The Works of Mr. George Gillespie Part 6

CHAPTER I.

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

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

_Sect._ 2. But let us understand how he proveth(239) that sometimes it is expedient and necessary to conform unto such burdensome and beggarly ceremonies, as are many ways inconvenient, and occasions of sundry evil effects. His princ.i.p.al reason is,(240) That the apostles, by direction of the Holy Ghost, and upon reasons of common and perpetual equity, did practise themselves, and caused others to practise, yea, advised and enjoined (as matters good and necessary to be done) ceremonies so inconvenient and evil in many main and material respects, as the ceremonies enjoined and prescribed in the church of England are supposed to be; whence he would have it to follow, that to suffer deprivation for refusing to conform to the ceremonies of the church of England, is contrary to the doctrine and practice of the apostles. _Ans._ These Jewish ceremonies in the use and practice of the apostles, were no way evil and inconvenient, as himself everywhere confesseth, whereas, therefore, he tells us,(241) that those ceremonies were abused to superst.i.tion, were of mystical signification, imposed and observed as parts of G.o.d's worship, swerving from the general rules of G.o.d's word, not profitable for order, decency, and edification, offensive many ways, and infringing Christian liberty, he runs at random all the while; for these things agree not to the Jewish ceremonies, as they were rightly used by the apostles themselves, and by others at their advice, but only as they were superst.i.tiously used with opinion of necessity by the obstinate Jews, and by the false teachers, who impugned Christian liberty. So that all that can follow upon Mr Sprint's argument is this: That notwithstanding of the evils and inconveniences which follow upon certain ceremonies in the superst.i.tious abuse of them by others, yet if, in our practice, they have a necessary or expedient use, then (after the example of the apostles) we may well conform unto them. Now, all this cometh not near the point which Mr Sprint undertaketh to prove, namely, that granting the controverted ceremonies to be, in our use and practice of the same, many ways evil and inconvenient, yet to suffer deprivation for refusing to conform to the same is contrary to the doctrine and practice of the apostles. And as touching the comparison inst.i.tuted betwixt our controverted ceremonies, and these antiquated ceremonies of the Jews, practised and prescribed by the apostles after the ascension of Christ, and before the full promulgation of the gospel, many evils there be in ours, which could not be found in theirs. For, 1. Ours have no necessary use, and might well be spared; theirs had a necessary use for avoiding of scandal, Acts xv. 28.

2. Ours produce manifold inconveniences (whereof we are to speak hereafter) in over use and practice of the same, which is prescribed, theirs in the use and practice of the same, which was enjoined by the apostles, were most expedient for winning of the obstinate Jews, 1 Cor.

ix. 20; and for keeping of the weak, 1 Cor. ix. 22; and for teaching the right use of Christian liberty to such as were strong in the faith, both among the believing Jews and converted Gentiles, Rom. iv. &c.; 1 Cor.

viii.; x. 3. Ours are proved to be, in their nature unlawful; theirs were (during the foresaid s.p.a.ce) in their nature indifferent, Rom. xiv. 6; Gal.

vi. 15. 4. Ours are imposed and observed as parts of G.o.d's worship (which we will prove afterward);(242) theirs not so, for where read we, that (during the foresaid s.p.a.ce) any holiness was placed in them by the apostles? 5. Ours have certain mystical significations; theirs not so: for it is no where to be read, that the apostles either practised or prescribed them as significative resemblances of any mystery of the kingdom of G.o.d. 6. Ours make us (though unnecessarily) like unto idolaters, in their idolatrous actions; theirs not so. 7. Ours are imposed with a necessity both of practice and opinion, even out of the case of scandal; theirs not so. 8. Ours are pressed by naked will and authority; theirs, by such special grounds of momentaneous reason, as made the practice of the same necessary for a certain time, whether the apostles had enjoined it or not. 9. Ours are urged even upon such as, in their consciences, judge them to be unlawful; theirs not so. 10. Ours have no better original than human and antichristian invention; theirs had their original from G.o.d's own inst.i.tution. 11. Ours are the accursed monuments of popish idolatry, to be ejected with detestation; theirs were the memorials of Mosaical policy, to be buried with honour. 12. Ours are pressed by such pretended reasons, as make them ever and everywhere necessary; theirs, by such reasons as did only conclude a necessity of using them at some times, and in some places. 13. Ours are urged after the full promulgation of the gospel and acknowledgment of Christian liberty; theirs, before the same. 14. Ours are urged with the careless neglect of pressing more necessary duties; theirs not so. These and other differences betwixt the controverted and Jewish ceremonies, do so break the back of Mr Sprint's argument, that there is no healing of it again.

_Sect._ 3. His second reason whereby he goeth about to prove the necessity of conforming to inconvenient ceremonies, in the case of deprivation, he taketh from this ground:(243) That when two duties commanded of G.o.d, do meet in one practice, so as we cannot do them both, in this case we must perform the greater duty, and neglect the lesser. Now, whereas he saith, when two duties do meet, &c., he means not, that both may be duties at once, for then a man shall be so straitened that he must needs commit a sin, in that he must needs omit one of the duties. But (as he explaineth himself) he calleth them duties, being considered apart: as, to hear a sermon at the church on the Sabbath, and to tend a sick person ready to die at home, at the same time, both are duties, being considered apart, but meeting together in our practice at one time, there is but one duty, because the lesser work binds not for that present. Now, he a.s.sumes that the doctrine and practice of suffering deprivation for refusing to conform to inconvenient ceremonies, doth cause men to neglect greater duties to perform the lesser, for proof whereof he enlargeth a needless discourse, tending to prove that preaching is a greater duty and of higher bond than the duty of labouring unto fit ceremonies, or of refusing inconvenient ceremonies, which cannot help his cause. That which he had to prove was, that not to suffer deprivation for refusing of inconvenient ceremonies, is a greater duty than the refusing of inconvenient ceremonies. But it will be said, that to suffer deprivation for the refusing of inconvenient ceremonies, doth cause men to neglect the preaching of the word, and that is a greater duty than the refusing of inconvenient ceremonies. _Ans_ 1.

Mr Sprint himself layeth down one ground, which proveth the refusing of inconvenient ceremonies to be a greater duty than the preaching of the word, for he holdeth(244) that the substantials of the second table do overrule the ceremonials of the first table, according to that which G.o.d saith, "I will have mercy and not sacrifice," Matt. xii. 7. And elsewhere he teacheth,(245) that to tend a sick person ready to die is a greater duty than the hearing of the word. Now, to practice inconvenient and scandalous ceremonies, is to commit soul-murder, and so to break one of the most substantial duties of the second table. Therefore, according to Mr Sprint's own ground, the refusing of inconvenient and scandalous ceremonies is a greater duty than the preaching of the word, which is but a ceremonial of the first table, and if the neglect of tending a sick person's body be a greater sin than to omit the hearing of many sermons, much more to murder the souls of men, by practising inconvenient and scandalous ceremonies, is a greater sin than to omit the preaching of many sermons, which is all the omission (if there be any) of those who suffer deprivation for refusing to conform unto inconvenient ceremonies. But, 2.

We deny that the suffering of deprivation for refusing to conform unto inconvenient ceremonies, causeth men to neglect or omit the duty of preaching. Neither hath Mr Sprint alleged anything for proof hereof, except that this duty of preaching cannot be done with us ordinarily, as things do stand, if ministers do not conform, for, by order, they are to be deprived of their ministry. Now, what of all this? For though, by the oppressing power of proud prelates, many are hindered from continuing in preaching, because of their refusing inconvenient ceremonies, yet they themselves who suffered deprivation for this cause cannot be said to neglect or omit the duty of preaching: most gladly would they preach, but are not permitted. And how can a man be said to omit or neglect that which he would fain do but it lieth not in his power to get it done? All the strength of Mr Sprint's argument lieth in this: That forasmuch as ministers are hindered from preaching, if they do not conform, therefore, their suffering of deprivation for refusing conformity, doth cause them neglect the duty of preaching. Which argument, that I may destroy it with his own weapons, let us note,(246) that he alloweth a man (though not to suffer deprivation, yet) to suffer any civil penalty or external loss, for refusing of inconvenient ceremonies commanded and enjoined by the magistrate. Now, put the case, that for refusing inconvenient ceremonies, I be so fined, spoiled, and oppressed, that I cannot have sufficient worldly means for myself and them of my household, hence I argue thus (if Mr Sprint's argument hold good): That forasmuch as I am, by strong violence, hindered from providing for myself and them of my household, if I do not conform, therefore, my suffering of those losses for refusing of conformity, doth cause me to neglect the duty of providing for myself and for them of my family, which neglect should make me worse than an infidel.

_Sect._ 4. Mr Sprint now addeth a third, proving, that to suffer deprivation for refusing to conform to the prescribed ceremonies(247) (howbeit many ways inconvenient,) is contrary to the royal law of love, which he labours to evidence three ways. _First_, he saith, that to suffer deprivation for refusing to conform, doth, by abstaining from a thing in nature indifferent (such as our ceremonies, saith he, are proved to be), needlessly deprive men of the ordinary means of their salvation, which is the preaching ministry of the word, &c. _Ans._ 1. That the controverted ceremonies are in nature indifferent, neither he, nor any of his side, hath yet proven; they suppose that they are indifferent, but they prove it not. 2. We deny that the suffering of deprivation for refusing to conform to the prescribed ceremonies, doth deprive men of the preaching of the word. Neither saith Mr Sprint aught for proof hereof but that which we have already confuted, viz., that as things do stand, all such as do not conform are to be deprived, whence it followeth only, that the injury and violence of prelates (not the suffering of deprivation for refusing to conform) depriveth men of the preaching of the word. _Secondly_, he saith,(248) that the doctrine and practice of suffering deprivation for inconvenient ceremonies, condemneth both the apostolical churches, and all churches since their times, because there hath been no church which hath not practised inconvenient ceremonies. _Ans._ It is most false which he saith of the apostolical churches; for those Jewish ceremonies practised by them were most convenient, as we have said before. And as for other churches in after ages, so many of them as have practised inconvenient ceremonies, are not herein to be followed by us. Better go right with a few than err with a mult.i.tude. Thirdly, he saith,(249) that the suffering of deprivation for refusing to conform, breedeth and produceth sundry scandals. First, saith he, it is the occasion of fraternal discord. O egregious impudency! who seeth not that the ceremonies are the incendiary sparkles, from which the fire of contention hath its being and burning; so that conforming (not refusing) is the furnishing of fuel and casting of f.a.ggots to the fire. Secondly, He allegeth that the suffering of deprivation for refusing to conform, twofold more scandaliseth the Papist than conformity; for he doth far more insult to see a G.o.dly minister thrust out, and with him all the truth of G.o.d pressed, than to see him wear a surplice, &c. _Thirdly_, he saith, It twofold more scandaliseth the Atheist, libertine, and Epicure, who, by the painful minister's deprival, will triumph to see a door opened for him without resistance, to live in drunkenness, wh.o.r.edom, swearing, &c. Now, for answer to his second and third pretences, we say, 1. Mr Sprint implieth indirectly, that when non-conforming ministers are thrust out, Papists, Atheists, libertines, and Epicures, expect but small opposition from those conforming ministers who come in their rooms. Our opposites have a skilful proctor (forsooth) of Mr Sprint. And, indeed, if Papists and Atheists were so afraid of Conformists as of Nonconformists, they would not thus insult. 2. We must distinguish betwixt deprivation and the suffering of deprivation. Papists insult indeed, that their a.s.sured friends, the prelates, are so powerful, as to thrust out from the public ministry the greatest enemies of Popery.

But as for the ministers' suffering of themselves to be thrust out, and deprived for refusing of conformity, it is so far from giving to Papists any matter of insulting, that it will rather grieve them and gall them to the heart, to understand that sundry powerful, painful, and learned ministers are so averse from Popery, that before they conform to any ceremony of the same, they will suffer for refusal; and that their constancy and courage, in suffering for such a cause, will confirm many professors in the persuasion of the truth of their doctrine, which they taught against conforming unto popish ceremonies. But to go on.

_Fourthly_, saith he, It twofold more scandaliseth such an one as doth truly fear the name of G.o.d, who could be more contented to enjoy the means of his faith and salvation, with a small inconveniency of some ceremonies which he grieveth at, than to lose his pastor, the gospel, and the ordinary means of his faith and salvation. _Ans._ 1. Mr Sprint supposeth that such an one, as for no respect whatsoever would be contented with the practice of some inconvenient ceremonies, doth not truly fear the name of G.o.d. And who is the Puritan now? Is not Mr Sprint, who standeth in such a huge distance from all who are of our mind, and so far preferreth himself and his followers to us as if we did not truly fear the name of G.o.d?

Secondly, He supposeth that, when non-conforming ministers are thrust out, the ordinary means of faith and salvation are not dispensed (to the comfort and contentment of such as truly fear the name of G.o.d) by those conforming ministers, who are surrogate in their stead which, how his fellows will take with, let them look to it. 3. Forasmuch as the fear of G.o.d is to depart from evil, therefore such an one as doth truly fear the name of G.o.d, in so far as he doth fear the name of G.o.d, and _quatenus_, he is such an one, will never take well with the practice of inconvenient ceremonies, which is not a parting from, but a cleaving unto evil. 4. They who truly fear the name of G.o.d, are indeed scandalised by the prelates'

depriving of ministers for refusing to conform; but by the ministers'

suffering of deprivation for this cause, they are not scandalised but edified. But, _Fifthly_, saith Mr Sprint, it offendeth the magistrate, by provoking him (persuaded and resolved as he is) to disgrace these otherwise well-deserving ministers, and to strike them with the sword of authority. _Ans._ Our refusal to conform to inconvenient ceremonies being a necessary duty, if the magistrate be provoked therewith, we are blameless; neither can it any otherwise provoke him to disgrace those well-deserving ministers, than Moses' seeking of liberty for Israel to go and serve G.o.d according to his will, provoked Pharaoh the more to oppress them; or than Christ's preaching of the truth, and his abstaining from the superst.i.tious ceremonies of the Pharisees, provoked them to disgrace him, and plot his hurt. Howbeit we are not ignorant that the magistrate is not provoked by our refusing to conform, except as it is misreported, misdeemed, and misconstructed to him by the false calumnies of our adversaries, which being so, he is not incited by our deed, but by theirs.

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

_Sect._ 6. The position therefore which we maintain against Mr Sprint, and from which we will not depart the breadth of one nail, is this, that we can never lawfully conform (no not in the case of deprivation) unto any ceremony which is scandalous and inconvenient in the use of it. For further confirmation whereof, we say, 1. Every negative precept of the law of G.o.d bindeth to all times, in such sort, that the action which it forbiddeth (so long as it remaineth evil, and the kind of it is not changed) can never lawfully be done. Therefore, forasmuch as to abstain from things scandalous and inconvenient, is one of the negative precepts of the law of G.o.d, and the ceremonies whereunto Mr Sprint would have us to conform in the case of deprivation, are, and remain scandalous and inconvenient in our practice and use of them according to his own presupposal; it followeth, that the use and practice of the same is altogether unlawful unto us. 2. That which is lawful in the nature of it is never lawful in the use of it, except only when it is expedient for edification, as teacheth the Apostle, 1 Cor. vi. 12; x. 23. The Corinthians objected that all indifferent things were lawful. The Apostle addeth a limitation,(266) _esse licita quatenus conduc.u.n.t_, they are lawful to be used in so far as they are expedient. 3. It is the Apostle's commandment, let all things be done unto edifying, 1 Cor. xiv. 26.

Therefore whatsoever is not done unto edifying ought not to be done. 4.

The Apostle saith, 1 Cor. viii. 13, "If meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth." Now, put the case, the Apostle had been hindered from preaching the gospel for his precise abstaining from those meats whereat his brother would be offended, would he in that case have eaten? Nay, he saith peremptorily, that whilst the world standeth he would not eat. 5. Say not our writers,(267) that we must flee and abstain from every thing which is not expedient for the edification of our brother? And doth not the Bishop of Winchester teach,(268) that in our going out, and coming in, and in all our actions, we must look to the rule of expediency? And saith not Bishop Spotswood,(269) "It is not to be denied, but they are ceremonies, which for the inconveniency they bring, ought to be resisted?" 6. Dare Mr Sprint deny that which Ames saith he heard once defended in Cambridge,(270) viz., that _quicquid non expedit, quatenus non expedit, non licet_: Whatsoever is not expedient, in so far as it is not expedient, it is not lawful. Doth not Pareus likewise show out of Augustine,(271) that such things as are not expedient but scandalous, and do not edify but hurt our brother, _Fiunt ex accidenti illicita et peccata, proinde vitanda_? 7. To conform unto inconvenient and scandalous ceremonies, in the case of deprivation, is at the best, to do evil that good may come of it; which was the pretence of those councillors of Pope Pius V. who advised him to suffer stews at Rome, for preventing a greater evil of abusing chaste women and honest matrons. So the pseudo-Nicodemites allege for their abstaining from flesh upon the days forbidden by the church, that this they do for shunning a greater evil, which is the scandal of Papists. Our divines answer them,(272) that evil ought not to be done that good may come of it.

But, saith Mr Sprint,(273) this rule of the Apostle (Rom. iii. 8) must be limited,(274) and in some cases holdeth not; for a man may, for doing of good, do that which is evil in use, circ.u.mstance, and by accident, so it be not simply and in nature evil. _Ans._ 1. He begs the thing in question, for that rule is alleged against him to prove that nothing which is evil in the use of it may be done for any good whatsoever. 2. The difference betwixt that which is simply evil, and that which is evil in use and by accident, is in that the one may never be done, the other is unlawful only _pro tempore_; but in this they agree, that both are unlawful; for that which is evil by accident,(275) whilst it is such, is unlawful to be done, no less than that which is in nature evil. 3. Divines hold absolutely,(276) that _Inter duo vel plura mala culpae_ (such as things scandalous and inconvenient) _nullum est eligendum_; that though in evils of punishment we may choose a lesser to shun a greater, yet in evils of fault, election hath no place, neither may we do a lesser fault to shun a greater,(277) _nec ullum admittendum malum, ut eveniat aliquod bonum, sive per se sive per accidens_. But let us hear what Mr Sprint can say to the contrary. He allegeth, the priests' breaking of the Sabbath, David's eating of the shewbread, and the apostles' practising of very hurtful ceremonies; all which things being unlawful were done lawfully, to further greater duties.

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

But as for the latter, repenting of their uncleanness, they chose to keep the pa.s.sover, this did they to further G.o.d's worship, and this was no sin, especially if we observe with Tremellius, that it is said, ver. 20, the Lord healed the people, that is, by the virtue of his Spirit purified and cleansed them, so that, that which was lame was not turned out of the way, but rather made straight and healed.

_Sect._ 7. And now we leave Mr Sprint, who hath not only conformed to the controverted ceremonies, even upon presupposal of their inconveniency, but hath also made it very questionable,(278) whether in the case of deprivation he ought to conform to sundry other popish ceremonies, such as shaven crown, holy water, cream, spittle, salt, and I know not how many more which he comprehendeth under &c., all his pretences of greater inconveniences following upon not conforming than do upon conforming, we have hitherto examined. Yet what saith Bishop Spotswood(279) to the cause?

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

CHAPTER II.

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

_Sect._ 1. As for those who allege some conveniency in the ceremonies, they say more than can abide the proof of reason, which the induction of some particulars shall demonstrate. Dr Mortoune(283) allegeth for the surplice, that the difference of outward garments cannot but be held convenient for the distinguishing of ministers from laics in the discharge of their function. _Ans._ This conveniency is as well seen to without the surplice. If a man having a black gown upon him be seen exercising the function of a minister, it is very strange if any man think it not sufficiently distinguished from laics. The Act of Perth, anent confirmation and bishoping of children, would make it appear, that this ceremony is most profitable to cause young children in their tender years drink in the knowledge of G.o.d and his religion. _Ans._ 1. If this rite be so profitable for the instruction of children, then why do prelates appropriate it to themselves, who use to be employed in higher affairs, that permit them not to have leisure for exact catechising of children?

Or, 2. Though they might attend the discharging of this duty; why should it be made their peculiar? Is not the parish minister able to catechise them? Or, 3. If it must depend upon prelates, and wait upon their leisure; what hath imposition of hands ado with catechising? 4. How comes it, that children who are not bishopped are as well catechised as they who are bishopped.

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

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

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

CHAPTER III.

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

First, then, the ceremonies are inexpedient, because our most holy faith, for which we should earnestly contend, received no small harm and prejudice, and is like to receive still more and more, by their means. Our case is not much different from the estate of the churches in Germany, when Charles V. caused the book called _Interim_ to be published:(288) expediency then was pretended of settling the peace of Germany by this as the best way; but it produced a very great inconveniency, and instead of effectuating peace, it brought forth a hotter contention, as well between the Protestants themselves, as between them and Papists. Expediency is now no less pretended for the ceremonies, yet no more truly. But before the bad effects of the _Interim_ were seen, the wiser sort of Protestants(289) wrote against it, and warned men, _ut ab eo tanquam a praesentissima peste sibi caverent_. Notwithstanding that the emperor did straitly inhibit all impugning of it. And Sleidane tells us,(290) the reason which made them so mistake it was, because they thought such as were upon that course, were opening a way to the popish religion, _per adiaphora seu res medias_, and because(291) they wished to retain the saving doctrine _puram et salvam a technis illorum, qui nunc dum ceremonias restaurare videri volunt, colluviem totam doctrinae pontificiae rursus introduc.u.n.t_. The like reason have we to mistake conformity with antichrist in these ceremonies which are obtruded upon our church, for may we not justly fear that hereby we shall be drawn on to conform with him also in dogmatical and fundamental points of faith. Nay, what talk I of fear? We have already seen this bad consequence in a great part, for it is well enough known how many heterodox doctrines are maintained by Formalists, who are most zealous for the ceremonies anent universal grace, free-will, perseverance, justification, images, antichrist, the church of Rome, penance, Christ's pa.s.sion and descending into h.e.l.l, necessity of the sacraments, apocrypha books, Christ's presence in the eucharist, a.s.surance of salvation, &c.

Their errors about those heads we will demonstrate, if need be, to such as doubt of their mind. In the meantime it hath been preached from pulpits among ourselves, that Christ died for all alike, that the faithful may fall away from grace, that justification is a successive action, that none can be a.s.sured of salvation in this life, that images in churches are not to be condemned, that Christ descended locally unto the place of the d.a.m.ned, that the Pope is not antichrist, that Rome is not Babylon the wh.o.r.e, that the government and discipline of the church must alter like the French fashion, at the will of superiors, that we should not run so far away from Papists, but come as near to them as we can, that abstinence and alms are satisfactions or compensations for sin. These, and sundry such like tenets, have not been spoken in a corner.

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

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

_O bellua multorum capitum!_

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

G. Ca.s.sander, in his book _de Officio pii Viri_, relates unto us how he was entered into this course, and conceived this purpose of reconciliation, and tells, that from his youthhood, he was most observant of ecclesiastical ceremonies, yet so, that he abhorred all superst.i.tion.

And when he had read the writers of that age, who promised some reformation and repurgation of superst.i.tious worships and absurd opinions, he saith, _Mire illorum inst.i.tutum placuit: qui tamen ita superst.i.tiones et abusiones, quae nonnullis ceremoniis ecclesiasticis admixtae erant, exosas haberem ut ipsum ecclesiasticam politiam, quae his ceremoniis fere constant, non sublatum et eversam, sed repurgatam et emendatam esse vellum_. We see the first thing which induced him to a reconciliation, was his liking which he had to popish ceremonies, and their remaining in protestant churches, and as this course hath been attempted, so is it also advanced by the ceremonies, for thereby people are induced to say, as they said once, when popish ceremonies did re-enter in Germany.(300) "We perceive now, that the Pope is not so black as Luther made him." And as for the Reconcilers themselves, may they not conceive strong hopes to compa.s.s their end? May they not confidently embark in this business? May they not with great expectation of prosperous success achieve their project? When once they have footing upon our union with Rome in ceremonies and church policy, they cannot but hereupon conceive no small animosity to work out their intended purpose.

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

_Sect._ 5. But put the case, that as yet we had seen no greater evils following upon the ceremonies, yet must they be acknowledged to be inconvenient, because they are dangerous preparatives for many worse things than we are aware of, and may draw after them sundry evil consequences which are not feared. We have heard before from Spotswood, that novations in a church, even in the smallest things, are dangerous.

Who can then blame us to shun a danger, and, fearing the worst, to resist evil beginnings,-to give no place to the devil,-to crush the viper while it is in the sh.e.l.l,-to abstain from all appearance of evil, 1 Thes. v.

22,-and to take the little ones of Babylon whilst they are young, and dash their heads against the stones?

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

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

CHAPTER IV.

THAT THE CEREMONIES ARE INEXPEDIENT, BECAUSE THEY HINDER EDIFICATION.

_Sect._ 1. That the ceremonies are a great hinderance to edification, appeareth, First, In that they obscure the substance of religion, and weaken the life of G.o.dliness by outward glory and splendour, which draws away the minds of people so far after it, that they forget the substance of the service which they are about. The heathenish priests laboured,(306) _per varietatem ceremoniarum, rem in precio retinere_. The use for which Papists appoint their ceremonies,(307) is, _ut externam quandam majestatem sensibus objiciant_; and so are the ceremonies urged upon us,(308) though to conciliate reverence and due regard to divine worship, and to stir up devotion. In the meanwhile it is not considered,(309) that _mentes humanae mirificae capiuntur et facinantur, ceremoniarum splendore et pompa.

Videmus siquidem_, saith Bucer,(310) _vulgus delectari actionibus scaenicis, et multis uti signis_. Chemnitius marks of the c.u.mulating of ceremonies in the ancient church,(311) that it drew to this, _ut tandem in theatric.u.m ferme apparatum ceremoniae illae abierint_. Musculus reprehends bishops for departing from the apostolical and most ancient simplicity,(312) and for adding ceremonies unto ceremonies in a worldly splendour and respectability, whereas the worship of G.o.d ought to be pure and simple.