ministry is\nunprofitable, unedifying, vain, curious, unbeseeming the gospel; for the\nministers of Christ must be purified, not only from heresy, idolatry,\nprofaneness, and the like, but even from that which is frothy and\nunedifying, which savoureth not of God\u2019s Spirit, but of man\u2019s. Now, saith\nthe Apostle, \u201cEvery man\u2019s work shall be made manifest, for the day shall\ndeclare it, because it shall be revealed by fire, and the fire shall try\nevery man\u2019s work of what sort it is.\u201d The church shall not always be\ndeluded and abused with vanities that cannot profit. A time of light and\nreformation discovereth the unprofitableness of those things wherewith men\ndid formerly please and satisfy themselves. There is a fire which will\nprove every man\u2019s work, even an accurate trial and strict examination\nthereof, according to the rule of Christ; a narrow inquiry into, and exact\ndiscovery of every man\u2019s work (for so do our divines(1408) understand the\nfire there spoken of), whether this fiery trial be made by the searching\nand discovering light of the word in a time of reformation, or by\nafflictions, or in a man\u2019s own conscience at the hour of death. If by some\nor all of these trials, a minister\u2019s work be found to be what it ought to\nbe, he shall receive a special reward and praise; but if he have built\nwood, hay, and stubble, he shall be like a man whose house is set on fire\nabout his ears; that is, he shall suffer loss, and his work shall be\nburnt, yet himself shall escape, and get his life for a prey, \u201cso as by\nfire;\u201d that is, so that he can abide that trial and examination whereby\nGod distinguisheth between sincere ones and hypocrites; or, so that he be\nfound to have been otherwise a faithful minister, and to have built upon a\nright foundation.\n\nIn the third place, you shall find reformation to be a refining fire in\nreference to a people or church reformed: \u201cHe that is left in Zion, and he\nthat remaineth in Jerusalem, shall be called holy,\u201d saith the Prophet;\n\u201cwhen the Lord shall have washed away the filth of the daughters of Zion,\nand shall have purged the blood of Jerusalem from the midst thereof, by\nthe spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning,\u201d Isa. iv. 3, 4.\nWhere you may understand(1409) by the filth of the daughters of Zion,\ntheir former idolatries, and such like abominations against the first\ntable (which the prophets call often by the name of filth and pollution);\nand by the blood of Jerusalem, the sins against the second table. These\nthe Lord promiseth to purge away by the spirit of judgment; that is, by a\nspirit of reformation (according to that John xii. 31, \u201cNow is the\njudgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out\u201d).\nWhich spirit of reformation is also a spirit of burning; even as the Holy\nGhost is elsewhere called fire (Matt. iii. 11), and did come down upon the\napostles in the likeness of cloven tongues of fire (Acts ii. 3). The\nspirit of reformation may be the rather called the spirit of burning,\nbecause ordinarily reformation is not without tribulation (as we shall\nhear) and by the voice of the rod doth the Spirit speak to men\u2019s\nconsciences. When the Lord hath thus washed away the filthy spots, and\nburnt away the filthy dross of his church, then (Isa. iv. 5) she becomes a\nglory or a praise in the earth; and the promise is, that \u201cupon all the\nglory shall be a defence:\u201d but, you see, she is not brought to that\ncondition till she go through the refiner\u2019s fire. It is no easy matter to\ncast Satan out of a person,\u2014how much less to cast his kingdom out of a\nland? Another place for the same purpose we find, Zech. xiii. 9: When two\nparts of the land are cut off, the remnant which escape, the third part\nwhich is \u201cwritten to life in Jerusalem,\u201d even they must be brought through\nthe fire. \u201cI will bring the third part through the fire (saith the Lord),\nand will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is\ntried.\u201d This is the fiery trial of affliction, but the fruit of it is a\nblessed reformation, to make the church as most pure refined gold: \u201cThey\nshall call on my name, and I will hear them;\u201d that is, they shall no\nlonger worship idols, but me only, and they shall offer to the Lord an\noffering in righteousness, which shall be accepted. And what more? \u201cI will\nsay It is my people; and they shall say, The Lord is my God.\u201d Behold, a\nreforming people and a covenanting people. But he that hath his fire in\nZion, and his furnace in Jerusalem (Isa. xxxi. 9), doth first refine them\nand purify them. We are not reformed, in God\u2019s account, till the refining\nfire have purged away our dross; till we be refined as silver is refined,\nand tried as gold is tried.\n\nLastly, In reference to a people not reformed, hear what the Prophet\nsaith: Jer. vi. 28-30, \u201cThey are brass and iron; they are all corrupters.\nThe bellows are burnt, the lead is consumed of the fire, the founder\nmelteth in vain; for the wicked are not plucked away. Reprobate silver\nshall men call them, because the Lord hath rejected them.\u201d The Chaldee\nParaphrase expoundeth it of the prophets who laboured in vain, and spent\ntheir strength for nought, speaking to the people in the name of the Lord,\nto turn to the law and to the testimony; but they would not turn.\n\nI might draw many uses from this doctrine; but I shall content myself with\nthese few:\u2014\n\nFirst of all, it reproveth that contrary principle which carnal reason\nsuggesteth: Reformation must not grieve, but please; it must not break nor\nbruise, but heal and bind up; it must be an acceptable thing, not\ndispleasing; it must be \u201cas the voice of harpers harping with their\nharps,\u201d but not \u201cas the voice of many waters,\u201d or \u201cas the voice of great\nthunders.\u201d Thus would many heal the wound of the daughter of Zion\nslightly, and daub the wall with untempered mortar, and so far comply with\nthe sinful humours and inclinations of men, as, in effect, to harden them\nin evil, and to strengthen their hands in their wickedness; or at least,\nif men be moralised, then to trouble them no farther. Saith not the\nApostle, \u201cIf I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ\u201d?\nGal. i. 10; and again, \u201cThe carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is\nnot subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be,\u201d Rom. viii. 7. So\nthat either we must have a reformation displeasing to God, or displeasing\nto men. It is not the right reformation which is not displeasing to a\nTobiah, to a Sanballat, to a Demetrius, to the earthly-minded, to the\nself-seeking politicians, to the carnal and profane; it is but the old\nenmity between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent (Gen.\niii. 15): nay, what if reformation be displeasing to good men, in so far\nas they are unregenerate, carnal, earthly, proud, unmortified (for \u201cwho\ncan say, I have made my heart clean, I am pure from my sin,\u201d Prov. xx. 9)?\nWhat if a Joshua envy Eldad and Medad (Num. xi. 27-29)? What if an Aaron\nand a Miriam speak against Moses (xii. 1, 2)? What if a religious Asa be\nwroth with the seer (2 Chron. xvi. 10)? What if a David will not alter his\nformer judgment, though very erroneous, and will not (no, not after better\ninformation) have it thought that he was in an error (2 Sam. xix. 29)?\nWhat if a Jonah refuse to go to Nineveh when he is called (Jonah i. 3)?\nWhat if the disciples of Christ must be taught to be more humble (Mark ix.\n33-35)? What if Peter must be reproved by Paul for his dissimulation (Gal.\nii. 11)? What if Archippus must be admonished to attend better upon his\nministry (Col. iv. 17)? What if Christ must tell the angels of the\nchurches that he hath somewhat against them (Rev. ii., iii.)? If\nreformation displease both evil men, and, in some respect, good men, this\nmakes it no worse than \u201ca refiner\u2019s fire;\u201d and so it must be, if it be\naccording to the mind of Christ.\n\nMy second and chief application shall be unto you, my noble lords. If you\nbe willing to admit such a reformation as is according to the mind of\nChrist, as is like the \u201crefiner\u2019s fire\u201d and \u201cfuller\u2019s soap,\u201d then, in the\nname of the Lord Jesus Christ (who will say, ere long, to every one of\nyou, \u201cGive an account of thy stewardship; for thou mayest be no longer\nsteward,\u201d Luke xvi. 2), I recommend these three things unto you,\u2014I mean,\nthat you should make use of this \u201crefiner\u2019s fire\u201d in reference to three\nsorts of dross: 1. The dross of _malignancy_; 2. The dross of _heresy and\ncorruption in religion_; 3. The dross of _profaneness_.\n\nTouching the first of these, take the wise counsel of the wise man, Prov.\nxxv. 4, 5, \u201cTake away the dross from the silver, and there shall come\nforth a vessel for the finer. Take away the wicked from before the king,\nand his throne shall be established in righteousness.\u201d Remember, also, the\nfourth article of your solemn league and covenant, by which you have\nobliged yourselves, with your hands lifted up to the most high God, to\nendeavour the discovery, trial, and condign punishment of all such as have\nbeen, or shall be incendiaries, malignants, or evil instruments, by\nhindering the reformation of religion, dividing the king from his people,\nor one of the kingdoms from another, or making any faction or parties\namong the people contrary to this covenant. There was once a compliance\nbetween the nobles of Judah and the Samaritans, which I hope you do not\nread of without abominating the thing: You find it, Neh. vi. 17, 19, \u201cIn\nthose days the nobles of Judah sent many letters unto Tobiah, and the\nletters of Tobiah came unto them. Also (saith Nehemiah) they reported his\ngood deeds before me, and uttered my words to him.\u201d But you have also the\nerror of a godly man set before you as a rock to be avoided, 2 Chron. xix.\n2, \u201cShouldest thou help the ungodly, and love them that hate the Lord?\ntherefore is wrath upon thee from before the Lord.\u201d I am not to dwell upon\nthis point: \u201cI speak as to wise men, judge ye what I say.\u201d\n\nIn the second place, think of the extirpation of heresy and of unsound\ndangerous doctrine, such as now springeth up apace, and subverted the\nfaith of many. There is no heretic nor false teacher which hath not some\none fair pretext or another; but bring him once to be tried by this\nrefining fire, he is found to be \u201clike a potsherd covered with silver\ndross,\u201d Prov. xxvi. 23. \u201cWhat is the chaff to the wheat?\u201d saith the Lord\n(Jur. xxiii. 28), and what is the dross to the silver? If this be the way\nof Christ which my text speaketh of, then, sure, that which now passeth\nunder the name of \u201cliberty of conscience\u201d is not the way of Christ. Much\nhath been written of this question; for my part I shall, for the present,\nonly offer this one argument: If liberty of conscience ought to be granted\nin matters of religion, it ought also to be granted in matters civil or\nmilitary; but liberty of conscience ought not to be granted in matters\ncivil or military, as is acknowledged, therefore neither ought it to be\ngranted in matters of religion. Put the case: Now there be some\nwell-meaning men, otherwise void of offence, who, from the erroneous\npersuasion of their consciences, think it utterly sinful, and contrary to\nthe word of God, to take arms in the Parliament\u2019s service, or to\ncontribute to this present war, or to obey any ordinance of the lords and\ncommons, which tendeth to the resisting of the king\u2019s forces. Now compare\nthis case with the case of a Socinian, Arminian, Antinomian, or the like:\nthey both plead for liberty of conscience; they both say our conscience\nought not to be compelled, and if we do against our conscience, we sin. I\nbeseech you, how can you give liberty of conscience to the heretic, and\nyet refuse liberty of conscience to him that is the conscientious recusant\nin point of the war? I am sure there can be no answer given to this\nargument which will not be resolved into this principle: Men\u2019s consciences\nmay be compelled for the good of the state, but not for the glory of God;\nwe must not suffer the state to sink, but if religion sink we cannot help\nit. This is the plain English of it.\n\nWhen I speak against liberty of conscience, it is far from my meaning to\nadvise any rigorous or violent course against such as, being sound in the\nfaith, and holy in life, and not of a turbulent or factious carriage, do\ndiffer in smaller matters from the common rule. \u201cLet that day be darkness;\nlet not God regard it from above, neither let the light shine upon it\u201d\n(Job. iii. 4), in which it shall be said that the children of God in\nBritain are enemies and persecutors of each other. He is no good Christian\nwho will not say Amen to the prayer of Jesus Christ (John xvii. 21), that\nall who are his may be one in him. If this be heartily wished, let it be\neffectually endeavoured; and let those who will choose a dividing way\nrather than a uniting way bear the blame.\n\nThe third part of my application shall be to stir you up, right\nhonourable, to a willing condescending to the settling of\nchurch-government, in such a manner, as that neither ignorant nor\nscandalous persons may be admitted to the holy table of the Lord. Let\nthere be, in the house of God, fuller\u2019s soap, to take off those who are\n\u201cspots in your feasts,\u201d and a refining fire to take away the dross from\nthe silver. Psal. cxix. 119, \u201cThou puttest away all the wicked of the\nearth like dross,\u201d saith David. Take away, therefore, the wicked from\nbefore the King of glory, for they shall not stand before him who hateth\n\u201call workers of iniquity,\u201d Psal. v. 5. You see God puts all profane ones\nin one category, and so should you. There is a like reason against seven,\nand against seventy scandals; or, if you please to make a catalogue of\nseven, you may, provided it be such as God himself makes in the fifth\nverse of this chapter, where seven sorts are reckoned forth, as some\ninterpreters compute; but the last of the seven is general and\ncomprehensive, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c6\u03bf\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5, as the Septuagint have it,\u2014_and\nthose that fear not me_,\u2014those, saith one, who are called in the New\nTestament \u1f00\u03c3\u03b5\u03b2\u03b5\u03af\u03c2,\u2014_ungodly_. Jerome noteth upon the place,(1410) that\nthough men shall not be guilty of the aforementioned particulars, yet God\nmakes this crime enough, that they are ungodly. Nay, I dare undertake to\ndraw out of Erastus himself, the great adversary, a catalogue of seven\nsorts of persons to be kept off from the Lord\u2019s table, and such a\ncatalogue as godly ministers can be content with. But of this elsewhere.\n\nMost horribly hath the Lord\u2019s table been profaned formerly in this\nkingdom, by the admission of scandalous persons. God will wink at it no\nlonger,\u2014now is the opportunity of reformation. The Parliament of England,\nif any state in the world, oweth much to Jesus Christ; and he will take it\nvery ill at your hands, if ye do him not right in this. I say do him\nright; for, alas! what is it to ministers? It were more for their ease,\nand for pleasing of the people, to admit all; but a necessity is laid upon\nus, that we dare not do it; and woe unto us if we do it. And for your\npart, should you not establish such a rule as may put a difference between\nthe precious and the vile, the clean and the unclean, you shall in so far\nmake the churches of Christ in a worse condition, and more disabled to\nkeep themselves pure, than either they were of old under pagan emperors,\nor now are under popish princes, you shall also strengthen, instead of\nsilencing, the objections both of Separatists(1411) and Socinians,(1412)\nwho have, with more than a colour of advantage, opened their mouths wide\nagainst some reformed churches, for their not exercising of discipline\nagainst scandalous and profane persons, and particularly for not\nsuspending them from the sacrament of the Lord\u2019s supper. Nay, which is yet\nmore, if you should refuse that which I speak of, you shall come short of\nthat which heathens themselves, in their way, did make conscience of, for\nthey did interdict and keep off from their holy things all such as they\nesteemed profane and scandalous, whom therefore they called \u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2, that\nis, accused or delated persons. In this manner was Alchibades\nexcommunicate at Athens, and Virginia at Rome, the former recorded by\nPlutarch, the latter by Livius. I trust God shall never so far desert this\nParliament as that, in this particular, pagan and popish princes,\nSeparatists, Socinians and heathens shall rise up in judgment against you.\nI am persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation;\nand, namely, that you will not suffer the name and truth of God to be,\nthrough you, blasphemed and reproached.\n\nDo ye not remember the sad sentence against Eli and his house, \u201cBecause\nhis sons made themselves vile, and he restrained them not,\u201d 1 Sam. iii.\n13. The Apostle tells us, that the judgment of God abideth not only on\nthose that commit sin, but those also who consent with them, Rom. i. 32.\nAquinas upon that place saith, We may consent to the sins of others two\nways: 1. Directly, by counselling, approving, &c.; 2. Indirectly, by not\nhindering when we can. And so did Eli consent to the vileness of his sons,\nbecause, though he reproved them, he did not restrain them.\n\nThere is a law, Exod. xxi. 29, \u201cBut if the ox were wont to push with his\nhorn in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner, and he hath\nnot kept him in, but that he hath killed a man or woman; the ox shall be\nstoned, and his owner also shall be put to death.\u201d It could be no excuse\nto say, I intended no such thing, and it is a grief of heart to me that\nsuch mischief is done. That which I aim at is this: The Directory which\nyou have lately established saith, \u201cThe ignorant and the scandalous are\nnot fit to receive this sacrament of the Lord\u2019s supper;\u201d and therefore\nministers are appointed to warn all such in the name of Christ, that they\npresume not to come to that holy table. It is now desired that this, which\nyou have already acknowledged to be according to the word of God and\nnature of that holy ordinance, may be made effectual, and, for that end,\nthat the power of discipline be added to the power of doctrine, otherwise\nyou are guilty, in God\u2019s sight, of not restraining those that make\nthemselves vile.\n\nIn the third and last place, I shall apply my doctrine to the sons of\nLevi, and that in a twofold consideration: 1. Actively; 2. Passively.\n\nActively, because, if we be like our Master, even followers of Jesus\nChrist, or partakers of his unction, then our ministry will have not only\nlight, but fire in it,\u2014we must be burning as well as shining lights (John\nv. 35), not only shining with the light of knowledge, and of the doctrine\nwhich is according to godliness, but burning also with zeal for reforming\nabuses, and purging of the church from the dross thereof. Which made\nAugustine(1413) to apply propologically to ministers, that which is said\nof the angels of heaven, Psal. civ. 4, \u201cWho maketh his angels spirits; his\nministers a flaming fire.\u201d Satan hath many incendiaries against the\nkingdom of Christ. O that we were Christ\u2019s incendiaries against the\nkingdom of Satan! If we will indeed appear zealous for the Lord, let it\nnot seem strange if the adversaries of reformation say of us, as they said\nof the apostles themselves, \u201cThese that have turned the world upside down\nare come hither also,\u201d Acts xvii. 6. Yet it shall be no grief of heart to\nus afterward, but peace and joy unspeakable, that we have endeavoured to\ndo our duty faithfully.\n\nPassively also the application must be made, because the sons of Levi\nmust, in the first place, go through this refining fire themselves, and\nthey, most of all other men, have need to be, and must be, refined from\ntheir dross. I find in Scripture that these three things had a beginning\namong the priests and prophets: 1. Sin, error, and scandal, beginneth at\nthem, Jer. l. 6, \u201cTheir shepherds have caused them to go astray;\u201d xxiii.\n15, \u201cFrom the prophets of Jerusalem is profaneness gone forth into all the\nland.\u201d 2. Judgment begins at them, Ezek. ix. 6, \u201cSlay utterly old and\nyoung,\u2014and begin at my sanctuary.\u201d 3. The refining work of reformation\nbeginneth, or ought to begin, at the purging and refining of the sons of\nLevi; so you have it in the next words after my text, and where Hezekiah\nbeginneth his reformation at the sanctifying of the priests and Levites, 2\nChron. xxix. 4, 5, &c. But as it was then in Judah, it is now in England,\nsome of the sons of Levi are more upright to sanctify themselves than\nothers. The fire that I spake of before will prove every man and his work.\n\nI am sorry I have occasion to add a third application. But come on, and I\nwill show you greater things than these. What will you say, if any be\nfound among the sons of Levi, that will neither be active nor passive in\nthe establishing of the church-refining and sin-censuring government of\nJesus Christ, but will needs appear upon the stage against it. This was\ndone in a late sermon now come abroad, which hath given no small scandal\nand offence. I am confident every other godly minister will say, let my\ntongue cleave to the roof of my mouth before I do the like.\n\nI have done with that which the text holds forth concerning reformation.\nThe second way how Christ is like a refiner\u2019s fire, and like fuller\u2019s\nsoap, is in respect of tribulation, which either followeth or accompanieth\nhis coming into his temple. Affliction is indeed a refining fire: Psal.\nlxvi. 10, \u201cFor thou, O God, hast proved us: thou hast tried us, as silver\nis tried;\u201d ver. 12, \u201cWe went through fire and through water;\u201d 1 Pet. i. 6,\n7, \u201cYe are in heaviness through manifold temptations; that the trial of\nyour faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though\nit be tried with fire, might be found unto praise,\u201d &c. Affliction is also\nthe fuller\u2019s soap to purify and make white: Dan. xi. 35; xii. 10, \u201cMany\nshall be purified, and made white, and tried;\u201d where the same word is used\nfrom which I said before the fuller\u2019s soap hath its name.\n\nThe doctrine shall be this: \u201cTribulation doth either accompany or follow\nafter the work of reformation or purging of the house of God.\u201d So it was\nwhen Christ himself came into his temple: Luke xii. 49, 51, \u201cI am come to\nsend fire on the earth. Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth?\nI tell you, Nay; but rather division;\u201d\u2014so it was when the Apostles were\nsent forth into the world: Peter applieth to that time the words of Joel,\n\u201cAnd I will show wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath;\nblood, and fire, and vapour of smoke: the sun shall be turned into\ndarkness, and the moon into blood,\u201d Acts ii. 19, 20. The meaning is, such\ntribulation shall follow the gospel, which shall be like the darkening of\nthe great lights of the world, and, as it were, a putting of heaven and\nearth out of their course, so great a change and calamity shall come. The\nexperience both of the ancient and now reformed churches doth also\nabundantly confirm this doctrine. Neither must we think that all the\ncalamities of the church are now overpast. Who can be assured that that\nhour of greatest darkness, the killing of the witnesses, is past, and all\nthat sad prophecy, Rev. xi., fulfilled? And if some be not much\nmistaken,(1414) it is told, Dan. xii. 1, that there shall be greater\ntribulation about the time of the Jews\u2019 conversion than any we have yet\nseen: \u201cAt that time,\u201d saith the angel to Daniel, \u201cthere shall be a time of\ntrouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same\ntime: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall\nbe found written in the book.\u201d\n\nI make haste to the uses; and, first, let me give unto God the glory of\nhis truth. If we have been deceived, surely he hath not deceived us; for\nhe hath given us plain warning in his word, and hath not kept up from us\nthe worst things which ever have or ever shall come upon his church. And\nnow when the sword of the Lord hath gotten a charge against these three\ncovenanting and reforming kingdoms, is this any other than the word of the\nLord, that when Christ cometh into his temple, \u201cWho may abide the day of\nhis coming, and who shall stand when he appeareth? for he is like a\nrefiner\u2019s fire, and like fuller\u2019s soap.\u201d\n\nAnd for the invasion of Scotland by such an enemy after a reformation, is\nit any new thing? May we not say, that which is hath been? Did not\nSennacherib invade Judah after Hezekiah\u2019s reformation? 2 Chron. xxxii. 1.\nAnd though, after the reformation of Asa, and after the reformation of\nJehoshaphat also (2 Chron. xiv. 9; xx. 1), the land had a short rest and a\nbreathing time, yet not long after a foreign invasion followed both upon\nthe one reformation and the other. Nay, look what is the worst thing which\nhath befallen to Scotland as yet;\u2014as much, yea, worse, hath formerly\nbefallen to the church and people of God toward whom the Lord had thoughts\nof peace, and not of evil,\u2014to give them an expected end. I say it not for\ndiminishing anything either from the sin or shame of Scotland; the Lord\nforbid:\u2014we will bear the indignation of the Lord, because we have sinned\nagainst him; we will lay our hand upon our mouth, and accept the\npunishment of our iniquity; we will bear our shame for ever, because our\nFather hath spit in our face, our rock hath sold us, and our strength hath\ndeparted from us;\u2014but I say it by way of answering him that reproacheth in\nthe gates, and by way of pleading for the truth of God. Some have objected\nto our reproach, that when the Lord required the Israelites to appear\nbefore him in Jerusalem thrice a year, he promised that no man should\ninvade their habitations in their absence, Exod. xxxiv. 23, 24; \u201cwhich\ngracious providence of his, no doubt (says one(1415)), continues still\nprotecting all such as are employed by his command;\u201d yet it hath not been\nso with Scotland during the time of their armies being in England. I\nanswer, besides that which hath been said already, even in this the word\nand work of God do well agree; and that Scripture ought not to be so\napplied to us, except the Canaanites, and the Amorites, and the Jebusites\nof our time had been all cast out of our borders (we find this day too\nmany of them lurking there, and waiting their opportunity); for the\nSeptuagint, and many of the interpreters(1416) read that text thus: \u201cFor\nwhen I shall cast out the nations before thee, and enlarge thy borders, no\nman shall desire thy land when thou shalt go up to appear before the Lord\nthy God thrice in the year:\u201d and this is the true sense, read it as you\nwill; for the promise is limited to the time of casting out the nations,\nand enlarging their borders (which came not to pass till the days of\nSolomon). It is certain that, from the time of making that promise, the\npeople had not ever liberty and protection for keeping the three solemn\nfeasts in the place of the sanctuary; as might be proved from divers\nforeign invasions and spoilings of that land for some years together;\nwhereof we read in the book of the Judges. But I go on.\n\nIn the second place, let God have the glory of his just and righteous\ndealings. Let us say with Job, \u201cI will leave my complaint upon myself,\u201d\n[and say unto God,] \u201cShow me wherefore thou contendest with me,\u201d Job x. 1,\n2. But, by all means, take heed you conceive not an ill opinion of the\ncovenant and cause of God, or the reformation of religion, because of the\ntribulation which followeth thereupon. Say not it was a good old world\nwhen we burnt incense to the queen of heaven, \u201cfor then we were well and\nsaw no evil.\u201d \u201cBut (said the people to Jeremiah) since we left off to burn\nincense to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink-offerings unto her,\nwe have wanted all things, and have been consumed by the sword and by the\nfamine,\u201d Jer. xliv. 18. To such I answer, in the words of Solomon, \u201cSay\nnot thou, What is the cause that the former days were better than these?\nfor thou dost not inquire wisely concerning this,\u201d Eccl. vii. 10. Was the\npeople\u2019s coming out of Egypt the cause why their carcasses did fall in the\nwilderness? Or was it their murmuring and rebelling against the Lord which\nbrought that wrath upon them? If thou wilt inquire wisely concerning this\nthing, read Zephaniah, chap. i. In the days of Isaiah, even in the days of\nJudah\u2019s best reformation, the Lord sent this message by the Prophet: \u201cI\nwill utterly consume all things from off the land,\u201d Zeph. i. 2; \u201cAnd I\nwill bring distress upon men, that they shall walk like blind men, because\nthey have sinned against the Lord: and their blood shall be poured out as\ndust, and their flesh as the dung,\u201d ver. 17. What was the reason of it? It\nis plainly told them (and let us take it all home to ourselves), because,\nnotwithstanding of that public reformation, there was a remnant of Baal in\nthe land, and the Chemarims, and those who halt between two opinions; who\nswear by the Lord (or to the Lord, which is expounded of the taking of the\ncovenant in Josiah\u2019s time), but they swear by Malcham also, ver. 4, 5.\nThere are others who do not seek the Lord, nor inquire after him, and many\nthat turn back from the Lord in a course of backsliding (ver. 6); others\nclothed with strange apparel (ver. 8); others, exercising violence and\ndeceit (ver. 9); a number of atheists also, living among God\u2019s people\n(ver. 12). For these and the like causes doth the land mourn. It is not\nthe covenant, but the broken covenant; it is not the reformation, but the\nwant of a real and personal reformation, that hath drawn on the judgment.\nBlessed are they who shall keep their garments clean, and shall be able to\nsay, \u201cAll this is come upon us; yet have we not forgotten thee, neither\nhave we dealt falsely in thy covenant,\u201d Psal. xliv. 17.\n\nThirdly, Give God the glory of his wisdom. Many are now crying, \u201cHow long,\nLord? wilt thou hide thyself for ever? shall thy wrath burn like fire?\u201d\nPsal. lxxxix. 46. Your answer from God is, that the rod shall be indeed\nremoved, and even cast into the fire in your stead, but when? It shall be\n\u201cwhen the Lord hath performed his whole work upon mount Zion, and on\nJerusalem,\u201d Isa. x. 12. If the judgment have not yet done all the work it\nwas sent for, then \u201cthey shall go out from one fire, and another fire\nshall devour them\u201d (Ezek. xv. 7), saith the Lord. God is a wise refiner,\nand will not take the silver out of the fire till the dross be purged away\nfrom it. He is a wise father who will not cast the rod of correction till\nit have driven away all that folly which is bound up in the hearts of his\nchildren: \u201cBehold, therefore (saith the Lord) I will gather you into the\nmidst of Jerusalem. As they gather silver, and brass, and iron, and lead,\nand tin, into the midst of the furnace, to blow the fire upon it, to melt\nit; so will I gather you in mine anger and in my fury, and I will leave\nyou there, and melt you,\u201d Ezek. xxii. 19, 20. He speaks it to those who\nhad escaped the captivity of Jehoiakim, and also the captivity of\nJehoiachin, and thought they should be safe and secure in Jerusalem when\ntheir brethren were in Babylon: I will gather you, saith the Lord, even in\nthe midst of Jerusalem, and when you think you are out of one furnace, you\nshall fall into another; and, if you will not be refined from your dross,\nyou shall never come out of that furnace, but I will melt you there, and\nleave you there: which did so come to pass; for the residue that escaped\nto Egypt, and thought to shelter themselves there, as likewise those that\nremained in Jerusalem, and held out that siege with Zedekiah,\u2014even all\nthese did fall under the sword, and the famine, and the pestilence, till\nthey were consumed, Jer. xxiv. 8, 10. Let those that are longest spared\ntake heed they be not sorest smitten. Say not with Agag, \u201cThe bitterness\nof death is past.\u201d The child chastised in the afternoon weeps as sore as\nthe child chastised in the forenoon. Remember the Lord will not take away\nthe judgment till he have performed his work, yea, his whole work, and\nthat upon Mount Zion and Jerusalem itself. It is no light matter; the rod\nmust be very heavy before our uncircumcised hearts can be humbled, and the\nfurnace very hot before our dross depart from us. We have need of all the\nsore strokes which we mourn under, and if one less could do the turn, it\nwould be spared, for the Lord doth not afflict willingly: we ourselves\nrive every stroke out of his hand.\n\nBut, in the fourth and last place, let us give God the glory of his mercy\nalso; he means to do us good in our latter end. It is the hand of a\nfather, not of an enemy: it is a refining, not a consuming fire. The poor\nmourners in Zion are ready to say, \u201cOur bones are dried, and our hope is\nlost: we are cut off for our parts\u201d (Ezek. xxxvii. 11); we are like to lie\nin this fire and furnace for ever, because our dross is not departed from\nus; we are still an unhumbled, an unbroken, an unmortified generation;\nyea, many like Ahaz, in the time of affliction, trespassing yet more\nagainst the Lord, many thinking of going back again to Egypt. To such I\nhave these two things to say for their comfort: First, There is a remnant\nwhich shall not only be delivered, but purified, and shall come forth as\ngold out of the fire. The third part shall be refined, and the Lord shall\nsay, \u201cIt is my people,\u201d Zech xiii. 9. And a most sweet promise there is\nafter the saddest denunciation of judgment: Ezek. xiv. 22, 23, \u201cYet,\nbehold, therein shall be left a remnant that shall be brought forth, both\nsons and daughters; behold, they shall come forth unto you, and ye shall\nsee their ways and their doings: and ye shall be comforted concerning the\nevil that I have brought upon Jerusalem, even concerning all the evil that\nI have brought upon it. And they shall comfort you, when ye see their ways\nand their doings: and ye shall know that I have not done without cause all\nthat I have done in it, saith the Lord God;\u201d Dan. xii. 10, \u201cMany shall be\npurified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and\nnone of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.\u201d After\nthe promise of delivering those that were carried away to Babylon, there\nis another promise added of that which was much better: Jer. xxiv. 7, \u201cI\nwill give them an heart to know me, that I am the Lord; and they shall be\nmy people, and I will be their God; for they shall return unto me with\ntheir whole heart;\u201d Psal. cxxx. 8, \u201cHe shall redeem Israel from all his\niniquities;\u201d Zeph. iii. 12, 13, \u201cI will also leave in the midst of thee an\nafflicted and poor people, and they shall trust in the name of the Lord.\nThe remnant of Israel shall not do iniquity, nor speak lies; neither shall\na deceitful tongue be found in their mouth.\u201d Let your souls now apply\nthese and the like promises, and cry, Lord, remember thy promise, and let\nnot a jot of thy good word fall to the ground. Secondly, As the promises\nof spiritual and eternal blessings, so the promises of peace and temporal\ndeliverances are not legal, but even evangelical. If we be not refined and\npurged as we ought to be, that is a matter of humiliation to us, but it is\nalso a matter of magnifying the riches of free mercy: Isa. xlviii. 9-11,\n\u201cFor my name\u2019s sake will I defer mine anger, and for my praise will I\nrefrain for thee, that I cut thee not off. Behold, I have refined thee,\nbut not with silver; I have chosen thee in the furnace of affliction. For\nmine own name\u2019s sake, even for mine own sake, will I do it.\u201d The Lord is\nthere arguing with his people, to humble them, to convince them, and to\ncut off all matter of glorying from them; and among other things, lest\nthey should glory in this, that whatever they were before, they became\nafterward as silver refined seven times in the furnace:(1417) Nay, saith\nthe Lord, I have refined you in some sort, but not as silver, not so as\nthat you are clean from your dross; but I have chosen you, and set my love\nupon you, even while you are in the furnace not yet refined; and I will\ndeliver you, even for my own name\u2019s sake, that you may owe your\ndeliverance for ever to free mercy, and not to your own repentance and\namendment. A land is accepted, and a people\u2019s peace made with God, not by\ntheir repentance and humiliation, but by Christ believed on: Mic. v. 5,\n\u201cThis man shall be the peace, when the Assyrian shall come into our land.\u201d\nThere were sin-offerings and burnt-offerings appointed in the law for a\nnational atonement (Lev. iv., xiii., xxi.; Num. xv. 25, 26) which did\ntypify pardoning of national sins through the merit of Jesus Christ. We\nmust improve the office of the Mediator, and the promise of free grace, in\nthe behalf of God\u2019s people, as well as of our own souls, which, if it be\nindeed done, will not hinder, but further a great mourning and deep\nhumiliation in the land. And so much of tribulation.\n\nThe third thing held forth in this text (of which I must be very short) is\nmortification. This also is a refining fire: Matt. iii. 11, \u201cHe shall\nbaptise you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire;\u201d Mark ix. 49, \u201cFor every\none shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with\nsalt.\u201d He hath been before speaking of mortification, of the plucking out\nof the right eye, the cutting off the right hand, or the right foot, and\nnow he presseth the same thing by a double allusion to the law,\u2014there was\na necessity both of fire and salt; the sacrifice was seasoned with salt\n(Lev. ii. 13), and the fire upon the altar was not to be put out, but\nevery morning the wood was burnt upon it, and the burnt-offering laid upon\nit (Lev. vi. 12, 13). So if we will present ourselves as a holy and\nacceptable sacrifice to God, we must be seasoned with the salt, and our\ncorruptions burnt up with the fire of mortification.\n\nThe doctrine shall be this: \u201cIt is not enough to join in public\nreformation, yea, to suffer tribulation for the name of Christ, except we\nalso endeavour mortification.\u201d This mortification is a third step distinct\nfrom the other two, and without this the other two can make us but \u201calmost\nChristians,\u201d or, \u201cnot far from the kingdom of God.\u201d In the parable of the\nsower and the seed, as we find it both in Matthew (chap. xiii.), Mark\n(chap, iv.), and Luke (chap, viii.), this method may be observed, That of\nthe four sorts of ground, the second is better than the first, the third\nbetter than the second, but the fourth only is the good ground, which is\nfruitful, and getteth a blessing. Some men\u2019s hearts are like the highway,\nand the hardbeaten road, where every foul spirit, and every lust hath\nwalked and conversed, their consciences, through the custom of sin, are,\nas it were, \u201cseared with a hot iron;\u201d in these the word takes no place,\nbut all that they bear doth presently slip from them. Others receive the\nword with a present good affection and delight, but have no depth of\nearth; that is, neither having had a work of the law upon their\nconsciences for deep humiliation, nor being rooted and grounded in love to\nthe gospel, nor, peradventure, so much as grounded in the knowledge of the\ntruth, nor having counted their cost, and solidly resolved for suffering;\nthereupon it comes to pass, when suffering times come, these wither away,\nand come to nothing. There is a third sort, who go a step farther; they\nhave some root, and some more solid ground than the former, so that they\ncan suffer many things, and not fall away because of persecution, yet they\nperish through want of mortification. One may suffer persecution for\nChrist, not being sore tried in that which is his idol lust, yet enduring\ngreat losses and crosses in other things: of such it is said, that \u201cthe\ncares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts of\nother things entering in, choke the word, and it becometh unfruitful,\u201d\nMark iv. 19. Mark that, \u201cthe lusts of other things;\u201d that is, whether it\nbe the lust of the eyes, or the lust of the flesh, or the pride of life;\nand he speaks of the \u201centering in;\u201d meaning of some strong tentation\ncoming upon a man to catch him in that which is the great idol of his\nheart, and his beloved lust, whatever it be; such a tentation he never\nfound before, and therefore thought the lust had been mortified, which was\nbut lurking. Did not Judas suffer many things with Christ during the time\nof his public ministry? Did not Ananias and Sapphira suffer, for a season,\nwith the apostles and church at Jerusalem? What was it then that lost\nthem? They neither made defection from the profession of the truth, nor\ndid they fall away because of persecution; but having shined in the light\na sound profession, having also taken up the cross, and borne the reproach\nof Christ, they made shipwreck at last upon an unmortified lust.\n\nI shall enlarge the doctrine no further, but touch upon some few uses, and\nso an end.\n\nFirst, Let all and every one of us be convinced of the necessity of our\nfurther endeavouring after mortification. The best silver which cometh out\nof the earth hath dross in it, and therefore needeth the refiner\u2019s fire;\nand the whitest garment that is worn will touch some unclean thing or\nother, and therefore will need the fuller\u2019s soap. The best of God\u2019s\nchildren have the dross of their inherent corruptions to purge away; which\nmade Paul say, \u201cI keep under my body, and bring it unto subjection; lest\nthat by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a\ncastaway,\u201d 1 Cor. ix. 27. It is a speech borrowed from reprobate silver\nwhich is not refined from dross, and so is the word used by the\nSeptuagint, Isa. i. 22, \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b3\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f30\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03b4\u03cc\u03ba\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u201cThy silver is become\ndross.\u201d The Apostle therefore sets himself to the study of mortification,\nlest, saith he, when I have been refining and purifying others, I myself\nbe found to be drossy silver. And as there is _inherent_ dross, so there\nis _adherent_ uncleanness in the best; and who can say that he hath kept\nhis garments so clean that he is \u201cunspotted of the world\u201d (Isa. i. 27), or\nthat he hath so separated himself from the pollutions of the world as that\nhe hath touched no unclean thing: so that there is an universal necessity\nof making use both of the refiner\u2019s fire, and of the fuller\u2019s soap.\n\nSecondly, Let us once become willing and contented, yea, desirous to be\nthoroughly mortified. A man\u2019s lusts and corruptions are indeed so strongly\ninterested in himself, and his corruptions are his members, therefore,\nwhen we leave off sin, we are said to live no more \u201cto ourselves,\u201d 2 Cor.\nv. 15; and mortification is the greatest violence that can be done to\nnature, therefore it is called a cutting off of the chief members of the\nbody (Mark ix. 43, 45, 47), a salting with salt, and a burning with fire\n(ver. 49), a circumcision (Col. ii. 11), a crucifying (Rom. vi. 6): so\nthat nothing can be more difficult or displeasing, yea, a greater torment\nto flesh and blood. Yet now art thou willing, notwithstanding of all this,\nto take Christ on his own terms? to take him not only for righteousness\nand life, but to take him as a refiner\u2019s fire, and as fuller\u2019s soap? O\nthat there were such a heart in thee! When Christ bids thee pluck out thy\nright eye, and cut off thy right hand, say not in thy heart, How shall I\ndo without my right eye, and my right hand? Nay, thou shalt do well\nenough, thou shalt even enter into life without them, thou shalt be a\ngainer, and no loser. Say not thou, How shall I go through this refining\nfire? Fear not, thou shall lose nothing but thy dross. Thus get thy heart\nwrought to a willingness, and a condescending, in the point of\nmortification.\n\nLastly, If you say, But after all this, how shall I attain unto it? Put\nthyself in the hands of Jesus Christ, trust him with the work; if you mark\nthe text here, and the verse that followeth, Christ is both the refiner,\nand the refiner\u2019s fire: thou shalt be refined by him, and thou shalt be\nrefined in him. Thou deceivest thyself if thou thinkest to be refined any\nother way but by this refiner, and in this refiner\u2019s fire. The blood of\nChrist doth not only wash us from guilt, but purge our consciences \u201cfrom\ndead works, to serve the living God,\u201d Heb. ix. 14; \u201cAnd they that are\nChrist\u2019s, have crucified the flesh, with the affections and lusts.\u201d Gal.\nv. 24. Here you may see the thing is feasible and attainable, and not only\nby an apostle or some extraordinary man, but by all that are Christ\u2019s.\nBeing his, and in him, they are enabled, through his strength, to crucify\nthe flesh, with the affections and lusts thereof.\n\n\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES\n\n\n    1 It is right to state that a large proportion of those who ultimately\n      formed the presbyterian party, had been brought up in the Church of\n      England, and had received episcopal ordination.\n\n    2 There is another anecdote commonly repeated respecting a signal\n      defeat which Gillespie is said to have given to one of the\n      Independent divines, when recent from his travel to London. That he\n      did repeatedly refute their arguments is quite certain, of which\n      both Lightfoot\u2019s notes and his own record many instances, but no\n      such event could have occurred as that with which the anecdote is\n      commonly introduced; for both Henderson and Gillespie arrived at the\n      same time, and were received formally, and with great respect into\n      the Assembly, before any of the controverted points had begun to be\n      discussed at all. It is easy to conceive how imaginary incidents may\n      be added by tradition, to an anecdote essentially true; and our\n      endeavour has been to restore the anecdote to its true position and\n      character. We may add that Gillespie\u2019s expression, \u201cCan ye not admit\n      a pinning?\u201d is one which tradition has preserved; but we find the\n      same word used in his Aaron\u2019s Rod, in a similar sense, which\n      confirms the tradition.\n\n    3 The present Erastian Establishment in Scotland might do well to\n      consider whether theirs be the church of which Gillespie was a\n      distinguished minister.\n\n    4 The above anecdote is sometimes given with this variation:\u2014that when\n      the youngest member consented, he requested the rest to engage in\n      prayer, while he retired to make the attempt. They did so, and in a\n      short time he returned with the answer exactly as it now appears. We\n      prefer the anecdote as given in the text, both as equally likely,\n      and as much more beautiful.\n\n    5 These interesting documents are printed in this Series at the\n      conclusion of the Part containing his \u201cSermons and Controversial\n      Pieces.\u201d\n\n    6 Preface to Stevenson\u2019s History.\n\n    7 This refers to his opposition to the intrigues of the Engagers, and\n      their invasion of England under Hamilton.\n\n    8 Gillespie must have left London at that time to attend the General\n      Assembly which was summoned to meet at Edinburgh on the 22d of\n      January, 1645.\n\n    9 The death rattle in the throat of the dying man.\n\n   10 Bodin. Meth. Hist., cap. 4, p. 47.\n\n   11 Rep to the Ans. p. 269.\n\n   12 Enar in Luc. xvii.\n\n   13 De Civ. Dei., lib. 18, cap. 51.\n\n   14 Lib. contra Const. Aug.\n\n   15 Synops. Papis., cont. 13, quest. 7, p. 593.\n\n   16 Davenant. in col. 2, 8, p. 186\n\n   17 Osiand. Hist. Eccles., cent. 4, in Ep. Dedic.\n\n   18 Lib. 5, cap. 20.\n\n   19 Enarrat in Matt. xv.\n\n   20 Eccl. Pol., lib. 5, sect. 65.\n\n   21 Praef. of the Answ., p. 14.\n\n   22 Popish Praejud., cap. 10.\n\n   23 Cent. 2, cap. 2, col. 109.\n\n   24 Cron. Turcic., tom.3, lib. 4, p. 63.\n\n   25 Aug. de Civ. Dei. lib. 3, cap. 25.\n\n   26 Ib., cap. 26.\n\n   27 Ovid. Metam., lib. 15.\n\n   28 Apud Binium, tom. 4; Concil., part 1, p. 630.\n\n   29 No Peace with Rome, sect. 2.\n\n   30 Lib. Epist., col. 298.\n\n   31 Medit. in Rev. ii., iii.\n\n   32 Hist. Eccl. lib. 3 cap. 11.\n\n   33 Eccl. Pol., lib. 1, sect. 10.\n\n   34 Natal. Comit. Mythol., lib. 2, cap. 7.\n\n   35 Praelict., tom. 1, p. 367.\n\n   36 Ibid., p. 372.\n\n   37 Sermon on John xvi. 7.\n\n   38 Apolog., cap. 4.\n\n   39 Conrad. Pscilen. Clav. Theol., art. 9, p. 373.\n\n   40 Comm. in Eph. v. de subject.\n\n   41 Of the Church, lib. 4, cap. 34.\n\n   42 Aquin., 1a, 2a, quest. 43, art. 1; Stella in Luke xvii. 1.\n\n   43 Speed. Hist. of Brit., book 6, chap. 9, sect. 9.\n\n   44 Lactant., lib. 5, cap. 20.\n\n   45 P. Mart. in 1 Reg. 8. de Templ. dedic.\n\n   46 Epist. to the Pastors of the Church of Scotland.\n\n   47 Serm. at Perth Assem. insert. by Dr Lindsey.\n\n   48 Practic. Def. cap. 3, sect. 20.\n\n   49 Dr Forb. Iren. lib. 1, cap. 5, sect 6; cap. 7, sect. 1, 9; cap. 9,\n      sect. 6.\n\n   50 Cassand. Ang. p. 270, 11.\n\n   51 Ans to the Repl. pref. p. 43.\n\n   52 Ib. p. 53.\n\n   53 De Cas. Cons. lib. 4, cap. 11, cas. 3.\n\n   54 Ubi supra.\n\n   55 De cult. Sanct. cap. 10.\n\n   56 De Orig. Fest. Christian. cap. 2.\n\n   57 Repl. to the Ans. p. 258.\n\n   58 Calv. Com. in hunc locum.\n\n   59 De Exam. part 1, de Bon. Oper. p. 180.\n\n   60 Synt. part 2, disp. 27, thes. 30.\n\n   61 Bell. Enerv. tom. 1, lib. 3. cap. 7.\n\n   62 Ubi supra, thes. 31.\n\n   63 Annot. in Act. xv. 29.\n\n   64 Cens. lit. Angl. cap. 2.\n\n   65 Comm. in 1 Cor. vii. 23.\n\n   66 Synt. part. 2, disp. 44, thes. 33.\n\n   67 Ubi supra.\n\n   68 Hom. 1, in Ep. ad Tit.\n\n   69 Synt. Theol. lib. 6, cap. 38.\n\n   70 Instit. lib. 3, cap. 19, sect. 7.\n\n   71 Ib. cap. 10.\n\n   72 Chem. Exam. part. 2. de rit. in adm. Sac. p. 33.\n\n   73 Zanch. comm. in Col. ii. 20.\n\n   74 Apol. part. 3, cap. 1, sect. 5.\n\n   75 Comm. in 1 Cor. vii. 23.\n\n   76 De haeret. Baptiz.\n\n   77 B. Lind. Epist. to the Pastors of the Church of Scotland.\n\n   78 Spots. Sermon at Perth Assembly.\n\n   79 Of the Cross, cap. 5, sect. 11.\n\n   80 Of the Church, lib. 4, cap. 34.\n\n   81 Apol. part 3. cap. 1, sect. 4. So Dr Forb. Iren. lib. 1, cap. 11,\n      sect. 5, 6.\n\n   82 Manuduct. p. 42.\n\n   83 Thes. Theol. de Libert. Christ thes. 10.\n\n   84 Prel. in Mat. xviii. 7, tom. 2. p. 340.\n\n   85 Ubi supra.\n\n   86 Ubi supra.\n\n   87 Sermon of the worshipping of Imaginations.\n\n   88 Til. Synt. part. 2, disp. 27, thes. 38.\n\n   89 Thuan. Hist. lib. 124, p. 922.\n\n   90 Of the Church, lib. 4, cap. 33.\n\n   91 De Cens. lib. 1, cap. 2.\n\n   92 Treat. of Cons. cap. 2, sect. 3.\n\n   93 Theol. Cas. cap. 2.\n\n   94 Ames. de Cons. lib. 1, cap. 3.\n\n   95 Instit. lib. 4, cap. 10, sect. 5.\n\n   96 Synt. part. 2, disp. 32, thes. 4.\n\n   97 De Rep. Eccl. lib. 5, cap. 2, n. 12.\n\n   98 Til. Synt. p. 2, disp. 27, thes. 39.\n\n   99 Chem. examp. 2, de Bon. Oper. p. 179.\n\n  100 Marc. Ant. de Dom. de Rep. Ec. lib. 6, cap. 10, num. 67.\n\n  101 Apud Field, of the Church. lib. 4, cap. 34.\n\n  102 Animad. in Bel. contr. 3, lib. 4, cap. 16, nota 87.\n\n  103 Synt. p. 2, disp. 27, thes. 39.\n\n  104 Instit. lib. 4, cap. 10, sect. 32.\n\n  105 Decr. part. 1, dict. 61, cap. 8.\n\n  106 Ubi supra, art. 21.\n\n  107 De Cons. lib. 1, cap. 2.\n\n  108 Theol. Casuum. cap. 2.\n\n  109 Synt. per Theol. disp. 35, thes. 19.\n\n  110 Ames. Bell. Enerv. tom. 1, lib. 3, cap. 7.\n\n  111 De Pol. Christ. lib. 5, cap. 1.\n\n  112 De Orig. Fest. Christ, cap. 2.\n\n  113 Comm. in 1 Cor. xiv. 40.\n\n  114 Thes. Theol. de Libert. Christ. thes. 11.\n\n  115 Treat. of Cons. cap. 2, sect. 8.\n\n  116 Theol. Cas. cap. 2.\n\n  117 Synt. part. 2, disp. 27, thes. 9.\n\n  118 Calv. Resp. ad Libel. de pii viri officio, p. 413.\n\n  119 T. Bez. Conf. cap. 5, art. 18. Perk. ubi supra, et Meisner Philos.\n      Sobr. part. 3, sect. 2, quest. 12.\n\n  120 Of the Church, lib. 4, cap. 33.\n\n  121 De Pont. Rom. lib. 4, cap. 20.\n\n  122 Ubi supra.\n\n  123 Of the Cross, cap. 5, sect. 14, 15.\n\n  124 Pr\u00e6l. tom. 1, de Potest: Eccl. cont. 2, p. 371.\n\n  125 Ibid. p. 366.\n\n  126 Par. Com. in Rom. xiv. dub. 7.\n\n  127 Par. Com. in Rom. xiv. dub. 7.\n\n  128 In Dan. vi.\n\n  129 De Pont. Rom. lib. 4, cap. 20.\n\n  130 Ubi supra.\n\n  131 Com. in 1 Pet. v. 3.\n\n  132 Euchyrid. class. 3, cap. 14.\n\n  133 Synt. pur. Theol. disp. 35, thes. 17.\n\n  134 Comment. in Rom. xiv. 5.\n\n  135 Theol. Cas. cap. 2.\n\n  136 Enchyr. class. 2, cap. 7.\n\n  137 Bald. de Cons. Cas. lib. 1, cap 8.\n\n  138 De Cons. Cas. lib. 1, cap. 7.\n\n  139 1 an. 2 an. quest. 19, art. 5.\n\n  140 Ames. de Cons. lib. 1, cap 4.\n\n  141 Manual. lib. 4, cap. 4.\n\n  142 Zanch. Comm. in Illum Locum.\n\n  143 Ubi supra.\n\n  144 Ubi supra.\n\n  145 Perth Assem. p. 8-10, and B. Lindsey, in the Proceedings set down by\n      him, p. 63, 64.\n\n  146 Park, of the Cross, cap. 5, sect. 10.\n\n  147 Camer. Prael. tom, 1, de Potest. Eccl. contr. 2.\n\n  148 Apol. part. 3, cap. 1, sect. 25.\n\n  149 Exam. part. 3, de Ceclib. Sacer. p. 38.\n\n  150 Animad. in Bel. cont. 3, lib. 4, cap. 16.\n\n  151 Hist. of the Coun. of Trent, lib. 2.\n\n  152 Polit. Christ, lib. 5, cap. 3.\n\n  153 Ep. 64.\n\n  154 In Apologet.\n\n  155 Chem. Exam. part. 1, de Bon. Oper. p. 180.\n\n  156 Synt. pur. Theol. disp. 49, thes. 72.\n\n  157 Magd. cen. 1, lib. 2, cap. 4, co. 443.\n\n  158 Decr. part. 1, dist. 12, cap. 1.\n\n  159 Aquin. 2, 2 ae. 4, 147, art. 4.\n\n  160 Comm. in 1 Cor. x. 15.\n\n  161 Comm. in 1 Thes. v. 21.\n\n  162 Eccl. Pol. lib. 5. n. 71.\n\n  163 Par. \u00e6s. ad Sco. cap. 16. p. 64.\n\n  164 Comm. in Illum Locum.\n\n  165 Pr\u00e6l. in Eundem Locum.\n\n  166 Pro. in Perth Assem. par. 3, p. 13.\n\n  167 Ubi supra.\n\n  168 Ib. p. 26, 27.\n\n  169 Apud Bald. de Cas. Cons. lib. 2, cap. 12, cas. 1.\n\n  170 Prael. tom. 1, de Pot. Eccl. contr. 2.\n\n  171 Ubi supra, p. 16.\n\n  172 Ag. the Rhem. annot. on Gal. iv. 10.\n\n  173 Ubi supra, p. 16, 17.\n\n  174 Paran. ad Sco. cap. 16, p. 64.\n\n  175 Ubi supra, p. 25.\n\n  176 Ibid. p. 17.\n\n  177 Ibid. p. 27.\n\n  178 Calv. Comm. in illum locum.\n\n  179 Zanch. Comm. ibid.\n\n  180 Proc. in Perth Assembly, part. 3, p. 43.\n\n  181 Annot. on Col. ii. 16.\n\n  182 Annot. on Gal. iv. 10.\n\n  183 Annot. ibid.\n\n  184 De Cult. Sanct., cap. 10.\n\n  185 De Orig. Fest. Christ. cap. 2.\n\n  186 De Templ. et Fest. in Enchyrid contr. inter Evang. et Pontif.\n\n  187 Ubi supra.\n\n  188 Epist. 118, ad Januar.\n\n  189 De Orig. Fest. Christ. cap. 2.\n\n  190 Paren. ad Scot. cap. 16, pp. 66.\n\n  191 Comm. in illum locum\n\n  192 Annot. in Gal. iv. 3.\n\n  193 Comm. in illum locum.\n\n  194 Ubi supra, p. 40.\n\n  195 Comm. in Col. ii. 17.\n\n  196 Infra. part 3, in the arg. of Superstition.\n\n  197 Anim. in Bel. cont. 3, lib. 4, cap. 16, nota 20.\n\n  198 Comm. in illum locum.\n\n  199 Annot. ib.\n\n  200 Anim. ad Bel. contr. 3, lib. 4. cap. 16, nota 32.\n\n  201 Ubi supra.\n\n  202 Bell. de Euch. lib. 6, cap. 13.\n\n  203 Annot. on Matt. vi. 15, sect. 5.\n\n  204 Comm. in Col. ii. 16.\n\n  205 Ubi supra, p. 7.\n\n  206 Supra, cap. 7, sect. 7.\n\n  207 Infra, part. 2, cap. 2.\n\n  208 Par\u00e6n. ad Scot. cap. 16. p. 65.\n\n  209 Cent. 2, cap. 6, col. 119.\n\n  210 Lib. 5, cap. 22.\n\n  211 Lib. 12, cap. 32.\n\n  212 Lib. 7, cap. 19.\n\n  213 In Gal. iv.\n\n  214 Hospin. de Orig. Fest. Christ p. 71.\n\n  215 Annot. on Matt. xv. 9.\n\n  216 Ubi supra.\n\n  217 Part 3.\n\n  218 Calv. Ep. et Resp. edit. Genev. an. 1617, col. 137.\n\n  219 Ibid. 138.\n\n  220 Ib. col. 119.\n\n  221 Paraen. cap. 16, p. 68.\n\n  222 Sermon, Jer. iv. 2.\n\n  223 Ubi supr, p. 84.\n\n  224 Alsted. in Cronol. Testium Veritatis.\n\n  225 AEn. Sylv. apud Didocl. alt. Damasc. p. 707.\n\n  226 Paraen., cap. 16, p. 64.\n\n  227 Sermon at Perth Assembly.\n\n  228 Ubi supra, p. 83.\n\n  229 Ibid. p. 138.\n\n  230 Ubi supra, p. 91.\n\n  231 Ibid. p. 41.\n\n  232 Ibid. p. 95.\n\n  233 Ubi supra, p. 83.\n\n  234 Calv. Ep. et Resp. col. 592.\n\n  235 Serm. at Perth Assembly insert. by B. Lindsey.\n\n  236 Ans. to the Repl. praef. p. 43.\n\n  237 Repl. to the Ans., p. 270.\n\n  238 Cassand. Ang., p. 46.\n\n  239 Ib. p. 23.\n\n  240 Ibid., p. 8.\n\n  241 Ib., p. 9-11.\n\n  242 Infra, part 3. chap. 1.\n\n  243 Ubi supra, p. 24, 28.\n\n  244 Ibid. p. 52.\n\n  245 Ibid. p. 28.\n\n  246 Ibid. p. 62.\n\n  247 Ibid. p. 63.\n\n  248 Page 67.\n\n  249 P. 68-70.\n\n  250 Page 85, 93, 110.\n\n  251 Hist. of the Wald., part. 3, lib. 1, cap. 6. Thuan. Hist. lib. 6, p.\n      189.\n\n  252 Thuan. ibid. p. 186.\n\n  253 Alsted. Chron. Rolib. p. 550.\n\n  254 See his treatise entitled _Vera Ecclesi\u00e6 Reformand\u00e6 Ratio._\n\n  255 Alsted. ibid.\n\n  256 Sleid. Com., lib. 21, p. 388.\n\n  257 Sleid., ibid., p. 393.\n\n  258 Polan. Synt., lib. 7, cap. 17.\n\n  259 Calv. Inst., lib. 4, cap. 10, sect. 32.\n\n  260 Chem. Exam. par. 2, p. 121.\n\n  261 Fenner Theol., lib. 2, cap. 2.\n\n  262 Pareus in 1 Cor. xiv. 26.\n\n  263 Calv. Ep. et Resp., col. 478.\n\n  264 Calv. in 1 Cor. x. 23. Taylor on Tit. i. 15, p. 295.\n\n  265 Ubi supra, p. 55.\n\n  266 Pareus in 1 Cor. vi. 12.\n\n  267 Calv. in 1 Cor. x. 23, & Pareus ibid.\n\n  268 Serm. on Job xvi. 7.\n\n  269 Serm. at Perth Assembly.\n\n  270 Fresh Suite, cap. 2, p. 12.\n\n  271 In 1 Cor. x. 23.\n\n  272 Thuan. Hist. lib. 39, p. 367.\n\n  273 Pareus in 1 Cor. viii. 13.\n\n  274 Page 44, 45.\n\n  275 Pareus in 1 Cor. x. 23.\n\n  276 Alsted. Theol. Cas. cap. 12, 199.\n\n  277 Pareus in Rom. iii. 8.\n\n  278 Page 210, 211.\n\n  279 Ubi supra.\n\n  280 Bald. de Cas. Cons., lib. 4, cap. 11, cas. 3.\n\n  281 Sleid. Com. lib. 21, p. 381.\n\n  282 Ibid. lib. 25, p. 485.\n\n  283 Partic. Def. cap. 1, sect. 1.\n\n  284 Paraen., cap. 16, p. 65.\n\n  285 Proc. in Perth Assembly, part 3, p. 7.\n\n  286 Ibid. P. 121.\n\n  287 Apol. part 3, cap. 3, sect. 45, 51.\n\n  288 Sleid. Com. lib. 20, p. 365, 371. Alsted in Chron. Religionis, an.\n      1548.\n\n  289 Sleid. Com. lib. 21, p. 377.\n\n  290 Ibid. p. 388.\n\n  291 Ibid. p. 393.\n\n  292 Reg. Eccles. lib. 7, cap. 12, num. 107.\n\n  293 Ibid. num. 120.\n\n  294 Ibid. num. 132. See to the same purpose D. Potter, in his book\n      called, \u201cWant of Charity justly charged,\u201d p. 76.\n\n  295 Field, of the Church, append. to the third book, cap. 11, p. 298. B.\n      Andr. Serm. on Jer. xxiii. 6, p. 79-82.\n\n  296 Sleid. Com. lib. 21, p. 377.\n\n  297 De Laicis, cap. 19.\n\n  298 Annot. 1 Tim. vi. 20.\n\n  299 Rep. Eccl. lib. 7, cap. 12, num. 134.\n\n  300 Park., of the Cross, part 2, p. 80.\n\n  301 P. 32.\n\n  302 Ibid. p. 34.\n\n  303 Ibid. p. 41.\n\n  304 Ibid. p. 42.\n\n  305 Jun. Animad. in Bell. de Cult. Sanct. lib. 3, cap. 5.\n\n  306 Natal. Comit. Mythol. lib. 1, cap. 15.\n\n  307 Bell. de Effect. Sacram. cap. 31.\n\n  308 Hooker, Eccl. Pol. lib. 4, num. 1.\n\n  309 Hospin. Epist. Dedic. Praefix. Libris de Orig. Monach.\n\n  310 Censur. Liturg. Angl. cap. 9.\n\n  311 Exam. part 2, de Rit. In Administ. Sacr. p. 32.\n\n  312 Com. in John iv. 24.\n\n  313 Popish Prejud. cap. 10.\n\n  314 Calv. Com. in Exod. xx. 5.\n\n  315 Com. in illum locum.\n\n  316 De Divers. Grad. Ministr. Evang. contr. Bez. cap. 24, sect. 25.\n\n  317 Popish Prejud. cap. 10.\n\n  318 Camero, ibid.\n\n  319 Hospin., ubi supra.\n\n  320 Rev. xvii. 7.\n\n  321 Com. in illum locum.\n\n  322 Praef. of the Ans. p. 17.\n\n  323 Sarav. N. Fratri et Amico, art. 17.\n\n  324 Socrat. lib. 3, cap. 12.\n\n  325 Decr. part 2, caus. 7, quest. 1, cap. 36.\n\n  326 The Pastor and the prelate, p. 36.\n\n  327 Hist. of the Waldenses, lib. 1, cap. 3.\n\n  328 Calv. Epist. et Resp. col. 132.\n\n  329 Way to the Church, ans. to sect. 33.\n\n  330 Epist. ad Regin. Fes. lib. 1, Epistol. p. 112.\n\n  331 Of the Cross, cap. 9, sect. 1.\n\n  332 Expos. Conf. Ang. art. 37, et problem, 2 de pr\u00e6dest.\n\n  333 Maldon. Com. in Matt. viii. 3.\n\n  334 De Verb. Dom., serm. 6.\n\n  335 Conrad. Schlusselburg. apud Park. of the Cross, part 2, p. 97.\n\n  336 De Cas. Consc., lib. 4, cap. 11. cas. 3.\n\n  337 De Laicis, cap. 19.\n\n  338 Calv. Epist. et Resp. col. 451, 452.\n\n  339 Plutin In vita Innoc. VII.\n\n  340 Sleid. com. lib. 21, p. 376.\n\n  341 Epist. to the Pastors of the Kirk of Scotland.\n\n  342 Sarav. N. Fratri et Amico, art. 17.\n\n  343 Park., of the Cross, cap. 6, sect. 21.\n\n  344 Ibid. sect. 22.\n\n  345 Serm. At Perth Assembly.\n\n  346 Part 1, p. 63.\n\n  347 Ibid. p. 64.\n\n  348 Nature Hist. lib. 10. cap. ult.\n\n  349 Serm. on 1 Cor. xi. 16.\n\n  350 Thuan. Hist. lib. 16, p. 506.\n\n  351 Plin. Natur. Hist. lib. 4. cap. 1.\n\n  352 Com. in Matt. lib. 2 lib. 15.\n\n  353 Synt. Theol. lib. 6 cap. 3 col. 19.\n\n  354 Aquin. 2, 2 an. quest. 43 art. 1 Marc. Ant. de Dom. de Rep. Leel\n      lib. 5 cap. 10 num. 44.\n\n  355 Marc. Ant. de Dom. de Rep. Eccl. lib. 1, cap. 11, num. 18.\n\n  356 Com. In 2 m. 2 an. quest. 43, art. 7.\n\n  357 Hemming. Enchir. Theol. class. 3, cap. 17, Magdeburg cont. 1, lib.\n      2, cap. 4, col. 448, 449.\n\n  358 Ames, lib. 5, de Consc. cap. 11, quest. 6.\n\n  359 Ames. Ibid. quest. 3.\n\n  360 Camero, Prael. In Matt. xviii. 7, de scand.\n\n  361 Com. in illum locum.\n\n  362 Com. ibid.\n\n  363 Com. ibid.\n\n  364 Of the Cross, part 2. p. 57.\n\n  365 Eccl. Pol. p. 246.\n\n  366 Supra, cap. 1.\n\n  367 Maldonat. Com. in illum locum.\n\n  368 Pareus, Com. ibid.\n\n  369 Com. in Eph. iv. 13.\n\n  370 Polan. Synt. Theol. lib, 6, cap. 3, col. 19.\n\n  371 Aquin. 2, 2 an. quest. 43. art. 2.\n\n  372 Marc. Ant. de Dom. de Rep. Eccl. lib, 1, cap. 11, num. 18.\n\n  373 Cent. 1, lib. 2, cap. 4, col. 450.\n\n  374 Com. in Dan. i. 8.\n\n  375 De Rep. Eccl. lib. 5, cap. 10, num. 44.\n\n  376 Com. in 1 Thes. v. 22.\n\n  377 Of the Cross, cap. 3, sect. 6.\n\n  378 Annot. on Gal. iv. 10.\n\n  379 Confer. with Rain. cap. 8, div. 2, p. 408, 410.\n\n  380 Com. in 1 Cor. x. 28.\n\n  381 Lib. 1, epist. 41.\n\n  382 Can. 5.\n\n  383 Ubi supra.\n\n  384 Bald, de Cas. Cons. lib. 2, cap. 14, cas. 7.\n\n  385 N. Fratri et Amico, art. 13.\n\n  386 Annot. on Acts viii. sect. 5.\n\n  387 Park, of the Cross, part 2, p. 57; 1 Thes. v. 14; Rom. xiv. 16; 1\n      Cor. lx. 12; 1 Thes, ii. 7; Acts xx 34; Matt xviii. 6.\n\n  388 Cornel Jansen. Conc. Evang. cap 71.\n\n  389 Aug. de Morib. Manich. lib. 2, cap. 14; Rom. xiv. 30.\n\n  390 Ames lib. 5, de Consc. cap. 11, quest. 6.\n\n  391 Dr Forebesse, Iren. lib. 2. cap. 20, num. 27.\n\n  392 Alt. Damasc. cap. 9, p. 556.\n\n  393 Parker, of the Cross, part 2, p. 75.\n\n  394 Com. upon this place.\n\n  395 Tom. 1, an. 55, num. 39.\n\n  396 De Rep. Eccl., lib. 1, cap. 11, num. 18.\n\n  397 Serm. at Perth Assembly.\n\n  398 \u201cNon enim solum scandalizure, sed ... dulizari peccatum est, quia\n      ... est,\u201d saith Maldonat upon Matt. xviii. 7.\n\n  399 2 2an., quest. 43, art. 1.\n\n  400 Pareus, Com. la. illum locum.\n\n  401 Epist. to the Pastors of the Church of Scotland.\n\n  402 Com. in 1 Cor. viii. 9.\n\n  403 Lib. 2, cap. 20, num. 5, 6.\n\n  404 Supra, sect 4-6.\n\n  405 Ibid., num. 7.\n\n  406 Num. 10-14.\n\n  407 Num. 15, 16.\n\n  408 Num. 17.\n\n  409 Iren., lib. l. cap. 10, sect. 2.\n\n  410 Supra, cap. 8, sect. 6.\n\n  411 Ibid. lib. 2, cap. 20, num. 14.\n\n  412 Supra. cap. 8, sect. 5, cap. 9, sect. 10.\n\n  413 Ibid, sect 7.\n\n  414 Mosney Myster. of Iniq. In the conclus.\n\n  415 Aquin. 3, quest. 66, art. 8, Rhein Annot. on Matt. xvi. sect. 5,\n      Bell de Pontif. Rom., lib. 4, cap. 18; and De Sacrif. Miss\u00e6, lib. 6,\n      cap 13.\n\n  416 Eccl. Pol., lib. 4, 11, 12.\n\n  417 Cap. 1, sect. 3.\n\n  418 Expos. of the Creed, Art. of Christ\u2019s Birth.\n\n  419 Com. on Gal. iv. 10.\n\n  420 Parker, of the Cross, cap. 6, sect. 10.\n\n  421 Sect. 7.\n\n  422 Apol., part 3, cap 5.\n\n  423 Com. in Matt. xviii. 6.\n\n  424 Com. 1 Cor. viii.\n\n  425 Ames., lib. 5, de Consc., cap. 11.\n\n  426 Supra, cap. 1.\n\n  427 Cent. 1, lib. 2, cap. 10, col. 560.\n\n  428 De Auserib Papae, consider. 12.\n\n  429 Com. in illum locum.\n\n  430 Ubi Supra, p. 441.\n\n  431 Of the Cross, part 2, p. 79.\n\n  432 Serm. on John xvi. 7.\n\n  433 Pareus, Com. in Rom. xv. 1.\n\n  434 Serm. on John xvi. 7.\n\n  435 Fresh Suite ag. Cerem., cap. 9, p. 96, 100.\n\n  436 Lib. 1, de Vit. Ext. Cult. Oppos., col. 501, 502.\n\n  437 Aquin. 2. 2, quest. 92, art. 1.\n\n  438 Syn. Pur. Theol., disp. 44, thes. 53.\n\n  439 Cent. 4, cup. 6, col. 427.\n\n  440 De Cas. Consc., lib. 2, cap. 12, Cas. 13.\n\n  441 Concil. Laodic., can. 58.\n\n  442 Hist. of the Waldenses, part 3, lib. 1, cap. 6.\n\n  443 Eccles. Pol., lib. 5, sect. 3.\n\n  444 Apud Aquin. 2. 2, quest. 93, art. 2.\n\n  445 J. Rainold\u2019s Confer. with J. Hart, cap. 8, divis. 4, p. 489.\n\n  446 Stella, Com. in Luke xvii. 20.\n\n  447 Eccl. Pol., lib. 5, 70.\n\n  448 Ibid., sect. 69.\n\n  449 Ibid., sect. 65.\n\n  450 Of the Lawfulness of Kneeling, cap. 3.\n\n  451 Aquin. 3, 4, 25, art. 4.\n\n  452 Ubi Supra, cap. 15, p. 42.\n\n  453 Ibid., p. 41.\n\n  454 Aquin. 2. 2, quest. 95, art. 2.\n\n  455 De Vera Eccl. Reform., p. 367.\n\n  456 Annot. on Matt. xv., sect. 5.\n\n  457 3, quest. 68, art. 6.\n\n  458 2. 2, quest. 147, art. 4.\n\n  459 3, quest. 66, art. 10.\n\n  460 De Sacr. Missae, lib. 6, cap. 13.\n\n  461 De Pont. Rom., lib. 4, cap. 18.\n\n  462 Conc. Evan., cap. 60.\n\n  463 Iren., lib. 1, cap. 5, sect. 6; cap. 7, sect. 7.\n\n  464 Apud Zanc. Epist., lib. 1, p. 111.\n\n  465 Eccl. Pol., lib. 5, sect. 60.\n\n  466 Hist. of the Counc. of Trent., lib. 2.\n\n  467 Confess., cap. 5, art. 41.\n\n  468 Proc. in Perth Assembly, part 3, p. 18.\n\n  469 Alt. Damasc., cap. 10, p. 878.\n\n  470 Ubi Supra, p. 29.\n\n  471 Ibid., p. 28.\n\n  472 Theol., lib. 6, cap. 3\n\n  473 Synt., lib. 6, cap. 51, p. 433.\n\n  474 Syn. Pur. Theol. Disp. 21, thes. 7.\n\n  475 Fresh Suite, cap. 5, p. 59.\n\n  476 Comm. in 1 Reg. viii. de Tempt. Dedic.\n\n  477 Hist. of the Waldenses, lib. 1, cap. 1.\n\n  478 Cent. 4, cap. 6, col. 480.\n\n  479 De Orig. Temp., lib. 4, cap. 2.\n\n  480 Cent. 4, cap. 6, col. 409.\n\n  481 Com. in Mal. i. 11.\n\n  482 Eccles. Pol., lib. 5, sect. 16.\n\n  483 Confer. with J. Hart, cap. 8, divis. 4, p. 491.\n\n  484 Ubi Supra.\n\n  485 Eccl. Pol., lib. 5, sect. 69.\n\n  486 Annot. on 1 Tim. iv. 5.\n\n  487 De Cult. Sanct, cap. 10.\n\n  488 Ubi Supra, p. 21.\n\n  489 Ep. to the Pastors of the Church of Scotland.\n\n  490 On P. 5.\n\n  491 Bonifac. VIII., de Reg. Juris, reg. 51.\n\n  492 Hook. Eccl. Pol., lib. 5, sect. 12.\n\n  493 Serm. on Matt. vi. 16.\n\n  494 Ubi Supra, p. 25.\n\n  495 De Cult. Sanct, cap. 10.\n\n  496 Zanc. in 4 Pr\u00e6c, p. 682.\n\n  497 Pareus Com. in Gen ii. 3.\n\n  498 Ubi Supra, p. 20.\n\n  499 Ubi Supra p. 29.\n\n  500 On Pr\u00e6c. 4.\n\n  501 See Serm. on Gal. iv. 4; Serm. on Luke ii. 10, 11; Serm. on Lam. i.\n      12; Serm. on John xx. 19; Serm. on Job xix. 23; Serm. on John xx.\n      17; Serm. on Heb. xiii. 20, 21; Serm. on Matt. vi. 16; Serm. on Acts\n      ii. 16; Serm. on John v. 6, &c.\n\n  502 P. 67.\n\n  503 Ubi Supra, p. 23.\n\n  504 Serm. on Matt. xii. 39, 40.\n\n  505 Serm. on Luke iv. 18, 19.\n\n  506 Serm. on Matt. vi. 16.\n\n  507 Synop. Pur. Theol., disp. 19, thes. 30.\n\n  508 Manduct, lect. 2, p. 38.\n\n  509 Com. in illum locum.\n\n  510 Jude 23.\n\n  511 Com. In Thess. v. 22.\n\n  512 Anal. in illum locum.\n\n  513 Expos. upon Rev. ii. 14.\n\n  514 In Praec. 2, p. 534.\n\n  515 Annot. on 1 Cor. x. 21.\n\n  516 Com. in illum locum.\n\n  517 Anal. in 1 Cor. x.\n\n  518 Ibid.\n\n  519 Annot. Ibid.\n\n  520 De Bono Conjugall, cap. 16.\n\n  521 Com. In illum locum.\n\n  522 Apud Wolphinm, com. in 2 Reg. xviii. 4.\n\n  523 Calv. Epist. et Resp., p. 79.\n\n  524 Serm. on Phil. ii. 10.\n\n  525 Com. in illum locum.\n\n  526 G. Sanctus, com. ibid.\n\n  527 Com. in 2 Reg. xxiii. 6.\n\n  528 Com. in Isa. xxvii. 9.\n\n  529 Calv. Com. in Exod. xxiii. 24.\n\n  530 Ubi Supra.\n\n  531 N. Fratri et Amico, art. 17.\n\n  532 Iren. lib. 1. cap. 7, 9, 6.\n\n  533 Resp. ad Versipel., p. 41-44.\n\n  534 Ubi Supra.\n\n  535 Supra, cap. 1, sect. 11.\n\n  536 Com. in Deut. xii. 2.\n\n  537 In 4 Praec., col. 709.\n\n  538 Magdeb., cent. 4, cap. 16, col. 1538, 1539.\n\n  539 Cent. 6, cap. 15, col. 1511.\n\n  540 Dan\u00e6us Polit. Christ., lib. 3, p. 229; Polan. Synt. Theol., lib. 10,\n      cap. 65.\n\n  541 Epist. Hist., lib. 1.\n\n  542 Com. in 2 Reg. x. 27.\n\n  543 Calv. Res. ad Versipel., p. 413.\n\n  544 De Imagin., col. 402.\n\n  545 Tho Naogeorgus in 1 John v. 21.\n\n  546 Calv. Epist. et Resp., p. 86.\n\n  547 Ibid., col. 136.\n\n  548 Com. in Col. ii. 17.\n\n  549 De Imagin., col. 403.\n\n  550 Com. in 2 Kings xviii. 4.\n\n  551 Proc. in Perth Assembly, part 2, p. 120.\n\n  552 Com. in illum locum.\n\n  553 Aquin. 2, 2 an., quest. 43, art. 1.\n\n  554 Confer, with J. Hart, cap. 8, divis. 4, p. 509.\n\n  555 Apol., part 3, cap. 4, sect. 15-17.\n\n  556 Supra, sect. 9.\n\n  557 Supra, sect. 6.\n\n  558 Epist. ad Regin. Elizab. Epistolar., lib. 1, p. 112.\n\n  559 Ibid., p. 111.\n\n  560 Sleid. Com., lib. 25, p. 481.\n\n  561 Apol., part 3, cap. 4.\n\n  562 Proc. in Perth Assembly, part 2, p. 118, 119.\n\n  563 Ibid., p. 22.\n\n  564 Ration., lib. 5, Tit. de Prima et lib. 6, Tit. de Die Sancta Pasc.\n\n  565 Annot. on Matt. viii., sect. 3; and on 1 Cor. xi., sect. 18.\n\n  566 Way to the Church, Answer to sect. 51.\n\n  567 Exam. Conc. Trit. de Euchar., can. 6, p. 86.\n\n  568 Of the Lawfulness of Kneeling, cap. 21, p. 65.\n\n  569 Ibid., p. 69.\n\n  570 Concil. Laodicaen., can. 19. See also Conc. Tolet. 4, can. 17.\n\n  571 Ubi Supra, p. 61.\n\n  572 Ubi Supra, p. 118.\n\n  573 Ubi Supra.\n\n  574 Eccl. Pol. lib. 4, sect. 6.\n\n  575 Apol., part 3, cap. 4, sect. 5.\n\n  576 In Praec. 2, p. 543.\n\n  577 Com. in illum locum.\n\n  578 Ubi Supra.\n\n  579 Eccl. Pol., lib. 4, sect. 6.\n\n  580 Ubi Supra.\n\n  581 Com. in Lev. xix. 27, 28.\n\n  582 Aquin., 2, 2ae, quest. 103, art. 4.\n\n  583 De Cas. Cons., lib. 2, cap. 14, cas. 7.\n\n  584 Com. in illum locum.\n\n  585 Annot. ibid.\n\n  586 Ag. the Rhem., Annot. on 1 Cor. x., sect. 8.\n\n  587 Apud Gratian. Decr., p. l, dist. 37, cap. 15.\n\n  588 De Corona Militis.\n\n  589 Partic. Def., cap. 1, sect. 1.\n\n  590 Magd., cent. 3, cap. 6, col. 147.\n\n  591 Concil. Laodicen., can. 37.\n\n  592 Apud Theod., lib. 1, cap. 10.\n\n  593 Epist. 86, ad Casulan.\n\n  594 Lib. 1, epist. 41.\n\n  595 Apud Bell. de Effect. Sacr., lib. 2, cap. 31.\n\n  596 Conc. African., can. 27; Conc. Tolet. 4, can. 5, et 10; Conc. Brac.\n      2, can. 73.\n\n  597 Magd., cent. 4, cap. 6, col. 458.\n\n  598 Eccl. Pol., lib. 4, sect. 7.\n\n  599 Can. 5.\n\n  600 Can. 40.\n\n  601 Sims. Hist. of the Church, lib. 4, cent. 6.\n\n  602 Eccl. Pol., lib. 3, sect. 1.\n\n  603 Decr., part 2, causa 26, quest. 7, cap. 13.\n\n  604 Ibid., cap. 14.\n\n  605 Ibid., cap. 17.\n\n  606 Aquin. 1, 2ae, quest. 102, art. 6, resp. ad 6m.\n\n  607 Ibid., resp. ad 11m.\n\n  608 Baruch. 6, 3 Reg. xviii.\n\n  609 Ibid., resp. ad 8m.\n\n  610 Rhem. Annot. on 2 Cor. vi. 14.\n\n  611 Rhem. on 1 Tim. vi., sect. 4.\n\n  612 Rhem. on Apoc. i. 10.\n\n  613 Rhem. on 2 John x.\n\n  614 De Effect. Sax., lib. 2, cap. 31.\n\n  615 Magd. Cent. 4, cap. 6, col. 406.\n\n  616 Hosp. de Orig. Templ., lib. 2, cap. 7, p. 115.\n\n  617 Confer. with J. Hart, divis. 4, cap. 8.\n\n  618 Antith. Pap. et Christ., art. 9.\n\n  619 In 2 Praec., col. 363.\n\n  620 Com. in Psal. xvi. 4.\n\n  621 Com. in 1 Cor. x. 14.\n\n  622 Synops. Purior. Theol., disp. 19.\n\n  623 Usher, of the Relig. Prof. by the Anc. Irish, cap. 4.\n\n  624 Apud Hosp. de Orig. Imag., p. 200.\n\n  625 De Vit. Pil. 4.\n\n  626 Bel. de Effect. Sacr., lib. 2, cap. 31.\n\n  627 Annot. in illum locum.\n\n  628 Annot. ibid.\n\n  629 Com. ibid.\n\n  630 Sect. 48.\n\n  631 Elench. Relig. Papist. in Praefat.\n\n  632 Part 2, cap. 6.\n\n  633 Supra, cap. 1.\n\n  634 De Imag. Sanct., cap. 29.\n\n  635 Proc. in Perth Assemb., part 2, p. 22.\n\n  636 Rhem. Annot. on Act. ii. 1.\n\n  637 Rain. Confer. with J. Hart, cap. 8, divis. 4, p. 496.\n\n  638 Zanch., lib. 1, in 4 Praec, col. 674.\n\n  639 Aquin., 1, 2ae, quest. 102, art. 6, resp. ad 11m.\n\n  640 N. Fratri et Amico, resp. ad art. 12m.\n\n  641 Ubi Supra, p. 510.\n\n  642 Supra, part 2, cap. 9, sect. 14.\n\n  643 Infra, cap. 4, sect. 26-28.\n\n  644 Of the Cross, cap. 2, sect. 2.\n\n  645 Upon Gen. xxxv. 4.\n\n  646 Expos. in Col. iii. 5.\n\n  647 Of the Lawfulness of Kneeling, cap. 18, p. 62.\n\n  648 History of the Church of Scotland, lib. 1, p. 181.\n\n  649 Part 1, quest. 3.\n\n  650 Charact. of the Superstit., lib. 2.\n\n  651 Com. In 1 Kings ii.\n\n  652 A. Polan. Synt. Theol., lib. 6, cap. 3; D. Pareus Explic. Catech.,\n      part 1, quest. 71; Scarpius Curs. Theolog. de Peccato, cap. 8.\n\n  653 Ibid., ver. 44.\n\n  654 De Rep. Eccl., lib. 7. cap. 12, num. 88.\n\n  655 Ibid., num. 89.\n\n  656 Eccl. Pol., lib. 5, sect. 65.\n\n  657 Cornel. a Lapide; Com. in Hag. ii. 24.\n\n  658 Confer. with Hart, chap. 8, divis. 5, p. 509.\n\n  659 Eccl. Pol., lib. 5, sect. 66.\n\n  660 Eram., part 2, de Rit. in Admin. Sacr., p. 32.\n\n  661 Lib 1, de Viti. Ext. Cult. Oppos., col. 505.\n\n  662 Eccl. Pol., lib. 5, sect. 69\n\n  663 Supra, part 1, cap. 1.\n\n  664 Supra, cap. 1.\n\n  665 Infra, cap. 5.\n\n  666 Of the Lawfulness of Kneeling. p. 115, 116.\n\n  667 De Rep. Eccl., lib. 5, cap. 6, num. 126.\n\n  668 De Rep. Eccl., lib. 5, cap. 6, num. 138.\n\n  669 Proc. in Perth Assembly, part 2, p. 22.\n\n  670 Serm. at Perth Assembly.\n\n  671 Of the Lawfulness of Kneeling, cap. 10, p. 17.\n\n  672 Apol., part 3, sect. 16.\n\n  673 Cap. 1, sect. 35.\n\n  674 Of the Lawfulness of Kneeling, cap. 22, p. 85.\n\n  675 Ibid., cap. 23.\n\n  676 Annot. on Heb. xi. 21.\n\n  677 Expos. Artic. Confes. Angel., art. 28.\n\n  678 De Sacr. Euchar, lib. 4, c. 29.\n\n  679 Zanch., lib. 1, De Viti. Ext. Cult. Oppos., col. 504.\n\n  680 Bell. ubi supra.\n\n  681 Cartwright on 1 Cor. xi., sect. 8.\n\n  682 De Orig. Imag., p. 245.\n\n  683 Ans. to the Les. Chal. of the Real Pres., p. 74.\n\n  684 Of the Lawfulness of Kneeling, p. 116.\n\n  685 Proc. in Perth Assembly, part 2, p. 92.\n\n  686 Ubi supra.\n\n  687 Ubi supra.\n\n  688 Gener. Def., cap. 3.\n\n  689 Rejoynd., p. 296.\n\n  690 Cornel. \u00e0 Lapide, Com. in Mal., cap. xi.\n\n  691 Part 3, cap. 3, sect. 29.\n\n  692 De Fugiend. Idolat., homil. 1.\n\n  693 Homines qui ex corpore et spiritu sunt constituti, corpore colunt\n      materialiter, spiritu formaliter, as Junius saith upon Deut. xii.\n\n  694 Com. in illum locum.\n\n  695 Lindsey, ubi supra, p. 18.\n\n  696 Ibid., p. 92.\n\n  697 Ibid.\n\n  698 Of the Lawfulness of Kneeling, cap. 32, p. 115.\n\n  699 De Rep. Eccl., lib. 7, cap. 12, num. 42.\n\n  700 Com. 1, disp. 50, sect. 3.\n\n  701 See Dr Usher\u2019s Ans. to the Jesu. Chall. of Images, p. 499.\n\n  702 Allud est picturam adorare; allud per pictur\u00e6 historiam quid sit\n      adorandum addiscere, saith Durand, Ration, lib. 1, Tit. de Pictur.\n\n  703 Manual, lib. 3, cap. 2, quest. 5.\n\n  704 Ubi supra.\n\n  705 Zanch, lib. 1, De Viti. Ext. Cult. Oppos., col. 510.\n\n  706 Ubi supra p. 88.\n\n  707 Ubi supra, p. 69.\n\n  708 Partic. Def., cap. 3 sect. 20.\n\n  709 Part 3, cap. 3, sect. 45.\n\n  710 Ubi supra p. 72, 73.\n\n  711 Ans. to the Chall. of the Real Pres. p. 50, 51.\n\n  712 Ubi supra p. 55.\n\n  713 Ibid. p. 61.\n\n  714 Alt. Dam., p. 809.\n\n  715 Ea (veneratio) potest esse etiam sine cultu, saith Scaliger, De\n      Subtil. ad Card., exert. 317, dist. 3.\n\n  716 De Sacram. Confirm., cap. 13.\n\n  717 Part 3, cap. 3, sect. 50.\n\n  718 Of the Lawfulness of Kneeling, cap. 8.\n\n  719 De Rep. Eccl., lib. 5, cap. 6, num. 137, et lib. 7, cap. 12, num.\n      48.\n\n  720 Ubi supra, p. 70.\n\n  721 Ubi supra, cap. 21, p. 73.\n\n  722 Cartright on 1 Cor. xi., sect. 18.\n\n  723 De Rep. Eccl., lib. 7, cap. 12, num. 50.\n\n  724 Didoclav., ubi supra, p. 803.\n\n  725 Lib. 1, De Viti. Ext. Cult. Oppos., col. 504, 505.\n\n  726 Sermon at Perth Assembly.\n\n  727 Ubi supra, p. 142.\n\n  728 Aquin. 3, quest. 25, art. 2.\n\n  729 De Rep. Eccl., lib. 7, cap. 12, num. 43.\n\n  730 Franc. \u00e0 S. Clara, Expos. Artic. Confess. Angl., art. 28.\n\n  731 Of the Church, lib. 5, sect. 15.\n\n  732 Aquin. 1, quest. 13, art. 1.\n\n  733 Cent. Flosc Tur. Disput. Flosc., 26.\n\n  734 Of the Lawfulness of Kneeling, cap. 23, p. 88.\n\n  735 Synt. lib. 6, cap. 16, col. 125.\n\n  736 Eccl. Pol. lib., sect. 55.\n\n  737 Ubi supra.\n\n  738 Zanch., tom. 8, col. 521.\n\n  739 We adore Christ as well in the preaching of the gospel and sacrament\n      of baptism, as in the sacrament of the supper, saith Cartwright on 1\n      Cor. xi. sect. 18.\n\n  740 Ubi supra.\n\n  741 De Rep. Eccl. lib. 7 cap. 11 num. 7.\n\n  742 Supra, sect. 13.\n\n  743 Zanch., lib. 1, De Vitit. Ext. Cult. Oppos., col. 504.\n\n  744 Marc. Ant. de Dom. Ostens. Error. Fr. Suarez, cap. 2, num. 13.\n\n  745 Burges, of the Lawfulness of Kneeling, cap. 32, P. 113, Paybody,\n      part 3, cap. 3, sect. 4.\n\n  746 Ubi supra, p. 94.\n\n  747 Bishop Lindsey, ubi supra, p. 76.\n\n  748 Ibid., p. 91.\n\n  749 Ubi supra, sect. 15.\n\n  750 Paybody, part 3, cap. 3, sect. 4.\n\n  751 Paybody, ibid., sect. 5.\n\n  752 Ib., part 2, cap. 1, sect. 7.\n\n  753 Dr Forbesse, Iren., lib. 1, cap. 1.\n\n  754 Jos. Hall, Apol. against Brown, sect. 36.\n\n  755 Dr Forbesse, ubi supra.\n\n  756 Dr Forbesse, ibid.\n\n  757 Dr Forbesse, ubi supra.\n\n  758 Com. in 1 Cor. xi. 26.\n\n  759 Ubi supra, p. 104.\n\n  760 Didoc. Alt. Dam., p. 803.\n\n  761 Ubi supra, p. 112.\n\n  762 Ibid., p. 101.\n\n  763 Ubi supra.\n\n  764 Partic. Def, cap. 3, sect. 38.\n\n  765 Alt. Dam, p. 756, 782, 794.\n\n  766 Of the Lawfulness of Kneeling, cap. 22.\n\n  767 De Corona Militis.\n\n  768 De Jejun., cap. 2, 14.\n\n  769 Haeres, 75.\n\n  770 Hist. Eccl. cent. 4, lib. 2, cap. 22, p. 160.\n\n  771 Magd. cent. 3, cap. 6, col. 135.\n\n  772 Epiphan, ubi supra.\n\n  773 Ubi supra, cap. 22, et 23.\n\n  774 Rep. Eccl. lib. 5, cap. 6.\n\n  775 Lib. 1, cap. 1.\n\n  776 Alt. Dam, p. 784.\n\n  777 Cent. Magd. 3, cap. 6, col. 133.\n\n  778 De Orig Templ, lib. 2, cap. 28.\n\n  779 Pareus in 1 Cor. xi. 21, et Calv, ibid.\n\n  780 Cartwright in 1 Cor. xi., sect. 6.\n\n  781 Lib. 5. c. 22.\n\n  782 Quia Paulus has epulas sacram caenam vocarit Et quia scriptum est\n      apud Lucain, similiter et cali ceni postquam caen ivit Quae etiam\n      fucrunt ut arbitror causae, cur illi \u00c6gyptu de quibus loquitur\n      Socrates, lib. 5, prius quam ad mysteria accedercut, laute\n      caenarent, saith Casaubon Exerc. 16. 31.\n\n  783 Conc. Laodic., can. 28.\n\n  784 N. Fratri et Amico, art. 17.\n\n  785 Patric. Def., cap. 1, sect. 6.\n\n  786 Eccl. Pol., lib. 5, sect. 65.\n\n  787 Of the Lawfulness of Kneeling, cap. 17, p. 52.\n\n  788 Apol. for Kneeling, part 3, cap. 2, sect. 15.\n\n  789 Sarav. de Divers. Grad. Minist. Evang., cap. 24, sect. 25; Dr Field,\n      of the Church, lib. 4, cap. 31, p. 396; Ant. de Dom. Rep. Eccl.,\n      lib. 5, cap. num. 48, sect. 2.\n\n  790 Apol., part 3, cap. 2.\n\n  791 Eccl. Pol., lib. 4, sect. 1.\n\n  792 Ames. Fresh Suite, p. 223.\n\n  793 Supra, cap. 4, sect. 4.\n\n  794 Ibid., sect. 5.\n\n  795 Antith. Papal. et Christian., art. 11.\n\n  796 On Luke xxiv. 50.\n\n  797 Synt. Theol., lib. 9, cap. 38.\n\n  798 Com. on Gal. iii. 24.\n\n  799 Exam., part 2, De Rit. in Admin. Sacram., p. 32.\n\n  800 Animad. in Bell. de Cult. Sanct., cap. 5.\n\n  801 Luke xvi. 16.\n\n  802 Ames, Fresh Suite, p. 266.\n\n  803 Synt. Theol., lib. 6, cap. 10, p. 58, 59.\n\n  804 Synop. Pur. Theol., disp. 19, thes. 4.\n\n  805 Supra, cap. 4, sect. 9.\n\n  806 Of the Lawfulness of Kneeling, p. 116.\n\n  807 Apol., part 3, cap. 2, sect. 4.\n\n  808 Homil. 27, in 1 Cor.\n\n  809 Camer. Pr\u00e6lict., tom. 3, p. 37.\n\n  810 Calv. in Matt. xxi. 25.\n\n  811 Hist. of the Church of Scotland, lib. 1, p. 157-159.\n\n  812 Calv. in Josh. xxii.\n\n  813 Ibid.\n\n  814 On 1 Cor. xi, sect. 6.\n\n  815 Com. in illum locum.\n\n  816 Eccl. Pol., lib. 5, sect. 69.\n\n  817 On Pr\u00e6c. 4.\n\n  818 Epist. to the Pastors of the Church of Scotland.\n\n  819 Of the Lawfulness of Kneeling, p. 3.\n\n  820 Ibid, p. 11.\n\n  821 Ibid, p. 4.\n\n  822 Ibid., p. 14.\n\n  823 Ibid., p. 6, 7.\n\n  824 Fresh Suite, p. 153.\n\n  825 De Effect. Sacr., lib. 2, cap. 31.\n\n  826 In Praefat. Elench. Relig. Papistic.\n\n  827 De Cas. Consc., lib. 4, cap. 11.\n\n  828 Ames, Bell. Enerv., tom. 1, lib. 3, cap. 7.\n\n  829 Ubi supra.\n\n  830 Com. in illum locum.\n\n  831 On Matt. xix., sect. 9.\n\n  832 Iren., lib. 2, cap. 7, p. 6, 7.\n\n  833 Eccl. Pol. lib. 5, sect. 65.\n\n  834 De Imag. Sanct., cap. 29.\n\n  835 Com. in illum locum.\n\n  836 Com. in Ezek. ix. 4.\n\n  837 Ibid.\n\n  838 Gram. Hebr., part 1, cap. 1.\n\n  839 Com. in illum locum.\n\n  840 Animad. ad Bell. de Imag. Sanct., cap. 29.\n\n  841 Serm. on that place.\n\n  842 Lib. 5, cap. 22.\n\n  843 In Epist. ad quendam qui a Reform. Relig. ad Papism. defecerat.\n\n  844 Proc. in Perth Assembly, part. 3, p. 30.\n\n  845 Sermon on Esth. ix. 31.\n\n  846 De Pol. Mosis, cap. 7.\n\n  847 Moses and Aaron, lib. 3, cap. 11.\n\n  848 De Orig. Festor, cap. 2, ad finem.\n\n  849 Ubi supra, p. 31.\n\n  850 Annot. on John x.\n\n  851 Annot. on John x. 22.\n\n  852 Ubi supra, p. 31.\n\n  853 Com. in ilium locum.\n\n  854 Pr\u00e6lect. in Matt. xix. 3, de Pharis.\n\n  855 Antiq. Jud., lib. 13, cap. 24.\n\n  856 Antiq. Jud., lib. 17, cap. 3.\n\n  857 Ubi supra, p. 32.\n\n  858 In John x. 22.\n\n  859 Com. ibid.\n\n  860 Annot. ibid.\n\n  861 Aulmad. in Bell., contr. 3, lib. 4, cap. 17, nota. 6.\n\n  862 De Orig. Templ., lib. 4, cap. 22.\n\n  863 Calv. in Act. xviii. 21.\n\n  864 Sermon on 1 Cor. xi. 16.\n\n  865 Epist. 80, ad Eustath. Medic.\n\n  866 Ad Pompeium contra Epist. Stephani.\n\n  867 De Bapt. contra Donatist, lib. 4, cap. 5.\n\n  868 Ep. 31.\n\n  869 Decr., part 1, dist. 8, cap. 7.\n\n  870 Decr., part 2, caus. 35, quest. 9. cap. 3.\n\n  871 J. Lips., Lib. de Una Relig. Advers. Dialogistam.\n\n  872 Calv. Epist. et Resp., col. 484, 485.\n\n  873 Iren., lib. 1, cap. 8, sect. 3.\n\n  874 Annot. on 1 Cor. xi. 16.\n\n  875 Supra, cap. 2.\n\n  876 Of the Church, lib. 4, cap. 31.\n\n  877 Lib. 4, cap. 6, 34.\n\n  878 Supra, cap. 6, sect. 3.\n\n  879 Ep. to the Pastors of the Church of Scotland.\n\n  880 Lib. 5, cap. 22.\n\n  881 Lib. de Baptismo.\n\n  882 Prael., tom. 1, de Potest. Eccl., contr. 2.\n\n  883 Epist. to the Pastors of the Church of Scotland.\n\n  884 Sermon on Esth. ix. 31.\n\n  885 Of the Church, lib. 4, cap. 31.\n\n  886 De Polit. Mos., cap. 7.\n\n  887 De Sacram., lib. 2, cap. 29.\n\n  888 Bell. Enerv., tom. 3, lib. 1, cap. 8.\n\n  889 Manuduct., p. 33.\n\n  890 Pr\u00e6lect., tom. 1, p. 367.\n\n  891 In Apologet.\n\n  892 Chemnit. Exam., part 2, p. 121.\n\n  893 Calv. Instit, lib. 4, cap. 10, sect. 32.\n\n  894 Calv. Epist. et Resp., col. 478.\n\n  895 Manuduct., p. 37.\n\n  896 Of the Lawfulness of Kneeling, p. 2.\n\n  897 Cap. 1.\n\n  898 Supra, part 1, cap. 4, 6.\n\n  899 Fr. Jun. de Polit. Mos., cap. 1.\n\n  900 Apol., part 3, cap. 1, sect. 25.\n\n  901 Just., lib. 4, cap. 10, sect. 17.\n\n  902 Letter to the Regent of Scotland.\n\n  903 Eccl. Pol., lib. 2.\n\n  904 Praelect, tom. 1, p. 369.\n\n  905 Epist. to the Pastors of the Church of Scotland.\n\n  906 Course of Conformity, p. 153.\n\n  907 Epist. 118.\n\n  908 Com. in 1 Reg. viii. 65.\n\n  909 Supra, cap. 1, sect. 6.\n\n  910 In 2 Praec., col. 363.\n\n  911 Ib., col. 502.\n\n  912 Annot. on Phil. ii. 10.\n\n  913 Epist. ad Protect. Angl.\n\n  914 Causa 11, quest. 3, cap. 101.\n\n  915 In 4 Praec., col. 791.\n\n  916 De Jud. Controv., cap. 14, p. 76.\n\n  917 Of the Church, lib. 4, cap. 34, p. 400.\n\n  918 Gerard, Loc. Theol., tom. 6, p. 1280; Polan. Synt., lib. 10, cap.\n      162, col. 960.\n\n  919 Lib. 6, cap. 5, num. 3, 174.\n\n  920 Ostens. Error. Fr. Suarez, cap. 3, num. 23.\n\n  921 De Rep. Eccl., cap. 6, num. 38.\n\n  922 Ostens. Error. Fr. Suarez, cap. 3, num. 23.\n\n  923 Lib. 6, cap. 5, num. 174.\n\n  924 Ibid., num. 177.\n\n  925 J. Wolph. in 2 Reg. xii.\n\n  926 Id., ibid.\n\n  927 Zanch. In 3 Pr\u00e6c. 575-558.\n\n  928 Supra, cap. 6.\n\n  929 Prompt Morall, in Domin 1, quadrag. text 10.\n\n  930 Proc. in Perth Assembly.\n\n  931 Onuphr. de Vit. Hadr., 6.\n\n  932 De Imper. aut, lib. 2, cap. 55.\n\n  933 Praelect, tom. 1, p. 370, 372; tom. 2, p. 41.\n\n  934 Calv. in Psal. ii.\n\n  935 Taylor on Tit. iii. 1, p. 543.\n\n  936 Pareus in illum locum.\n\n  937 Iren., lib. 2, cap. 4, sect. 3.\n\n  938 Lib. 1.\n\n  939 Pareus in Rom. xiii. 4.\n\n  940 Dr Forb. Iren., lib. 2, cap. 4, sect. 10.\n\n  941 Taylor on Tit. i. 15, p. 295.\n\n  942 Animad. in Bell. Cont. 1, lib. 3, cap. 10.\n\n  943 Zanch. in Phil. 1. 10.\n\n  944 Ibid.\n\n  945 Cap. 14, p. 77.\n\n  946 Ibid., cap. 26, p. 152.\n\n  947 Danaeus Pol. Christ., lib. 6, cap. 3.\n\n  948 Zanch. in 4 Praec., col. 791; Polan. Synt., lib. 10, cap. 65.\n\n  949 Martyr. in 1 Reg. viii. 31.\n\n  950 Ibid., 1 Reg, viii. 32.\n\n  951 Ibid.\n\n  952 Hospin. De Orig. Templ., lib. 1, cap. 1, Wolph. in 2 Reg. xii. 4.\n\n  953 Hospin., ibid., p. 3.\n\n  954 De Justit. Actual., cap. 41.\n\n  955 De Judice Controv., cap. 26, p. 153.\n\n  956 De Imper. Author, lib. 2, cap. 52.\n\n  957 Animad. in Bell. contr. 4, lib. 1, cap. 12, 18.\n\n  958 Cartwr. on Matt. xxii., sect. 3.\n\n  959 Of the Church, lib. 5. cap. 53.\n\n  960 Decr., part 1, dist. 3, cap. 4.\n\n  961 Aquin. 1a, 2ae, quest. 92, art. 2.\n\n  962 Bald. de Cas. Consc., lib. 4, cap. 11, cas. 1.\n\n  963 Ibid.\n\n  964 Ibid., cas. 2.\n\n  965 Praelect., tom. 2, p. 50.\n\n  966 Til. Synt., part 2, disp. 32, th. 33.\n\n  967 Danaeus Pol. Christ., lib. 6, cap. 1.\n\n  968 Fr. Jun. Ecclesiat., lib. 3, cap. 4.\n\n  969 De Judice Controv., cap. 14, p. 70.\n\n  970 Gerard. locor. Theol., tom. 6, p. 840.\n\n  971 Zanch. in Eph. iv. 12.\n\n  972 De Cas. Consc., lib. 6, cap. 11, cas. 2.\n\n  973 Lib. 1, cap. 8.\n\n  974 Pol. Christ., lib. 6, cap. 3.\n\n  975 In 2 Reg. xii. 5.\n\n  976 Ubi supra.\n\n  977 Perk. on Rev. iii. 7.\n\n  978 Aquin, 3a, quest. 85, art 2.\n\n  979 Apud Parker of the Cross, cap. 5, sect. 6.\n\n  980 De Judice Controv., cap. 16, p. 92.\n\n  981 Praelect, tom. 1, p. 25.\n\n  982 Locor. Theol., tom. 6, p. 963.\n\n  983 De Judice Controv., cap. 16, p. 86, 87.\n\n  984 Perkins on Rev. i. 5.\n\n  985 Iren, lib. 2, cap. 4, sect. 3.\n\n  986 Just, lib. 4, cap. 20, sect. 9.\n\n  987 Cart, on Acts viii. seq 7.\n\n  988 G. Buchan. Hist. Rer. Scot, lib. 5, p. 152.\n\n  989 Confess., cap. 5, art. 20.\n\n  990 Epist. ad Regin. Elisab. Epistolar., lib. 1, p. 112.\n\n  991 De Effect. Sacr., cap. 31.\n\n  992 Rat., lib. 1; Tit. de Pictur. et Cortin.\n\n  993 Fr. Jun. Animad in Bell., con. 5. lib. 1, cap. 11.\n\n  994 Lib. 4, dist. 24.\n\n  995 De Rep. Eccl., lib. 2, cap. 3, num. 47.\n\n  996 Loc. Theol., tom. 6, p. 374-376.\n\n  997 Tertullian also maketh mention of them, Apologet., cap. 39; and\n      Clemens, epist. 1, ad Jacob.\n\n  998 On 1 Tim. v. 1.\n\n  999 On 1 Tim. v. 17.\n\n 1000 Zanch. in 4 Praec, col. 766, 767.\n\n 1001 Jun. Anim. in Bell., cont. 5, lib. 1, cap. 13.\n\n 1002 Jun. ubi sup., cap. 7, nota. 17; Bald. de Cas. Cons., lib. 4, cap.\n      5, cas. 5; Ger. Loc. Theol., tom. 6, p. 835, 132.\n\n 1003 In 4 Praec., col. 794.\n\n 1004 Anim. in Bell., cont. 5, lib. 1, cap. 7, nota. 59.\n\n 1005 Charity Mistaken, sect. 5, p. 145.\n\n 1006 De Cleric., lib. 1, cap. 7.\n\n 1007 Ubi supra., nota. 55.\n\n 1008 Loc. Theol., tom. 6, p. 151.\n\n 1009 On Acts xiv. 23.\n\n 1010 Ubi supra., nota. 63, 64.\n\n 1011 Dec., part. 1, dist. 62.\n\n 1012 Thuar. Hist., lib. 83, p. 85.\n\n 1013 Hist. Eccl., cent. 4, lib. 3. cap. 38.\n\n 1014 In Acts xiv. 23.\n\n 1015 Ubi supra., p. 178.\n\n 1016 Ubi supra., nota. 16.\n\n 1017 Jun., ubi supra., nota. 24.\n\n 1018 In Tim. iv. 14.\n\n 1019 Ubi supra., cap. 3.\n\n 1020 De Gubern. Eccl.\n\n 1021 De Rep. Eccl., lib. 2, cap. 3, num. 54; et cap. 4, num. 13, 19; et\n      lib. 2, cap. 5, num. 48.\n\n 1022 Ubi supra., cap. 7. nota. 59.\n\n 1023 Exam., part 2, p. 221.\n\n 1024 Ubi supra.\n\n 1025 Supra, cap. 5.\n\n 1026 Supra., cap. 2.\n\n 1027 Anim. in Bell, cont. 5, hb. 1. cap 3.\n\n 1028 Ger. Loc. Theol, tom 6, p. 135; Bald. de Cas. Consc, lib. 4, cap. 6,\n      cas. 4.\n\n 1029 On Rom. x. 15.\n\n 1030 On Rom. x. 15.\n\n 1031 Ubi Supra.\n\n 1032 Syn. Pur. Theol., disp. 42, thes. 32, 37.\n\n 1033 Com. in Tit. i.\n\n 1034 Gerhard Loc. Theol., tom. 6, p. 134, 164.\n\n 1035 Jun, ubi sup., nota. 5, 12, Syn. Pur. Theol., disp. 42, thes. 37.\n\n 1036 Serm. on Rev. i. 20.\n\n 1037 Iren., lib. 2, cap. 11, p. 161.\n\n 1038 Epist. ad Evagr.\n\n 1039 Jun., ubi sup., nota. 22.\n\n 1040 Ibid., nota. 10.\n\n 1041 Iren., lib. 2, cap. 11, p. 165.\n\n 1042 Dist. 23, cap. 8.\n\n 1043 Ubi sup., p. 175, et seq.\n\n 1044 Apud Forbesse, ubi sup., p. 177.\n\n 1045 Ibid, p. 194-196.\n\n 1046 Disp. 49, thes. 20.\n\n 1047 Ibid, thes. 21.\n\n 1048 Thes. 22.\n\n 1049 Thes. 23.\n\n 1050 Thes. 21.\n\n 1051 M. Ant. de Dom. de Rep. Eccl., lib. 6. cap. 5, num. 89.\n\n 1052 Animad. In Bell., cont. 4, lib. 1, cap. 12, not. 4, 18.\n\n 1053 De Rep. Eccl., lib, 6, cap. 5, num. 16.\n\n 1054 Animad. in Bell., cont. 4, lib. 1, cap. 19, not. 12.\n\n 1055 De Rep. Eccl., lib. 7, cap. 3, not. 43.\n\n 1056 Jun., cont. 1, lib. 3, cap. 4, not. 17.\n\n 1057 M. Ant. de Dom. de Rep. Eccl., lib. 7, cap. 3, not. 32.\n\n 1058 Davenant de Jud. Controv., cap. 25; Jun., ubi supra.\n\n 1059 Of the Church, lib. 5, cap. 53.\n\n 1060 De Jud. Controv., cap. 16, p. 92.\n\n 1061 Ibid., cap. 14, p. 75.\n\n 1062 Animad. in Bell., cont. 4, lib. 1, cap. 23, nota. 15.\n\n 1063 De Rep. Eccl., lib. 6, cap. 5, num. 8, 30.\n\n 1064 De Rep., num. 33.\n\n 1065 Decr., part 2, causa 2, quest. 7, cap. 41.\n\n 1066 On 1 Cor. v. 4.\n\n 1067 De Cas. Consc., lib. 4, cap. 10, cas. 9.\n\n 1068 Cent. 5, cap. 4, col. 383.\n\n 1069 Loc. Theol., tom. 6, p. 236, 237.\n\n 1070 In Matt. xviii. 17.\n\n 1071 On Jude 3.\n\n 1072 De Tripl. Episc. Gen., p. 42, 43.\n\n 1073 In 1 Cor. v. 4.\n\n 1074 Animad. in Bell., cont. 4, lib. 2, cap. 16, n. 6.\n\n 1075 Jun. ubi supra., n. 7.\n\n 1076 Id., cont. 3, lib. 4, cap. 16, n. 37.\n\n 1077 Ubi supra.\n\n 1078 Supr. Digr.\n\n 1079 Apud Zanch. in 4 Pr\u00e6c., col. 745.\n\n 1080 In 4 Pr\u00e6c., col. 741.\n\n 1081 Cont. 3, lib. 1, cap. 6, n. 19.\n\n 1082 Pr\u00e6lect, tom. 1. p. 23.\n\n 1083 Calv. et Cart. on Matt. xviii 17; Par. in 1 Cor. v.\n\n 1084 Loc. Theol., tom. 6, p. 137.\n\n 1085 Trelcat. Inst. Theol., lib. 1, p. 291.\n\n 1086 In 1 Cor. v. 4.\n\n 1087 Com. in illum locum.\n\n 1088 De Divers Minist. Grad., cap. 8, p. 85.\n\n 1089 On 2 Cor. ii. 6.\n\n 1090 Ubi supra.\n\n 1091 Exam., part 4; de Indulg., p. 53.\n\n 1092 Com. in hunc locum.\n\n 1093 Annot., ibid.\n\n 1094 Trelcat. Inst. Theol., lib. 2, p. 287, 288; Pareus in 1 Cor. v., de\n      Excom.\n\n 1095 In 4 Praec., col. 756.\n\n 1096 Lib. Epistolar., col. 180.\n\n 1097 Iren., lib. 2, cap. 12.\n\n 1098 Zanch. in 4 Praec., col. 756; Dr Fulk on 1 Cor. v. 4.\n\n 1099 De Tripl. Episc. Gener., p. 43.\n\n 1100 De Divers. Minist. Grad., p. 85, 86.\n\n 1101 Zanch., ubi supra; Synop. Pur. Theol., disp. 48, thes. 9.\n\n 1102 Loc. Theol., tom. 6, p. 463.\n\n 1103 Ubi Supra.\n\n 1104 Lib. 3, Contra. Epist. Parmen.\n\n 1105 Ant. de Dom. de Rep. Eccl., lib. 5, cap. 12, n. 67.\n\n 1106 Ib. cap. 9, n. 8.\n\n 1107 In 2 Cor., hom. 18.\n\n 1108 Apologet., cap. 39; See Rhenanus\u2019 Annotation upon that place, and M.\n      Ant. de Dom. de Rep. Eccl., lib. 5, cap. 12, n. 6, 7.\n\n 1109 Lib. 3, epist. 14-16, et lib. 5, epist. 12.\n\n 1110 Epist. ad Evagr.\n\n 1111 In Matt. xvi.\n\n 1112 Decr., part 2, causa 11, quest. 3, cap. 108, 110.\n\n 1113 Iren., lib. 2, cap. 11, p. 195.\n\n 1114 Ib., p. 191.\n\n 1115 P. 195, n. 25.\n\n 1116 Lib. 6, cap. 9.\n\n 1117 Calv., Lib. Epistolar. Lar., col. 169; Gratian, caus. 11, quest. 1,\n      cap. 20.\n\n 1118 Contr. 4, lib. 1, cap. 20, n. 8.\n\n 1119 Fenner. Theol., lib. 7, cap. 7, p. 153.\n\n 1120 Hemmin. Enchir., class. 3, cap. 11, p. 390, 391.\n\n 1121 Can. 11.\n\n 1122 Hist. Ecc., cent. 4, lib. 2. cap. 48, p. 242.\n\n 1123 Loc. Theol., tom. 6, p. 838.\n\n 1124 De Cas. Consc., lib. 4, cap. 5, cas. 12.\n\n 1125 Ecclesiast., lib. 3, cap. 3.\n\n 1126 Apud Forb. Iren., lib. 2, cap. 11, p. 177.\n\n 1127 Defens., lib. 1, p. 8.\n\n 1128 Bonifac. VIII., De Regal. Juris. reg. 79.\n\n 1129 Of the Church, lib. 5, cap. 53, p. 682.\n\n 1130 Novel. 83. cap. 1.\n\n 1131 Supra, cap. 6, sect. 1.\n\n 1132 Eccl. Pol., lib. 4, sect. 1.\n\n 1133 Zanch., lib. 1, De Lege Dei. Thess., col. 190.\n\n 1134 A. Pol. Synt., lib. 6, cap. 9, col. 49; D. Pau., Explic. Catech.,\n      part. 3, quest. 92, p. 503.\n\n 1135 Fr. Irn. de Pol. Mos.\n\n 1136 Id., ibid.\n\n 1137 Instit., lib. 1, tit. 2.\n\n 1138 De Rep. Eccl., lib. 6, cap. 2, n. 35.\n\n 1139 Schol. in Instit., lib. 1, tit. 2.\n\n 1140 1, 2, quest. 91, art. 2.\n\n 1141 Ubi supra.\n\n 1142 Antiquit. Rom., lib. 8. cap. 1.\n\n 1143 Ubi supra., quest. 95, art. 4.\n\n 1144 Schol. in Instit., lib. 1, tit. 2.\n\n 1145 Rosin. ubi supra; Synops. Pur. Theol., disp. 18, thes. 16; Til.\n      Synt., part 1, disp. 35, thes. 16; Jun. de Pol. Mos., cap. 1.\n\n 1146 Aquin. ubi supra., quest. 94, art. 2.\n\n 1147 Zanch. ubi supra., col. 188, 189; Jun. ubi supra.; Sharp. Curae\n      Theol. de Lege Del., p. 299.\n\n 1148 De Subtil., exerc. 9, dist. 8.\n\n 1149 Lib. 3, Offic.\n\n 1150 Par. Com. in illum locum.\n\n 1151 Jun. de Pol. Mos. cap. 1; Par. Com. in Rom. i. 19.\n\n 1152 1a., 2\u00e6., quest. 91, art. 4.\n\n 1153 Jun., ubi supra.\n\n 1154 Jun., ibid.\n\n 1155 De Subtil., everc. 77, dict. 2.\n\n 1156 Jun. ubi supra.\n\n 1157 Ubi supra.\n\n 1158 Disp. 18, thes. 26.\n\n 1159 1a., 2ae., quest. 94, art. 4.\n\n 1160 Ubi supra., thes. 9.\n\n 1161 In Luke vi. 31.\n\n 1162 Lib. 2, Confess., cap. 4.\n\n 1163 Com. in illum locum.\n\n 1164 Lib. 10, Confess., cap. 6.\n\n 1165 Com. in illum locum.\n\n 1166 De Subtil., exerc. 2.\n\n 1167 Lib. 2, de Nat. Deor.\n\n 1168 Jun. ubi supra.\n\n 1169 De Benef., lib. 5, cap. 16.\n\n 1170 1. 2ae., quest. 18, art. 9.\n\n 1171 Bald. de Cas. Consc., lib. 2, cap. 9, cas. 9.\n\n 1172 Iren., lib. 1, cap. 13, sect. 7.\n\n 1173 Ibid., sect. 10.\n\n 1174 Ubi supra.\n\n 1175 Ubi supra., ap. 13, sect. 7.\n\n 1176 Questio, quid est; de quolibet individuo contento sub specie, non\n      petit quidditatem ejus singuarem, sed communem totius speciei, saith\n      P. Fonseca, Com. in Metaph. Arist., lib. 7, cap. 15, quest. unic.,\n      sect. 2.\n\n 1177 Aquinas 1, 2, quest. 21, art. 2.\n\n 1178 De Subtil., exerc. 307, dict. 27.\n\n 1179 1a., 2ae, quest. 10, art. 1.\n\n 1180 Ubi supra., cap. 13, sect. 7.\n\n 1181 Aquin. 1, 2, quest. 31, art. 8.\n\n 1182 Ubi supra.\n\n 1183 Ubi supra.\n\n 1184 Ubi supra., lib. 2, cap. 5, num. 1.\n\n 1185 Schol. in lib. 2, de Benif.\n\n 1186 Jun. de Pol. Mos., cap. 5.\n\n 1187 Aquin. 1, 2, quest. 18, art. 3.\n\n 1188 Camer. Prael., tom. 2, p. 49.\n\n 1189 Dr Burges of the Lawf. of Kneel., cap. 1.\n\n 1190 Com. in illum locum.\n\n 1191 Pareus Com. in illum locum.\n\n 1192 Calv. Com. in illum locum.\n\n 1193 In Rom. xiv. 7, 8.\n\n 1194 Iren., lib. 1, cap. 12, sect. 16.\n\n 1195 Expos. in Col. iii. 17.\n\n 1196 Ubi supra., cap. 11, sect. 36.\n\n 1197 In Acts xv., n. 18.\n\n 1198 Annot. on Acts xv., sect. 10.\n\n 1199 Zanch. in Eph. vi. 5, 6.\n\n 1200 Taylor on Tit. i. 15, p. 295.\n\n 1201 Id. Ibid., p. 289.\n\n 1202 Cal. in Rom. iv. 5.\n\n 1203 Ames., lib. 3; de Consc., cap. 8, quest. 5.\n\n 1204 Aquin. 1, 2, quest. 18, art. 8.\n\n 1205 Ibid., art. 9.\n\n 1206 Hist. of the Council of Trent., lib. 2, p. 196.\n\n 1207 Com. in 1 Cor. vi. 12.\n\n 1208 In Rom. xiv., dub. 1.\n\n 1209 Iren., lib. 1, cap. 13, sect. 7, 9, 10.\n\n 1210 Com. in Rom. xiv. 23.\n\n 1211 Prael., tom. 2, p. 345.\n\n 1212 G. Sanctius in Acts xvi. 3.\n\n 1213 De Instit. Actual., cap. 42, p. 490.\n\n 1214 Apol., part 1, cap. 9, sect 1.\n\n 1215 Lib. 2, epist. 3.\n\n 1216 Proc. in Perth Assemb., part. 2, p. 38, 40.\n\n 1217 Ubi supra.\n\n 1218 Supra., part 3, cap. 6, sect, 12.\n\n 1219 Com. in Matt. xxvi. 27.\n\n 1220 Ubi supra, p. 62.\n\n 1221 Maldon., ubi supra.\n\n 1222 De re Sacram., lib. 2, p. 31.\n\n 1223 Com. in Matt. xxvi. 26.\n\n 1224 Com. in 1 Cor. xi. 21.\n\n 1225 Instit., lib. 4, cap. 17, sect. 35.\n\n 1226 Apud Didoclav., p. 794.\n\n 1227 Disp. 3, de Symb., Coenae Dom., thes. 4.\n\n 1228 Ubi supra.\n\n 1229 Aquin. 3, quest. 81, art. 1.\n\n 1230 De Sacr. Eucharist., lib. 4, cap. 30.\n\n 1231 Concord Evang., cap. 129.\n\n 1232 In Luke xxii. 19.\n\n 1233 Apol., p. 2, cap. 3, sect. 5.\n\n 1234 Joseph., lib. 7; de Bello Jud., cap. 17.\n\n 1235 Moses and Aaron, lib. 3, cap. 4.\n\n 1236 Com. in Matt. xxvi. 21.\n\n 1237 Ubi supra.\n\n 1238 Com. in John xiii. 2.\n\n 1239 Ubi supra.\n\n 1240 Annot. in 1 Cor. xi. 13.\n\n 1241 Ubi supra.\n\n 1242 Par., ubi supra.\n\n 1243 Jansen. Conc. Evan., cap. 131.\n\n 1244 Iren., lib. 2, p. 55, 361, 362.\n\n 1245 Alt. Dam., p. 739.\n\n 1246 Hadr. Jun. in Nomenclat.\n\n 1247 Ubi supra., p. 46.\n\n 1248 Tract, die Festo Virid., p. 256.\n\n 1249 In Luke xxii. 14.\n\n 1250 Pr\u00e6letc., tom. 3, p. 27.\n\n 1251 Partic Def., cap. 3, sect. 4.\n\n 1252 Annot. on 1 Cor. xi. 23.\n\n 1253 Ubi supra., p. 11.\n\n 1254 See Alt. Dam., p. 742.\n\n 1255 Ubi supra., p. 40.\n\n 1256 Eccl. Pol., lib. 5, sect. 68.\n\n 1257 Pareus in 1 Cor. xi. 24.\n\n 1258 De Symb. Coenae Dom., disp. 2, thes. 5.\n\n 1259 Part 2, p. 55-57.\n\n 1260 Ibid.\n\n 1261 Com. in Matt. xxvi. 26.\n\n 1262 Ames. Bell. Ener., tom. 3, lib. 1, cap. 2, quest. 1.\n\n 1263 Cartwr. on Matt. xxvl., sect. 6.\n\n 1264 Defence of the English Translation, cap. 17, n. 5.\n\n 1265 Com. in Mal. i. 11.\n\n 1266 G. J. Voss. de Symb. Coenae Dom., disp. 2, thes. 2.\n\n 1267 Instit. Theol., lib. 2, p. 258.\n\n 1268 Ames., ubi supra.\n\n 1269 Ames. ubi supra., lib. 4, cap. 6.\n\n 1270 Apud Ames. ibid., lib. 1, cap. 2.\n\n 1271 Aquin. 3, quest. 60, art. 8.\n\n 1272 In Euchir. Contr. inter Evang. et Pontif.\n\n 1273 Ubi supra.\n\n 1274 Alsted Theol. Cas., cap. 15, p. 170.\n\n 1275 Decret. Greg., lib. 2, tit. 24, cap. 8.\n\n 1276 Iren., lib. 1, cap. 9, sect. 2.\n\n 1277 Dr Forbesse, ibid., sect. 3.\n\n 1278 In Jos. ix. 19.\n\n 1279 Com. in Jos. ix.\n\n 1280 Contempl., lib. 8, of the Gibeon.\n\n 1281 Com. in Jos. ix.\n\n 1282 Ames., lib. 4, de Consc., cap. 22, quest. 9.\n\n 1283 Part 2, p. 5.\n\n 1284 Supra, part 3, cap. 7, sect. 5.\n\n 1285 Ubi supra, p. 16.\n\n 1286 Iren., lib. 1, cap. 7, sect. 3, 4, 6.\n\n 1287 Ibid., sect. 4, 6.\n\n 1288 Aquin., 2a., 2ae., quest. 49, art. 3.\n\n 1289 Zanch. in 3 um. Praec., p. 599.\n\n 1290 Polan. Synt, Theol., lib. 9, cap. 23, p. 802; Zanchius in 3 um.\n      Praec., p. 599.\n\n 1291 Aquin., 2a., 2ae., quest. 89, art. 9.\n\n 1292 Aquin., ubi supra., quest. 48, art. 2.\n\n 1293 Detr. Greg, lib. 2, tit. 24, cap. 35.\n\n 1294 Ubi supra., p. 9.\n\n 1295 Ibid., p. 12.\n\n 1296 Ubi supra.\n\n 1297 Zanchius giveth the name of ecclesiastical discipline to the rights\n      and policy of the church and laws made thereanent in 4 Praec., col.\n      763.\n\n 1298 Ubi supra., p. 10.\n\n 1299 Supra., cap. 3.\n\n 1300 Aquin., 1a., 2ae., quest. 95, art. 3.\n\n 1301 Com. in illum locum.\n\n 1302 Com., ibid.\n\n 1303 Cent. 3, cap. 4, col. 86.\n\n 1304 Ibid.\n\n 1305 Supra, part 1, cap. 3, 4.\n\n 1306 Supra, part 1, cap. 6, 9, sect. 4.\n\n 1307 Apud Park. of the Cross, cap. 3, sect. 6.\n\n 1308 De Cas. Consc., lib. 4, cap. 11, cas. 3.\n\n 1309 Cent. 1, lib. 2, cap. 4, col. 441.\n\n 1310 Com. in Rom. xiv., dub. 1.\n\n 1311 De Imagn., p. 390.\n\n 1312 Exam., part 1, p. 179.\n\n 1313 Epist. 86, ad Casulam.\n\n 1314 1 Cor. viii. 8, 9.\n\n 1315 Supra, part 2, cap. 9.\n\n 1316 Supra, cap. 1.\n\n 1317 Ibid., cap. 1.\n\n 1318 Supra, part 3, cap. 2.\n\n 1319 Lib. 1, de Cult. Dei Extern., col. 46.\n\n 1320 Synt. Theol., lib. 9, cap. 38.\n\n 1321 Lib. 7, Contempl. of the Brazen Serpent.\n\n 1322 Com. in Eph. v.; de Bapt., cap. 7.\n\n 1323 Supra, cap. 5-7; part 1, cap. 8, 9, sect. 2; part 3, cap. 1, sect.\n      3, 4, 5, 28; part 2, cap. 9, sect. 14.\n\n 1324 Ration., lib. 6, tit. de Die Sanct. Pasch.\n\n 1325 Supra, part 3, cap. 3.\n\n 1326 Supra, part 3, cap. 1.\n\n 1327 Supra, part 3, cap. 5, 6, sect. 3, 7; sect. 5, 10-14.\n\n 1328 De Cult. Dei Extern., col. 494.\n\n 1329 Calv. Epist. et Resp., col. 119.\n\n 1330 Grotii Apologet, cap. 5. \u201cExtranci autem quo rum maximus esse\n      debuerut usus in pace concili anda ex partium altera erant\n      conquisiti. Et infia losa mandata externis data damnationem remon\n      strautium pr\u00e6 se ferebant, ut et orationes habit\u00e6 ante causam\n      cognitam.\u201d The Arminians, in their Presbyterorum Censur\u00e6, cap. 25,\n      p. 286, 287, hold this as a necessary qualification of those that\n      are admitted into synods, that they be not astricted to any church,\n      not to any confession of faith.\n\n 1331 In our first paper presented to the Grand Committee.\n\n 1332 Bellarm. de Cler., lib. 1, cap. 1.\n\n 1333 \u05d9\u05d7\u05d3 _una simul_, from \u05d9\u05d7\u05d3 _unire_.\n\n 1334 Maldonatus, Mercerus.\n\n 1335 Melancthon.\n\n 1336 Jansenius, Diodati.\n\n 1337 D. Jermin.\n\n 1338 P\u00e6dag., lib. 2, cap. 12.\n\n 1339 Religionis Christianae brevis Institutio. Anno 1634, ca. 23. Quid\n      est regium munus? Resp. Est munus ipsi \u00e0 Deo commissum omnes\n      creaturas intelligentia praeditas, ac imprimis homines et ecclesiam\n      ex iis collectam, summa cum auctoritate ac potestate gubernandi.\n      Jac. Martini Synops. Relig. Photin., cap. 23. Etiamsi non negemus\n      Christo jam ad dextrum Dei sedenti subjecta esse omnia, inimicosque\n      ipsi subjici tanquam scabellum pedum suorum, &c. Proprie tamen\n      dicitur Rex suae ecclesiae, uti etiam ecclesia, proprie loquendo\n      ejus regnum est. Sic enim de ipso vaticinatus est Zecharias, cap.\n      ix. 9, &c. Unde etiam nos cum Hasenreffero officium Christi regium\n      definimus, quo Christus cives suos Verbi ministerio usque ad mundi\n      finem colligit, eosque praeclaris donis ornat, contra hostes (in\n      quorum medio dominatur) fortiter defendit, ac tandem aeterna gloria\n      et honore coronat. Fr. Gomar. Aral. prop. Obad. vers. ult. Is autem\n      Jesus Christus, in N.T. exhibitus Rex. Qui ut cum patre habet regnum\n      generale omnipotentiae: ita habet speciale, de quo hic agitur,\n      mediationis.\n\n 1340 Gualther Archetyp in 1 Cor. v. 5 Decrevi impurum hunc tradendum ease\n      Satan\u00e6, id est ejiciendum ex ecclesta, &c. Ratio locutionis quia\n      extra ecclesiam Satan regnat, in ver 6, lta vero in nuit disciplinam\n      necessariam esse, ne contagium peccandi serpat, in ver 9-11,\n      Catalogus eorum qui debent excommunicari, ibid, Imo non sufficiunt\n      ministri nisi publica authoritate juventur Ideo Paulus Corinthios\n      tam multis monet, ut ecclesi\u00e6 disciplinam instaurent, et formentum\n      omne ex purgent, in ver 13, Tollite, &c. Si Christiam eatis si\n      ecclesiam vultus habere puram, utimini jure vestro Bullinger in 1\n      Cor. v. 3-5 Viri ergo Apostolici et veterea quique contuinaces et\n      eccle slastica censura dignos e contubernio sanctorum abjecerent,\n      excludentes eoa a sacris c\u00e6tibus, et communione corporis et\n      sanguinis mystici. And a little after Quod si his quoque addas\n      ordinationem Christi ex Matth\u00e6o, vidobis cam hue quoque spectare, ut\n      publice mulctetur quis pretis commonitionibus amicis, in honcate\n      perrexerit vivere Esae cum ethnicum et publicanum, est deleri e\n      catalogo ecclesiastico et reccasori haberiquc futer factnorosos\n      quibus nihil neque officii, nequc sinceri tuto cominittas.\n\n 1341 Aret. Theol. Probl. loc. 133. A Deo originem habet, et a Christo\n      confirmata fuit. And after Supra de origine dixi, indicans a Deo\n      indictam fuisse hauc disciplinam, &c. Demum Christus filius Dei\n      eandem ecclesi\u00e6 su\u00e6 commendavit.\n\n 1342 Wolphius Com. in Lib. Esdr\u00e6, p. 21: Atque hoc exemplo veteris\n      Testamenti discimus quid facto opus sit in novo Tiempe ut crebris\n      synodis ac censuris, in vocationem in doctrinam, in vitam \u00e6c mores\n      ecclesiustarum inspiciatur.\n\n 1343 In ecclesiis ditionis Tigurin\u00e6, deliguntur seniores, qui una cum\n      pastore vitia corrigant. Postea magistratus de facinorosis veluti\n      blasphemia, per juris, p\u00e6tias sumit.\n\n 1344 Bullinger in 1 Cor. v.: Et hac tenus de castigatione scelerum\n      ecclesiastica. Hic tamen diligenter admonitos volo fratres,\n      vigilent, et omni diligentia curent, ut salutare hoc pharmacum, e\n      c\u00e6tu sanctorum pontificis avaritia eliminatum, reducatur, hoc est ut\n      scelera offendentia plectantur. Hic enim unicus est\n      excommunicationis finis, ut mores excolatur et florcant sancti,\n      prophani vero coerceantur, ne mali porro impudentia ac impietate\n      grassentur. Nostrum est ista o fratres, summa cum diligentia curare.\n      Videmus enim et Paulum cessantes hoc loco incitare. Aretius, ubi\n      supra: Magistratus jugum non admittunt, timent honoribus, licentiam\n      amant, &c. Vulgus quoque et pleba dissolutior: major para\n      corruptissima est, &c. Interea non desperandum esse libenter fateor\n      dabit posterior \u00e6tas tractabiliores forte animas, mitiora pectora,\n      quam nostra habent secula. Lavater in Nebem, homil. 52: Quia\n      pontifices Romani excommunicatione ad stabiliendam suamt yranuidem\n      abusi sunt, factum est ut nulla fere justa disciplina amplius in\n      ecclesiis justitul possis nisi autem flagitiosi coerceautur, omnia\n      ruaut in pejus neccesse est.\n\n 1345 Math Martinius in Lex Philol Maledico malum loquor alvo juste sine\n      Injuria.\n\n 1346 Lib. 2. cap. 4.\n\n 1347 Illeron Bustochio.\n\n 1348 \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 Quod propemodum valet ac si dicas, facite ut pondus et\n      auctoritatem habeat charitas erga illum. Loquitur enim velut ad\n      judices et concionem, quorum suffragiis velit absolvi eum, qui\n      traditus fuerat Satanae. Nam \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 concionem significat, in qua\n      creantur magistratus, quae Latini vocant comitia, et diem alicujus\n      rei causa praestitutum, et jus aliquod agendi. Quin et \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd Graeci\n      dicunt scriptum authenticum, authoribus Hesychio et Suida. Mihi\n      videtur et ea sententia quae vicisset in suffragiis dicta fuisse\n      \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03b1.\n\n 1349 Hesych., \u1f18\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u1fb6, \u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03c9\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f41 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u1f74\u03bd \u03bd\u03cd\u03be\u03b5\u03b9.\n\n 1350 Julius Pollux, lib. 8, cap. 5, \u0395\u03af \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b7\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c7\u03c1\u1f74\n      \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2, \u03c6\u03b7\u03c4\u03af\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b7, \u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03b1, \u03c0\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1 \u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, \u03b6\u03b7\u03bc\u03af\u03b1, \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b6\u03ae\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, \u03c4\u03af\u03bc\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1,\n      \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03bc\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1, \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03af\u03bc\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1. \u039a\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ce\u03c2 \u0391\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03c6\u03cc\u03c2, \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03af\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b6\u03bf\u03bb\u1f74, \u03b5\u1f50\u03b8\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7,\n      \u1f43\u03c6\u03bb\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1, &c.\n\n 1351 Clemens Alexandrinus, Paedag, lib. 1, cap. 10, useth promiscuously\n      \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03af\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd and \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03af\u03b1, in one and the same sentence, to express\n      punishment: \u03a4\u1f78 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03af\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03c9\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd,\n      \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f51\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u03b5\u03af\u03be\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u1f72\u03c2, \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03c8\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f30\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n      \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03c2. Which Gentianus Hervetus, his interpreter, readeth thus:\n      _Cum peccatorum poenas, et facilem et tanquam ventis perflabilem\n      eorum dissipationem ostendisset poedagogus, per poenam a causa\n      dehortatus est._ Again, Paedag, lib. 3, cap. 2, _ad finem_: \u0391\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\n      \u03a3\u03b9\u03ba\u03b9\u03bc\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03c4\u03c9\u03ba\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2. The interpreter thus: _Quin\n      etiam Sichimitoe puniuntur, qui lapsi sunt, sanctoe virgini probrum\n      inferentes. Sepulchrum eis est supplicium, et poenoe monimentum nos\n      ducit ad salutem._\n\n 1352 Concil. Antioch sub Constantio, can. 4. Si quis episcopus a synodo\n      depositus, vel diaconus a proprio episcopo, sacrum celebrare ausus\n      fuerit, &c. Concil. Hispal. 2, can. 6, Ut nullus nostrum sine\n      concilii examine, dejicere quemlibet presbyterum vel diaconum\n      audeat. Episcopus enim sacerdotibus et ministris solus honorem dare\n      poteat: auferre solus non potest. Vide etiam Conc. Afric., can. 20;\n      Conc. Carthag. 4, can. 23.\n\n 1353 Salinas. Appar. ad lib. de Primat., p. 298, 299. Non enim potestatem\n      quam in ordinatione accepit per impositionem manuum, potest eripere\n      princeps, cum nec eam possit dare. Si princeps igitur velit\n      ministrum aliquem ob sua peccata proreus degradari et ministerium\n      simul cum ejus functione amittere, per pastores ipsos id faciendum\n      debet curare, qui Judices veri ipsius sunt, et auferre soli possunt\n      quod per ordinationem dederunt. Imperatores Romani quos per vim\n      ejicerent, quia intelligebant potestatem ministerii fungendi non\n      aliter iis adimere posse, in exilium eos mittebant. Quod possemus\n      infinitis testimoniis demonstrare. Relegatus hoc modo episcopus\n      remanebat nihilominus episcopus, non ordine excidebat episcopali,\n      nec ad laicorum ordinem redigebatur.\n\n 1354 Gerhard. loc. Com., tom. 6, p. 201. Probari nequit illorum\n      pseudopoliticorum opipio, qui ad jura regalia magistratus remotionem\n      ministrorum pertinere censent. See Fr. Junius, Ecclesiast., lib. 3,\n      cap. 3; et Animad. in Bell. Contr., 4, lib. 1, cap. 20, not. 8;\n      Balduin., de Cas. Conscient., lib. 4, cap. 5, cas. 12.\n\n 1355 Vide apud Synod Dordrac, sess. 25, Conditiones synodi legitime\n      instituend\u00e6 quas remonstrantes, &c., condit. 9.\n\n 1356 Ut de controversis articulis non fiat decisio, sed accommodationi\n      studeatur: cujus tamen via et ratio rata non habeatur, nisi\n      accedente utriusque partis consensu.\n\n 1357 System. Log., lib. 3, cap. 5.\n\n 1358 Aret. Probl. Theol., loc. 8. Privatis satis est ferre utrinque\n      utrosque (infirmos et palam sceleratos) emendare autem quoties fert\n      examplo et doctrina. Si parum vel nihil etiam proficiat, non habet\n      ob id causam secedendi. Nec est quod contaminationem metuat, modo\n      non consentiat sceleribus, &c., nihil ad me attinet in communione\n      coenae Domini, in caetu publico cum audio verbum Dei (which last\n      clause Mr Coleman leaves out without so much as &c.), quales singuli\n      sint mecum participantes.\n\n 1359 Aug. de Fide et Operibus, cap. 2, Et Phinees sacerdos adulteros\n      simul inventos ferro ultore confixit. Quod utique degradationibus et\n      excommunicationibus significatum est esse faciendum in hoc tempore,\n      cum in ecclesiae disciplina visibilis fuerat gladius cessaturus.\n\n 1360 Tert. Apologet., cap. 39. Ibidem etiam exhortationes, castigationes,\n      et censura divina. Nam et judicatur magno cum pondere, ut apud\n      certos de Dei conspectu: summumque futuri judicii praejudicium est,\n      si quis ita deliquerit, ut a communicatione orationis, et conventus,\n      et omnis sancti commercii relegetur. Praesident probati quique\n      seniores, honorem iatum non pretio sed testimonio adepti.\n\n 1361 Liberty of Conscience, p. 34, 35.\n\n 1362 Armagh, Serm. at Oxford, March 3, p. 17, 19, 27.\n\n 1363 Grotius, de Jure Belli ac Pacis, lib. 1, cap, 4, sect 7. Haec autem\n      lex de qua agimus (_de non resistendo supremis potestatibus_)\n      pendere videtur a voluntate eorum qui se primum in societatem\n      civilem consociant, a quibus jus porro ad imperantes manat. Hi vero\n      si interrogarentur an velint omnibus hoc onus imponere, ut mori\n      praeoptent, quam ullo casu vim superiorum armis arcere, nescio an\n      velle se sint responsuri. Ibid., sect. 13, Si rex partem habeat\n      summi imperii, partem alteram populus aut senatus, regi in partem\n      non suam involanti, vis justa opponi poterit. I might add the\n      testimonies of Bilson, Barclaus, and others.\n\n 1364 J. Baptista, Villalpandus Explan. Ezek., tom. 2 part 2, lib. 1,\n      Isag., cap. 9, 12, 13 Corn \u00e0 Lapide, in Ezek. xl.\n\n 1365 C. \u00e0 Lapide himself reckoneth the city to be twenty seven miles\n      distant from the temple.\n\n 1366 See also Codex Middoth, cap. 3, sect. 1.\n\n 1367 Polanus et Sanctius.\n\n 1368 Lib. 4, cap. 67.\n\n 1369 Lib. 13, in Ezek.\n\n 1370 Hom. 13, in Ezek.\n\n 1371 Compare Ezek. xxxvii. 27 with Rev. xxi. 3; Ezek. xl. 2 with Rev.\n      xxi. 10; Ezek. xl. 3-5 with Rev. xi. 1, xxi. 15; Ezek. xliii. 2 with\n      Rev. xiv. 2; Ezek. xlv. 8, 9 with Rev. xvii. 16, 17, xxi. 24; Ezek.\n      xxxviii. 2, xxxix. 1 with Rev. xx. 8; Ezek. xlvii. 12 with Rev.\n      xxii. 2; Ezek. xlviii. 1-8 with Rev. vii. 4-9; Ezek. xlviii. 31-34\n      with Rev. xxi. 12, 13, 16; Ezek. xl. 4 with Rev. i. ll, iv. l.\n\n 1372 Codex Middoth cum Commentariis Const. L\u2019Empereur. Arias Montanus, in\n      his Libanus. J. Baptista Villalpandus, Explan. Ezck. tom. 2, par. 2;\n      tom. 3. Tostatus, in 1 Reg vi. Lud Capellus, in Compendlo Hist.\n      Judaic\u00e6. Ribera, de Templo, hb. 1; and others.\n\n 1373 Polanus, in Ezek. xlv. De Reformatione Status Civilis agitur, v.\n      8-10. In quibus pr\u00e6dictio est, etiam principes et magistratus\n      politicos, adducendos ad obedientiam fidel in Christum, aut saltem\n      coercendos et in officio continendos, ne amplius opprimant populum\n      Dei.\n\n 1374 It is not \u05d1\u05d5\u05e9, _bosch_, but \u05db\u05dc\u05dd, _calam_. Which two some Hebricians\n      distinguish by referring the former to the Greek \u03b1\u1fd6\u03b4\u1f78\u03c2 and the Latin\n      _verecundia_: the latter to the Greek \u03b1\u1fd6\u03c3\u03c7\u03ce\u03bd\u03b7, and the Latin\n      _pudor_.\n\n 1375 Vide Martyr in Rom. vi. 21.\n\n 1376 Decad. 3, 1. 7.\n\n 1377 Aug., Epist. 119, c. 19. Omnia itaque talia qu\u00e6 neque sacrarum\n      Scripturarum auctoritatibus continentur nec in Episcoporum Conciliis\n      statuta inveniuntur, nec consuetudine univers\u00e6 ecclesi\u00e6 roborata\n      sunt, sed diversorum locorum diversis moribus innumerabiliter\n      variantur, ita ut vix aut omnino nunquam inveniri possint caus\u00e6,\n      quas in eis instituendis homines secuti sunt, ubi facultas\n      tribuetur, sine ulla dubitatione, resecanda existimo.\n\n 1378 Arnob., adversus Gentes, lib 2. Com igitur et vos ipso modo ilios\n      mores, modo alias leges, fueritis secuti, multaque vel erroribus\n      cognitis, vel animadversione meliorum sint a vobis repudiata: quid\n      est a nobis factum, contra sensum judiciumque commune, si majora et\n      certiora delegimus?\n\n 1379 Greg. Nazia. Orat. 28. Primari\u00e6 sedis dignitatem nobis eripient?\n      quam prudentum etiam quispiam aliquando admiratus est: nunc autem\n      eam fugere ut mihi quidem videtur prim\u00e6 et singularis est prudenti\u00e6:\n      propter hanc enim res omnes nostr\u00e6 jactantur ac concutiuntur:\n      propter hanc fines orbis terr\u00e6 suspicione et bello flagrant &c.\n      Utinam autem ne ullus quidem sedis principatus esset, nec ulla loci\n      pr\u00e6latio, et tyrannica pr\u00e6rogativa, ut ex sola virtute\n      cognosceremur. Vide etiam Orat. 27, 32; Carm. 12, ad Constantinop.\n\n 1380 Bp. Hall, lib. 7, Contempl.\n\n 1381 Bp. Andrew\u2019s Sermon on Phil. ii. 10.\n\n 1382 \u039a\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bb\u03ae\u03c8\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba\u03cc\u03bb\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u03af\u03c1 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1ff4\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd.\n\n 1383 Brightman on Rev. iii. 17, Rogers, of Faith, chap. 10.\n\n 1384 Casaubon and Beza.\n\n 1385 Confess., lib. 4. Per idem tempus annorum novem, &c., seducebamur et\n      seducebamus, falsi atque fallentes in variis cupiditatibus, &c.\n      Irrideant me arrogantes, el nondum salubriter prostrati et elial a\n      te Deus mens: ego tamen confiteor tibi dedecora mea, in laude tua.\n\n 1386 Gellius, lib. 19, cap. 6. Pudor est timor just\u00e6 reprehensionis. Ita\n      enim philosophi definiunt.\n\n 1387 In Epitaphio Fabiola.\n\n 1388 Suarez. de Leg., lib. 1, cap. 5. Caspensis, Curs. Theol., tract. 13,\n      disp. 1, sect. 1.\n\n_ 1389 Torah_, from _jarah_, demonstravit, docuit.\n\n_ 1390 Chok_, from _chakah_, which is _insculpere lapidi vel ligno_.\n\n 1391 Illa quasi naturam aedificii substantiamque denotant, haec\n      accidentia. Illa si tollas deerit fabrica: haec quamvis\n      desiderentur, manet tamen aedificium. Illa si invertas aut mutes,\n      non idem aedificium manebit, sed aliud: haec quamvia tollas, idem\n      manere potest aedificium: haud secus quam de homine quoquam, deque\n      ejus vestimentis philosopheris. Villalpan., tom. 2, part 2, lib. 1,\n      Isa., cap. 12.\n\n 1392 The bishop of Down, of the Authority of the Church, p. 29.\n\n 1393 Wolph., Lection. Memor., cent. 16, p. 962.\n\n 1394 Vid. Joseph. Antiq., lib. 15, cap. 14; Tostat., in 1 Reg. vi.,\n      quest. 21; A. Montan., de Sacr. Fabric., p. 15; L\u2019Empereur, Ann. in\n      Cod. Middoth., cap. 2, sect. 3.\n\n 1395 Antiq., lib. 20, cap. 8. Suasit (populus) regi ut orientalem\n      instauraret porticum. Ea tempi extima claudebat, profundae valli et\n      angustae imminens, &c. Opus Solomonis regis qui primus integrum\n      templum condidit. Compare this with lib. 15, cap. 14.\n\n 1396 Villalp., tom. 2, part 2, lib. 5, cap. 61-63.\n\n 1397 Walaeus, de Opinione Chiliastaerum, tom. 1, p. 558. Haec quidem\n      (ruinae Babylonis et deletio hostium) a nobis expectari, et\n      fortassis non longe absunt succedetque laetior aliquis ecclesiae\n      status, et amplior. Vide ibid., p. 541; Rivetus, Explic. Decal., p.\n      229. Posset etiam dici, et fortasse non minus apte vaticiniae de\n      regno Christi suam habere latitudinem nec semper intelligi debere de\n      eo quod vel continuo vel omni tempore fieri debet, sed de aliqua\n      periodo temporis, quae et si nondum advenerit, adveniet nihilominus.\n      Fieri enim potest, ut quemadmodum expectatur adhuc Judaeorum\n      generalis conversio, ita etiam ecclesia sua tempore ea pace fruitura\n      sit, in qua ad literam implebuntur, quae hujus vaticinii verbis\n      (Isa. ii. 4) significantur. Others of this kind might be cited.\n\n 1398 In ehortu evangelicae doctrinae, legatus Hadriani pontificis in\n      comitiis Nerobergae habitis, publice confessus est, in doctrina et\n      vita spiritualium, recessum esse a regula verbi divini:\n      reformationem ecclesiae in capitibus et membris esse necessariam: ut\n      hac confessione cursum evangelii impediret. Lavater, hom. 9, in lib.\n      Ezrae.\n\n 1399 Innoc., Epist. 2, ad Victricium Rothomag. Majores causae in medium\n      devolutae, ad sedem apostolicam, sicut synodus, statuit, et baeta\n      consuetudo exigit post judicium episcopale, referantur. Vide Myster.\n      Iniq., edit. Salmur, 1611, p. 51.\n\n 1400 Can. 5.\n\n 1401 Mornay, Myster. Iniq., p. 46.\n\n 1402 Wolphius, Lection, Memorab., tom. 1, p. 113. Hoc scilicet tempore\n      jam gliscebat Antichristus Romae.\n\n 1403 Vide Funcc. Chron., fol. 51-53.\n\n 1404 Broughton on Rev. ix.\n\n 1405 In Jer. ii. 2.\n\n 1406 Gualt., hom. 8, In Malach.: Vult enim docere propheta, venturum\n      quidem Christum, sed reformatorem fore, et acerrimum divini cultum\n      vindicem.\n\n 1407 Gualther on the place. Martyr on the place. Accessione temporis\n      declarantur. Experimur hodie retegi complura qu\u00e6 a multis annis\n      latuerunt,\u2014Gualther. Orietur dies, id est, clarior lux veritatis,\n      qu\u00e6 omnia protrabet,\u2014Tossanus. Mundus tandem agnoscet vanitatem\n      traditionum humanarum.\n\n 1408 Chamier-Panst., tom. 3, lib. 26, cap. 13, 14.\n\n 1409 Bullinger on the place.\n\n 1410 Grotius, Annot. in Mal. iii.\n\n 1411 See Mr Robinson\u2019s _Apology_, cap. 12.\n\n 1412 Faustus Socinus wrote a book to prove that all those in the reformed\n      churches of Poland, who desire to be truly godly, ought to separate\n      themselves, and join with the assemblies, who (saith he) are falsely\n      called Arians and Ebionites. One of his arguments is this, because,\n      in those reformed churches, there is a great neglect of church\n      discipline, whereby it cometh to pass that scandalous persons are\n      admitted to the Lord\u2019s table. The same argument is pressed against\n      some Lutheran churches by Schlichtingius, _Disput pro Socino Contra\n      Memerum_, p. 484. Licet vero dolendum sit talis promiscue passim que\n      fieri, et abiisse in morem pejus tamen adhuc est quod malis istis,\n      pr\u00e6ter conciones interdam ali quas, quibuedam in locis, nulla\n      adhibeatur medici na, nec rectores ecclesiarum h\u00e6c cura tangat, ut\n      vi tia tam late grassantia, disciplina et censura ecclesiastica, ab\n      ipso Christo et apostolis instituta coer ceantur. Unde factum est ut\n      non solum ista pec cata, qua leviora videntur, acd etiam alia\n      graviora, puta comessationes, compotationes, chrietates,\n      acortationes, libidines, ir\u00e6, inimiciti\u00e6, vim\u00e6, obtrectationes, \u00e6des\n      ac bella, diluvio quodam ecclesiastico iundarint.\n\n 1413 Enar in Psal. civ: Cum audis, ignis est minister Dei, incensurum\n      illum putas? Incendat licet sed foenum tuum, id est, carnalia omnia\n      tua desideria.\n\n 1414 Brightman and Alstod, in Dan. xii. 1.\n\n 1415 Answer to Mr Prynne\u2019s Twelve Questions.\n\n 1416 Cajetan in Exod. xxxiv. 24: Non obligabat (pr\u00e6ceptum apparendi ter\n      in annot.) usque ad dilatatos terminos terr\u00e6 promiss\u00e6, quando secura\n      universa regio futura erat. D. Rivet. Comment in illum loc., Tum\n      quia Deus ejecturua erat hostes ex eorum terminis: tum quia\n      dilataturus erint fines populi sul, ot vicinoa non tam haberent\n      hostes, quam subditos et tributarios.\n\n 1417 Bulling., Gual., and Aricularius on the place.","title":"The Works of Mr. George Gillespie (Vol. 1 of 2)","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":290581}